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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Amendments is/are considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically:
Regarding the argument that Yang teaches only a HARQ message – negative acknowledge, not a “HARQ-ACK”:
Applicant contends that Yang discloses only a HARQ message or a negative acknowledge while the claims demand a HARQ-ACK.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In 3GPP standard, the term “HARQ-ACK” is the standard umbrella term that encompasses both positive and negative acknowledgement (i.e. both are a form of acknowledgement). This feedback is carried on a HARQ-ACK resources/codebook etc. A NACK is a form of the HARQ-ACK. In fact, ¶0053 of Chien explicitly states “ HARQ-ACK message indicates a decoding result (i.e., ACK or NACK) of the decoded part”, which ultimately dispels the argument above. In other words, a HARQ ACK message refers to the particular type of message, but the name itself does not indicate the negative or positive decoding result unless otherwise specified. The claim never explicitly requires the HARQ ACK message to be of a positive or negative ACK.
Regarding Applicant invoking the Specification into the claims regarding “fake” HARQ-ACK that deliberately acknowledges un-decoded data:
Applicant relies on the paragraph ¶0023 of the specification to argue that the claimed HARQ-ACK is a special “fake” acknowledgement whose purpose is to make the base station believe the data was successfully decoded, thereby preventing the network’s adjustments.
This argument improperly imports limitations from the specification into the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely require sending the HARQ ACK message and do not expressively require a specific type of such, i.e. a “fake” acknowledge. The claims are also silent on any structural/functional element that would make an HARQ ACK message a so-called fake one. Under BRI, the claims are not limited to the particular embodiment described in the Specification, ¶0023.
Regarding arguments that Chien teaches only a NACK, not an HARQ-ACK to undecoded data.
This argument fails for the same reason set forth in the first argument. The term “HARQ-ACK” is the standard umbrella term that encompasses both positive and negative acknowledgement (i.e. both are a form of acknowledgement). This feedback is carried on a HARQ-ACK resources/codebook etc. A NACK is a form of the HARQ-ACK, see ¶0053 of Chien explicitly states “ HARQ-ACK message indicates a decoding result (i.e., ACK or NACK) of the decoded part”.
The name of the message type itself does not indicate the negative or positive decoding result unless otherwise specified, i.e. the claim never explicitly requires the HARQ ACK message to be of a positive or negative ACK.
Regarding Applicant’s argument concerning the SRS signals and the timing of HARQ activity, i.e. “while the SRS transmission is suspended”.
Applicant argues Yang’s HARQ-related activities occur only after the UE has tuned back to the first RAT, and therefore does not occur “while the SRS transmission is suspended”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims only require the HARQ-ACK to be sent while SRS transmission is in a suspended state, and they do not mandate the UE must still be camped on the second network at the moment the HARQ-ACK is transmitted (i.e. the claims do not forbid the UE from tuning back).
Applicant seems to assume that “tune-back” necessarily equal immediately resumption of SRS transmission. This assertion is a thin stretch because tuning-back to a RAT and resuming SRS are two separate things. Tuning back to a RAT merely means the UE restores connection with the first RAT, and UE might remain idle or transmit/receive other signals or listen to paging signals upon tunning back to a RAT among a vast possibility that aren’t involving SRS. Furthermore, the resumption of SRS transmission involves a separate process (re-establishes link or grants). Applicant has not shown where in Yang or Chien any evidence that the UE immediately resumes SRS transmission upon tuning back to the first RAT. The examiner recommends the claim to clarify a SRS-suspension status check for the HARQ ACK is be transmitted.
Applicant further argues Yang fails to disclose SRS transmission. The examiner asserts in at least ¶0028, Yang discloses the UE to transmit reference signals or UL pilot signal, which encompass SRS which is a type of UL pilot reference signal. Yang discloses a system/method that managed acknowledgment for un-decoded messages occurring during network switching that works for all reference signals, thus supporting an SRS type. As far as the claims go, the specific type of SRS signal has no bearing to the operation or outcome of the method. With regard to arguments that the Office Action did not address motivation to combine Yang/Chien. This is untrue, as the motivation statement was clearly stated at the end of each independent claim’s discussion.
