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 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 1, 21, 25-26 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. (US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1).
Regarding claim 1, method of claim 1 is performed by the apparatus of claim 21. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 21 (apparatus) for the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, Kil teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor (Figs. 2-3 and Par. 12), cause the apparatus as a terminal device to perform:
receiving from a network device, at least one parameter relating to a transmit power for transmission of a negative acknowledgement from the terminal device to the network device on a hybrid automatic repeat request process (Fig. 1, BS (network device), UE (terminal device) and Par. 36, receives HS-DSCH DL data or a TPC command (parameter relating to a transmit power)), wherein the negative acknowledgement indicates a request for a retransmission of a packet sent from the network device to the terminal device on the hybrid automatic repeat request process (Par. 36, DL data received through the HS-DSCH for each HARQ process ID)
sending to the network device the at least one negative acknowledgement (Fig. 1 and Par. 38, UE transmits the NACK feedback to the BS because an error has occurred in DL data reception in the previous subframe);
determining at least one missed negative acknowledgement based on the at least one sent negative acknowledgement for which no corresponding retransmission from the network device has been received at the terminal device on the hybrid automatic repeat request process (Par. 38, if new data is received for the DL data of the previous subframe in place of the retransmitted data in the next subframe, then the UE determines that the ACK/NACK feedback transmission error occurs); calculating a ACK/NACK feedback transmission error rate” based at least on the determination of the at least one missed negative acknowledgement (Pars. 38, 40, increases “the number of error occurrences or ACK/NACK feedback transmission error rate”); and adjusting the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement based at least on the calculated negative acknowledgement miss rate and the at least one parameter (Par. 51).
Kil does not specifically disclose that the “sending to the network device the at least one negative acknowledgement” as taught above was “based on the at least one parameter relating to a transmit power.
However, Kil further teaches apply the determined ACK/NACK feedback transmit power (Par. 51). Therefore, it would be obvious the “sending to the network device the at least one negative acknowledgement” was “based on the at least one parameter relating to a transmit power” as evidence by Su. Su teaches transmit uplink information includes ACK/NACK feedback for downlink (Fig. 4, S430 and Par. 41) based on receiving control information relates to power (Fig. 4, S410 and Pars. 16, 52) using transmit power in each transmission (Fig. 4, S420 and Par. 55) which was determined based on the power related parameters (Fig. 4, S410 and Pars. 9, 11-12, 16, 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Su into Kil to increase transmission reliability.
The modified Kil does not teach calculates negative acknowledgement miss rate, instead the modified Kil teach calculates/determines “ACK/NACK feedback transmission error rate” as indicated above.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Cheng. Cheng teaches a feedback error rate or ratio is calculated using number of NACKs and no-feedback (missed NACKs) (Pars. 28-29, 65-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Cheng into Kil to effectively detect radio link failure.
Regarding claim 25, the modified Kil teaches previous claim. The modified Kil further teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of a tolerated negative acknowledgement miss rate, a first step size, a second step size, a first transmit power limit, and a second transmit power limit (Su, Par. 16).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Kil teaches previous claim. The modified Kil further teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the negative acknowledgement miss rate is calculated based at least on at least one of a number of the at least one missed negative acknowledgement and a number of at least one sent negative acknowledgement (See rejection of claim 21).
Regarding claim 37, apparatus of claim 37 is performed by the apparatus of claim 21. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 21 for the of claim 37.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 202001699 Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) and in further view of Lei et al. (US 20230412320 A1).
Regarding claim 22, the modified Su teaches previous claim.
The modified Su does not teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one parameter, the at least one missed negative acknowledgement, the negative acknowledgement miss rate and the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement are determined per at least one hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index of the hybrid automatic repeat request process.
Lei teaches such feature (Fig. 4 and Pars. 56-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Lei into the modified Su to effectively determine the number of missed NACKs to guarantee reliable reception.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) and in further view of Meyer et al. (US 7870259 B2).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one missed negative acknowledgement comprises at least one sent negative acknowledgement for which a transmission with a hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index is received on the hybrid automatic repeat request process, and the hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index is different from a hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index requested by the terminal device for the requested retransmission.
Meyer teaches such feature (Fig. 3 and Col. 9 Lines 50-53, sequence number 2 is reported as missing (NACK=2) and the RLC transmitter only retransmits the PDU with SN=4)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Meyer into the modified Kil to effectively reduce the required number for retransmitted packets.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) and in further view of Yoshimoto et al. (US 20190223208 A1).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 21, wherein the at least one missed negative acknowledgement comprises at least one sent negative acknowledgement for which a requested retransmission with a hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index requested by the terminal device is not detected during a first period of time on the hybrid automatic repeat request process.
Yoshimoto teaches such feature (Figs. 12-14 and Pars. 63, 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Yoshimoto into the modified Kil to effectively control the retransmissions to guarantee reliable reception.
