DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 33, 43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 33 recites: “a network node configured …the network node comprising processing circuitry configured to: configure a first WD …..;
Analysis:
Claim 33 recites a machine claim, “a network node..” in the preamble. The body of the claim recites the actions/steps: “configure…” performed by the machines/devices.
For clarity and placing the claim into proper machine claim, it is suggested to insert “:” after “the network node comprising”.
Claim 43 recites: “a wireless device, WD, configured …the WD comprising processing circuitry configured to: receive a configuration ...; determine a set of M hybrids …;
Analysis:
Claim 43 recites a machine claim, “a wireless device..” in the preamble. The body of the claim recites the actions/steps: “configure…; determine…” performed by the machines/devices.
For clarity and placing the claim into proper machine claim, it is suggested to insert “:” after “the WD comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 31, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the first WD" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 36-42 are rejected for claiming dependency from above rejected claim 35.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “an HPN” which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if this recitation refers to HPN recited in claim 27 or not. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim 32 is rejected for claiming dependency from claim 31.
Claim 43 recites the limitation "the first WD" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 44-46 are rejected for claiming dependency from above rejected claim 43.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 34 recites “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the network node to perform any of the method” without listing additional method, hence Examiner assumes only method of claim 33 is performed in claim 34. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the HARQ process pool" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the HARQ process pool" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “a HPN” which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if this recitation refers to HPN recited in claim 35 or not. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim 42 is rejected for claiming dependency from rejected claim 41.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the HARQ process pool" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 46 recites the limitation “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause…” which makes the claim indefinite. Claim 46 claims dependency from claims 36 and 35 which do not appear to recite any processing circuitry. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37-39, 41, 43, 45, 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail et al (USPN 20220345253) in view of Wu (WO 2021163968 A1), translation provided.
Regarding claim 33, Zewail discloses
a network node configured to communicate with a plurality of wireless devices, WDs, the network node comprising processing circuitry configured to: (base station, FIG. 7 #702, comprising processing circuitry, FIG. 7 #720, operable to communicate with UE, FIG. 4 #404, out of a plurality of UEs, see FIG. 1 UEs served by BS #102 [0085-0087]
configure a first WD of the plurality of WDs with a number N of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD of the plurality of WDs and the network node (configure UE, FIG. 4 #420, out of a plurality of UEs, see FIG. 1 UEs served by BS #102, with a maximum number of HARQ processes between UE and base station [0057, 0058]
a maximum number N being based at least in part on subcarrier spacing associated with the first WD (maximum number of HARQ processes related to subcarrier spacing [0057, 0058]
Zewail does not expressly disclose a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node
Wu discloses a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node (maximum number of HARQ processes between the terminal device network node (pages 17, 18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node” as taught by Wu into Zewail’s system with the motivation to enable base station and UE to operate within UE-provided maximum supported HARQ processes (Zewail, paragraph [0056, 0057]
Claim 27 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 33.
Regarding claim 43, Zewail discloses
a wireless device, WD, configured to communicate with a network node, the WD comprising processing circuitry configured to: (UE, FIG. 8 #802, comprising processing circuitry, FIG. 8 #820, and configured to operate with base station [0095-0097, 0034-0042]
receive a configuration from the network node with a number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node (UE receives from network node a number of HARQ processes between the first WD and the network node [0057-0063]
determine a set of M hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, processes, between the WD and the network node, the M HARQ processes being selected from the HPN HARQ processes (UE determines a subset of HARQ processes, the subset being selected by base station based on the maximum number of HARQ processes between UE and base station [0058-0063]
Zewail does not expressly disclose a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node
Wu discloses a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node (maximum number of HARQ processes between the terminal device network node (pages 17, 18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node” as taught by Wu into Zewail’s system with the motivation to enable base station and UE to operate within UE-provided maximum supported HARQ processes (Zewail, paragraph [0056, 0057]
Claim 35 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 43.