In view of the above, Applicant’s general assertion that Yang/Chien fail to teach every limitations of the claim nor do the combination are not persuasive.
With regard to Applicant’s assertion that the amendments to the claims (i.e. using different antenna for each SRS to “on a plurality of antennas”) are substantially the same as originally presented, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The scope of the claims has changed. The claims no longer specifically requires antenna switching for each specific SRS, but rather it now cover other forms of multi-antenna transmissions such as MIMO.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2015/0334553) in view of Chien et al. (US 2020/0053765).
As to claim 1:
Yang discloses:
A method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (See Abstract), comprising:
sending a plurality of sounding reference signals (SRSs) on a plurality of antennas to a base station in a first network using a first subscriber identity module (SIM) of the UE;
(See Fig. 3, UE 350 in communication with a nodeB (base station). ¶0028, “channel estimates may be derived from a reference signal transmitted by the UE 350 or from feedback contained in the midamble 214 (FIG. 2) from the UE 350”, i.e. UE 350 to transmit SRS (reference signals used for channel estimation) to NodeB. Each symbols for the reference/pilot signals are transmitted by a plurality of smart antennas 334 implemented as an antenna array, i.e. each antenna of the array transmit at least a signal. ¶0055,0068, multi-SIM, wherein each SIM is associated with a different RAT )
suspending SRS transmission from the plurality of antennas while performing an activity in a second network using a second SIM of the UE; (See ¶0058, 0059, “When communications of a first RAT are in a current/original operation, such as dedicated channel (DCH) mode (i.e., without voice traffic) or connected mode with a first RAT, the multi-SIM multi-standby UE supports tuning away from the first RAT (e.g., TD-SCDMA) to a second RAT (e.g., GSM) (…) the UE detects a page from the second RAT when the UE is tuned away from the first RAT, the multi-SIM multi-standby UE suspends all operations of the first RAT and transitions to the second RAT.” See also ¶0068. The UE suspends all current transmissions in the first RAT (i.e. the SRS in this case) associated with the first SIM when it tunes to a second RAT to perform an activity)
and sending a hybrid-automatic repeat request (HARQ) message for a HARQ process to the base station while the SRS transmission is suspended in response to at least one of a plurality of un-decoded data transmissions from the base station. (¶0060-61, 0071, UE to send a HARQ indicative of loss data (i.e. undecoded) to be recovered, i.e. a negative acknowledge, in response to the lost data transmission. The SRS transmission is, at this stage suspended, since the UE is engaged in HARQ transmission and/or in active high speed data transmission with the base station)
Yang discloses sending a hybrid-automatic repeat request (HARQ) message without specifically referring to such messages includes an acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK). However, HARG positive/negative acknowledgement signals are standard in HARQ data recovery process for undecoded/unreceived data where they play the trigger role for the network to be informed of the error and thus retransmitting data.
Chien, in a related field of data transmission/recovery between network entities, discloses exactly such concept, namely: in at least Abstract, ¶0032, 0060, 0062, wherein in response to being unable to receiving/decoding downlink data from the base station, the UE sends a HARQ-ACK to the respective base station, and thus triggers retransmission of the downlink data by the base station in similar manner of Yang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the HARQ recovery process of the UE in Yang includes sending of the acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK). Both Chien and Yang are concerned with ensuring the UE to receive the lost data packages (Yang, (¶0060-61, 0071, UE to send a HARQ indicative of loss data (i.e. undecoded) to be recovered), and the acknowledgment messages ensure the network is fully informed and thus takes appropriate retransmission remedy (¶0009 of Chien).