Claims 27-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20230269672 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Kil teaches previous claim. The modified Su further teaches the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to further perform:determining (Par. 51).
However, the modified Sue does not specifically the power value is first step size and/or second step size.
Wang teaches it is very well-known increase power is power level up and reduce power is power level down (Pars. 50, 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wang into the modified Su to effectively adjust the amount of power to guarantee reliable reception.
Regarding claim 28, the modified Kil teaches previous claim. The modified Kil further teaches the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the adjustment of the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: incrementing the transmit power by (Par. 51).
However, the modified Kil does not specifically the power value is first step size.
Wang teaches it is very well-known increase power is power level up (Par. 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wang into the modified Kil to effectively adjust the amount of power to guarantee reliable reception.
Regarding claim 31, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the adjustment of the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: decrementing the transmit power by the second step size when the calculated negative acknowledgement miss rate is below the tolerated negative acknowledgement miss rate.
Wang teaches such feature (Par. 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wang into the modified Kil to effectively adjust the amount of power to guarantee reliable reception.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20230269672 A1) and further in further view of Blessent et al. (US 20060045045 A1).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 28, wherein the adjustment of the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: maintaining the incremented transmit power for a second period of time.
Blessent teaches such feature (Par. 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Blessent into the modified Kil to minimize the impact of noise power on the network.
Claims 29, 32 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20230269672 A1) and Englund et al. (US 20090238148 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Kil teaches previous claim. The modified Su further teaches the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the adjustment of the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: incrementing a transmit power associated with at least one subsequent hybrid automatic repeat request transmission (Par. 51).
However, the modified Kil does not specifically the power value is first step size.
Wang teaches it is very well-known increase power is power level up level down (Par. 54). Also, it is very well-known that the request is associated with an index or i.e. sequence number as evidence by Englund (Pars. 6, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wang and Englund into the modified Kil to effectively adjust the amount of power to guarantee reliable reception.
Regarding claim 32, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach claim 31.
Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the adjustment of the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: decrementing a transmit power associated with at least one subsequent hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index by the second step size when the calculated negative acknowledgement miss rate for a hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index is below the tolerated negative acknowledgement miss rate (Par. 50). Also, it is very well-known that the request is associated with an index or i.e. sequence number as evidence by Englund (Pars. 6, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Wang and Englund into the modified Kil to effectively adjust the amount of power to guarantee reliable reception.
Regarding claims 38 and 40, apparatus of claims 38 and 40 is performed by the apparatus of claim 29. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 29 for the of claims 38 and 40.
Regarding claim 39, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
The modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 38, wherein the configuring the at least one parameter relating to the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: reducing a first transmit power limit when a request for increasing the first transmit power limit from the at least one terminal device is absent.
Englund teaches such feature (Fig. 2, step 27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Englund into the modified Kil to guarantee reliable reception.
Claim 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20230269672 A1) and further in further view of Ashraf et al. (US 20220191725 A1).
Regarding claim 33, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 31, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to further perform:refraining from transmitting the negative acknowledgement when the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement is below the second transmit power limit.
Ashraf teaches such feature (Par. 61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Ashraf into the modified Kil to prevent wasting transmit power.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Kil teaches previous claim. The modified Kil further teaches the apparatus of claim 33, wherein the at least one missed negative acknowledgement comprises the negative acknowledgement refrained from being transmitted for which no retransmission has been received on the hybrid automatic repeat request process (Par. 38, if new data is received for the DL data of the previous subframe in place of the retransmitted data in the next subframe, then the UE determines that the ACK/NACK feedback transmission error occurs).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) in further view of Wang et al. (US 20230269672 A1) and further in further view of Ashraf et al. (US 20220191725 A1) and further in further in further view of Lohr et al. (US 20080298387 A1).
Regarding claim 35, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 33, wherein the adjustment of the transmit power for the transmission of the negative acknowledgement comprises: refraining from decrementing the transmit power when a retransmission with a requested hybrid automatic repeat request transmission index is received on the hybrid automatic repeat request process.
Lohr teaches such feature (Pars. 149-151, rate keep (no transmit power change/adjustment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Lohr into the modified Kil to effectively detect feedback signaling.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kil et al. US 20170367052 A1) in view of Su (US 20200169961 A1) and Cheng (US 20200351707 A1) and in further view of Pawar et al. (US 10021693 B1).
Regarding claim 36, the modified Kil teaches previous claim.
However, the modified Kil does not teach the apparatus of claim 25, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to further perform:transmitting a request for increasing the first transmit power limit based at least on the transmit power and the first transmit power limit, wherein a difference between the transmit power and the first transmit power limit is below a threshold.
Parwar teaches such feature (Col. 3 Lines 49-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Parwar into the modified Kil to improve uplink communication.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 21 and 37 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
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 CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 3/17/2026