Regarding claim 28, Zewail discloses “receiving a scheduling request from the first WD;” (base station receiving rescheduling request from UE [0169]
“and receiving a recommended maximum number of HARQ processes based on which the HPN is calculated” (base station receiving from UE capability information including maximum number of HARQ processes supported by UE [0056]
Regarding claim 30, Zewail discloses “wherein the maximum number N is calculated at least partly based on a traffic requirement of at least one WD of the plurality of WDs” maximum number of HARQs configured by base station determined based in part on a need to reduce overhead associated with uplink-downlink switching [0057, 0058]
Regarding claims 31, 41, Zewail discloses “allocating a HARQ ID-less grant without specifying an HPN in downlink control information, DCI” base station allocate a resource pool via DCI [0040, 0061, 0066]
Regarding claims 37, 45, Zewail discloses “receiving allocation a HARQ process pool,” base station allocates a resource pool [0040, 0061, 0066]
wherein the set of M number of HARQ processes are selected from the HARQ process pool (UE determines a subset of HARQ processes, the subset being selected by base station based on the maximum number of HARQ processes between UE and base station [0058-0063]
Zewail does not expressly disclose a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD and the network node
Wu discloses a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes indicated (maximum number of HARQ processes between the terminal device network node (pages 17, 18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “a maximum number of N, of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes indicated” as taught by Wu into Zewail’s system with the motivation to enable base station and UE to operate within UE-provided maximum supported HARQ processes (Zewail, paragraph [0056, 0057]
Regarding claims 38, 46, Zewail discloses “transmitting a recommended maximum number of HARQ processes to include in the HARQ process pool” (base station receiving from UE capability information including maximum number of HARQ processes supported by UE [0056]
Regarding claim 39, Zewail discloses “wherein the selecting is one of: selecting based at least in part on a traffic flow of the first WD” configuration information comprising subset of HARQ processes transmitted by base station associated with traffic flow of UE [0059]
Claims 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail in view of Wu as applied to claim 27 and in further view of 鲜柯 et al (CN112019308B), hereafter Chengdu.
Regarding claim 29, combined system of Zewail and Wu does not expressly disclose “allocating a HARQ process pool to the first WD, in which N HARQ processes are included in the HARQ process pool to the selectable by the first WD”
Chengdu discloses configuring a HARQ process pool for a UE in which a maximum number of HARQ process selectable by UE (pages 4-6), Abstract, Tables 1, 2
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “allocating a HARQ process pool to the first WD, in which N HARQ processes are included in the HARQ process pool to the selectable by the first WD” as taught by Chengdu into combined system of Zewail and Wu with the motivation to enable base station and UE to operate within UE-provided maximum supported HARQ processes (Zewail, paragraph [0056, 0057]
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail in view of Wu as applied to claim 35 and in further view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #103e (R1-2008810), provided by Applicant’s IDS, hereafter 3GPP.
Regarding claim 40, combined system of Zewail Wu does not expressly disclose wherein the HARQ process pool comprises sub-pools each of which corresponds to a different traffic flow with the first WD, wherein the selecting based at least in part on a traffic flow of the first WD comprise: selecting from a corresponding sub-pool
3GPP discloses “wherein the HARQ process pool comprises sub-pools each of which corresponds to a different traffic flow with the first WD” HARQ process comprises 2 subpools with one subpool corresponds with traffic with feedback while the other corresponds with traffic without feedback (pages 2-3)
“wherein the selecting based at least in part on a traffic flow of the first WD comprise: selecting from a corresponding sub-pool” selecting from a corresponding subpool, such as subpool with feedback enabled (pages 2-3)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the HARQ process pool comprises sub-pools each of which corresponds to a different traffic flow with the first WD, wherein the selecting based at least in part on a traffic flow of the first WD comprise: selecting from a corresponding sub-pool” as taught by 3GPP into combined system of Zewail and Wu with the motivation to enable UE to use correct HARQ pool when feedback is enabled (3GPP, pages 2-3)
Claims 36, 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail in view of Wu as applied to claim 43 and in further view of Larsson et al (USPN 20130083741).
Regarding claims 36, 44, combined system of Zewail Wu does not expressly disclose “transmit a scheduling request to the network node, in which traffic requirement of the first WD is included”
Larsson discloses UE transmitting scheduling request to base station to indicate traffic channel resource needs [0035]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “transmit a scheduling request to the network node, in which traffic requirement of the first WD is included” as taught by Larsson into combined system of Zewail and Wu with the motivation to enable UE to request resources (Larsson, paragraph [0035])
Claims 27, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Wu (WO 2021163968 A1), translation provided.
Regarding claim 33, Wu discloses
a network node configured to communicate with a plurality of wireless devices, WDs, the network node comprising processing circuitry configured to: (network device, FIG. 11 #600, operable to communicate with plural terminal devices, comprising processor operable to perform (pages 7, 26, 27, FIG. 1)
configured a first WD of the plurality of WDs with a maximum number N of hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, HPN, processes between the first WD of the plurality of WDs and the network node (configure a terminal device a maximum number of HARQ processes between the terminal device, of the plurality of terminal devices, and the network device (pages 6-7)
the maximum number N being based at least n part on subcarrier spacing associated with the first WD (maximum number of HARQ processes based on subcarrier spacing associated with the terminal device (pages 17, 18)
Claim 27 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 33.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 42 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nam et al (USPN 20210409160) FIG. 4
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469