As to claim 10:
Yang discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
At least one processor; at least one memory coupled with the at least one processor; and instructions stored in the at least one memory and operable, when executed by the at least one processor individually or in combination, (See fig. 3, UE 350 for example having processor/memory for wireless communication) to cause the apparatus to:
send a plurality of sounding reference signals (SRSs) on a plurality of antennas to a base station in a first network using a first subscriber identity module (SIM) of the UE;
(See Fig. 3, UE 350 in communication with a nodeB (base station). ¶0028, “channel estimates may be derived from a reference signal transmitted by the UE 350 or from feedback contained in the midamble 214 (FIG. 2) from the UE 350”, i.e. UE 350 to transmit SRS (reference signals used for channel estimation) to NodeB. Each symbols for the reference/pilot signals are transmitted by a plurality of smart antennas 334 implemented as an antenna array, i.e. each antenna of the array transmit at least a signal. ¶0055,0068, multi-SIM, wherein each SIM is associated with a different RAT )
suspend SRS transmission from the different antennas while performing an activity in a second network using a second SIM of the UE; (See ¶0058, 0059, “When communications of a first RAT are in a current/original operation, such as dedicated channel (DCH) mode (i.e., without voice traffic) or connected mode with a first RAT, the multi-SIM multi-standby UE supports tuning away from the first RAT (e.g., TD-SCDMA) to a second RAT (e.g., GSM) (…) the UE detects a page from the second RAT when the UE is tuned away from the first RAT, the multi-SIM multi-standby UE suspends all operations of the first RAT and transitions to the second RAT.” See also ¶0068. The UE suspends all current transmissions in the first RAT (i.e. the SRS in this case) associated with the first SIM when it tunes to a second RAT to perform an activity)
and send a hybrid-automatic repeat request (HARQ) message for a HARQ process to the base station while the SRS transmission is suspended in response to at least one of a plurality of un-decoded data transmissions from the base station. (¶0060-61, 0071, UE to send a HARQ indicative of loss data (i.e. undecoded) to be recovered, i.e. a negative acknowledge, in response to the lost data transmission. The SRS transmission is, at this stage suspended, since the UE is engaged in HARQ transmission and/or in active high speed data transmission with the base station)
Yang discloses sending a hybrid-automatic repeat request (HARQ) message without specifically referring to such messages includes an acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK). However, HARG positive/negative acknowledgement signals are standard in HARQ data recovery process for undecoded/unreceived data where they play the trigger role for the network to be informed of the error and thus retransmitting data.
Chien, in a related field of data transmission/recovery between network entities, discloses exactly such concept, namely: in at least Abstract, ¶0032, 0060, 0062, wherein in response to being unable to receiving/decoding downlink data from the base station, the UE sends a HARQ-ACK to the respective base station, and thus triggers retransmission of the downlink data by the base station in similar manner of Yang.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the HARQ recovery process of the UE in Yang includes sending of the acknowledgment (HARQ-ACK). Both Chien and Yang are concerned with ensuring the UE to receive the lost data packages (Yang, (¶0060-61, 0071, UE to send a HARQ indicative of loss data (i.e. undecoded) to be recovered), and the acknowledgment messages ensure the network is fully informed and thus takes appropriate retransmission remedy (¶0009 of Chien).
As to claims 2, 11:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 1/10, wherein the un-decoded data transmissions comprise a first group of un-decoded data transmissions selected for acknowledgment and a second group of un-decoded data transmissions not selected for acknowledgment, wherein the HARQ-ACK is sent in response to each of the un-decoded data transmissions in the first group. (Chien, ¶0053 the UE to determine the downlink data comprises different groups, including at least one group for which to generate an ACK, and a second group for which to generate a NACK. See also ¶0096, 0065 – sending acknowledgement for each of the data received accordingly to the status)
As to claims 3, 12:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 2/11, further comprising:
sending a HARQ non-acknowledgement (HARQ-NACK) in response to each of the un- decoded data transmissions in the second group. (Chien, ¶0031, 0032, 0053 the UE to determine the downlink data comprises different groups, including at least one group for which to generate an ACK, and a second group for which to generate a NACK)
As to claims 4, 13:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 1/10, wherein Yang discloses:
sending a plurality of radio link control (RLC) status reports to the base station with different transmission periodicities (¶0065, 0062, the UE may delay transmission of each status PDUs selectively for data recovery, as such resulting in varied transmission periodicities depends on how long each data recovery lasts); wherein the RLC status reports comprise a first RLC status report indicating the un- decoded data transmissions (¶0063, “In response to receiving the RLC PDU polling bit, the UE 504 transmits a status PDU (time T2). The status PDU may indicate a number of received PDUs and/or a number of missing PDUs (e.g., data packets)”) and a second RLC status report sent in response to data retransmissions from the base station. (¶0071, “the UE 614 recovers buffered data (e.g., with a HARQ process) that was not received when the UE tuned away from the first RAT 612. After the predetermined time period (i.e., delay), the UE 614 transmits the updated status PDU at time T3”)
As to claims 5, 14:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 4/13, wherein Yang discloses:
wherein the different transmission periodicities are based on a reception time difference between one of the un-decoded data transmissions and one of the data retransmissions. (¶0065, 0062, the UE may delay transmission of each status PDUs selectively for data recovery, as such resulting in varied transmission periodicities depends on how long the UE determines the delay to be, which lead to delay in retransmission)
As to claims 6, 15:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 4/13, wherein Yang discloses:
wherein the different transmission periodicities are based on a number of the un-decoded data transmissions and a number of the data retransmissions. (See ¶0070, “the delay may be based on a predetermined time period that corresponds to a length in time of the tune away gap, channel quality, a number of re-transmission PDUs in a buffer,”. Also this limitation states the obvious: the retransmission takes as long as how much data is to be retransmitted. High amount of lost data to be recovered lead to longer wait to transmit the next status update. See also ¶0064, 0065)
As to claims 7, 16:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 4/13, wherein Yang discloses:
modifying a reassembly timer in response to the data retransmissions, wherein the different transmission periodicities are based on the modified reassembly timer. (¶0074, 0075, determining a delay time for re-transmission of missing data. Since the UE process the retransmission of buffered data at the same as transmitting the status report update, the timer impacts the periodicity of the status report update)
As to claims 8, 17:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 4/13, wherein Yang discloses:
:modifying a status prohibit timer in response to the data retransmissions, wherein the different transmission periodicities are based on the modified status prohibit timer. (See at least ¶0070, the delay increases when the length of time for the tune away gap increases and when then channel quality is reduced, i.e. modifying the delay time for a RLC PDUL report based busy time or channel condition, which resulting different periodicities of the report)
As to claims 9, 18:
Yang in view of Chien discloses all limitations of claim 4/13, wherein Yang discloses:
resuming the SRS transmission from the plurality of antennas (¶0059, “if the UE detects a page from the second RAT when the UE is tuned away from the first RAT, the multi-SIM multi-standby UE suspends all operations of the first RAT and transitions to the second RAT. Otherwise, the UE returns to the first RAT and attempts to recover the original operation of the first RAT”, the original operation of the first RAT includes but not limited to transmission of reference signals for channel estimation per ¶0028),
and the RLC status reports are sent with the different transmission periodicities for a period of time after resuming the SRS transmission. (See ¶0070, “the delay may be based on a predetermined time period that corresponds to a length in time of the tune away gap, channel quality, a number of re-transmission PDUs in a buffer,” High amount of lost data to be recovered lead to longer wait to transmit the next status update. See also ¶0064, 0065)
wherein the HARQ-ACK is sent in response to un-decoded data transmissions selected for acknowledgment (as discussed in Chien, in at least Abstract, ¶0032, 0060, 0062, wherein in response to being unable to receiving/decoding downlink data from the base station, the UE sends a HARQ-ACK to the respective base station, and thus triggers retransmission of the downlink data by the base station in similar manner of Yang)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0360450 - a base station of the first RAT detects discontinuous transmissions from a UE. That is, in this configuration, the base station performs uplink discontinuous transmission (DTX) detection to determine whether the UE is in a discontinuously transmitting mode. Specifically, the periodic uplink transmissions may be discontinued when the UE is tuned away from the first RAT. Therefore, the base station fails to receive periodically transmitted uplink signals from the UE. The periodically transmitted uplink signals may include a sounding reference signal (SRS), a channel quality indicator (CQI), a pre-coding matrix indicator (PMI) and/or a rank indicator (RI). The uplink signals may be transmitted via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights