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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 9-15, 17-20, and 30 have been considered but are moot due to new ground of rejection.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 9-12, 14-15, and 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10-15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 18/594,988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations are the same except the set of TBs is separated in frequency domain. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the set of TBs is separated in frequency domain instead of separated setting of the TBs in time domain in order to increase rate and/or efficiency of transmission.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, 11-15, 17-20, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi et al. (US 2014/0086351 A1) in view of Sengupta et al. (US 2022/0321259 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nammi discloses a method for wireless communication, comprising: transmitting a set of transport blocks (TBs) between a first wireless device (100) and a second wireless device (200) by: mapping the set of TBs in a resource space comprising a time unit in a time domain and a frequency unit in a frequency domain (paragraph [0008]-[0017]; [0022]-[0025]; [0057]-[0077]; [0079]-[0096]; [0100]; [0169]; [0172]-[0173]; [0189]-[0194]; [0213]-[0221]; and so on, illustrating to communicate transport blocks (TBs), the TBs are mapped in unit time domain such as TTI and frequency domain), wherein: each TB mapped to a same codeword in the set of TBs (fig. 7; paragraph [0172]-[0176]; [0169]; and etc.. explaining each of the TBs are mapped to the same codeword, CW, per time or TTI); the set of TBs comprises n TBs mapped to the same codeword, and n is an integer larger than 1 (fig. 7; paragraph [0174]-[0176]; and so on, multiple TBs mapped into the same CW as shown in fig. 7), each of the TBs are in the time domain (paragraph [0169]; [0172]-[0173]; [0189]-[0194]; [0198]-[0201]; and so on); and each TB in the set of TBs is capable of being packaged separately at a transmitting end (e.g. fig. 4; paragraph [0101]-[0110]; and etc., separately generated, framed, and transmitted), and capable of being delivered separately to a receiving end (fig. 6; paragraph [0162]-[0173]; and so on, the TBs are separately delivered or transmitted).
Nammi does not explicitly disclose each TB in the set of TBs is separated in time domain, and the delivered separately is to an upper layer at a receiving end, and the each of the TBs has different priorities.
Sengupta teaches each TB in the set of TBs is separated in time domain, and the delivered separately is to an upper layer at a receiving end (paragraph [0090]; [0141]; [0157]-[0159]; and etc.), and the delivered separately is to an upper layer at a receiving end (paragraph [0132]-[0134]; and so on).
Sengupta does not teach the each of the TBs has different priorities.
Bhamri teaches the each of the TBs has different priorities (e.g. paragraph [0175]-[0177]; [0198]-[0200]; [0217]-[0219]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use each TB in the set of TBs is separated in time domain, and the delivered separately is to an upper layer at a receiving end, and the each of the TBs has different priorities as taught by Sengupta and Bhamri into Nammi in order to reduce interference and to optimize error handling, and to improve resource utilization and quality of communication.
Regarding claim 2, as applied above, Nammi discloses wherein: the resource space corresponds to the set of TBs. However, Nammi doesn’t disclose the set of TBs in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process in a carrier.
Sengupta teaches the set of TBs in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process in a carrier (paragraph [0087]-[0088]; [0133]-[0134]; [0137]-[0138]; [0143]-[0144]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the set of TBs in a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process in a carrier as taught by Sengupta into Nammi in order to correct error and improve throughput.
Regarding claim 4, Nammi disclose wherein: the time unit comprises at least one of the following: a transmission time interval (TTI), a slot, a sub-frame, or a mini slot (paragraph [0171]-[0173]; [0189]-[0194]; [0198]-[0201]; and so on).
Regarding claim 5, Nammi discloses wherein: the frequency unit. Nammi the frequency unit comprises at least one of the following: a subcarrier, a resource block (RB), a subband, a bandwidth part (BWP), or a carrier.
Sengupta teaches the frequency unit comprises at least one of the following: a subcarrier, a resource block (RB), a subband, a bandwidth part (BWP), or a carrier (paragraph [0100]; [0103]; [0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the frequency unit comprises at least one of the following: a subcarrier, a resource block (RB), a subband, a bandwidth part (BWP), or a carrier as taught by Yang into Nammi in order to increase efficiency of transmission.
Regarding claim 6, Nammi disclose wherein the same codeword comprises at least one of the following: a first codeword, or a second codeword (e.g. fig. 7).
Regarding claim 9, Nammi further discloses including: receiving, by the second wireless device, control information corresponding to resource allocation of the set of TBs from the first wireless device, wherein the control information comprises at least one of the following: a resource space in a time-frequency domain for the n TBs; a resource indication in a frequency domain for the n TBs; a resource indication in a time domain for the n TBs; a mapping rule; an MCS for the n TBs; spatial multiplexing information related to a number of layers for the set of TBs; power control information for the set of TBs; an identification (ID) number for the n TBs; a resource mapping configuration for the n TBs; a number of TBs in the n TBs; a symbol position information in the time domain for each TB in the n TBs; or a frequency position information in the frequency domain for each TB in the n TBs (figs. 3-7).
Regarding claim 11, Nammi discloses wherein: the mapping rule comprises at least one of the following: a mapping pattern of TB to symbol in the time domain; a number of symbols in the time domain for each TB; a mapping relationship of TB index to symbol index, or mapping a TB corresponding to the second codeword according to the mapping rule of the TB corresponding to the first codeword in same time-frequency resource (paragraph [0009]; [0012]; [0015]; [0024]; [0098]-[0099]; [0160]-[0161]; and so on).
Regarding claim 13, Nammi discloses wherein: upon receiving all time-domain symbols of a TB in the n TBs, the second wireless device performs a TB level process on the all time-domain symbols without waiting for receiving any other TB in the n TBs, wherein the TB level process comprises at least one of the following: a de-mapping process, a de-interleaving process, a de-modulating process, a de-coding process, or a process of delivering to a higher layer (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 18, Nammi discloses wherein: the first wireless device is configured to schedule transmission of the set of TBs, and the first wireless device comprises at least one of the following: a base station; a MAC layer in a wireless device; a scheduling unit; a user equipment (UE); an on-board unit (OBU); a road-side unit (RSU); or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (figs. 2-7; paragraph [0097]; [0164]-[0170]; [0172]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Nammi discloses wherein: the second wireless device is configured to receive transmission of the set of TBs, and the second wireless device comprises at least one of the following: a user equipment (UE); or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (figs. 2-7; paragraph [0097]; [0164]-[0170]; [0172]; and etc.).
Regarding claim 30, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claim is a mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding a wireless communications apparatus, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Regarding claim 12, Nammi discloses information. However, Nammi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: the control information is transmitted via at least one of the following: a downlink control information (DCI), a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a high layer signaling, a MAC control element (CE), or system information.
Sengupta teaches wherein: the control information is transmitted via at least one of the following: a downlink control information (DCI), a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a high layer signaling, a MAC control element (CE), or system information (e.g. paragraph [0140]-[0141]; [0156]-[0158]; [0165]; [0169]; [0171]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein: the control information is transmitted via at least one of the following: a downlink control information (DCI), a radio resource control (RRC) signaling, a high layer signaling, a MAC control element (CE), or system information as taught by Sengupta into Nammi in order to improve rate and security of transmission.
Regarding claim 14, Nammi discloses information. However, Nammi doesn’t explicitly disclose comprising: receiving, by the second wireless device, the control information from the first wireless device; processing, by the second wireless device, the set of TBs based on the control information by at least one of the following: receiving data from the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to a third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; or receiving data from the third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device.
Sengupta teaches comprising: receiving, by the second wireless device, the control information from the first wireless device; processing, by the second wireless device, the set of TBs based on the control information by at least one of the following: receiving data from the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to a third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; or receiving data from the third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device (e.g. paragraph [0140]-[0141]; [0156]-[0158]; [0165]; [0169]; [0171]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use comprising: receiving, by the second wireless device, the control information from the first wireless device; processing, by the second wireless device, the set of TBs based on the control information by at least one of the following: receiving data from the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to the first wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; sending data to a third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device; or receiving data from the third wireless device based on the control information from the first wireless device as taught by Sengupta into Nammi in order to improve rate and security of transmission.
Regarding claim 15, Nammi further discloses comprising: in response to receiving the data from the first wireless device, sending, by the second wireless device, feedback information to the first wireless device by at least one of the following: sending the feedback information separately for each TB in the n TBs; sending the feedback information together for the n TBs; sending the feedback information for each code block (CB) in the n TBs; or sending the feedback information for each code block group (CBG) in the n TBs (paragraph [0050]; [0052]; [0054]-[0055]; [0097]-[0100]; [0102]; [0161]; and so on).
Regarding claim 17, as applied above, Nammi discloses feedback information. However, Nammi doesn’t disclose comprising: in response to the feedback information being same for each TB in the n TBs, sending the feedback information comprising a feedback indication for the n TBs, wherein: in response to each TB in the n TBs being received successfully, the feedback information comprises an acknowledgement (ACK) indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received successfully; and in response to each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully, the feedback information comprises a NAK indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully.
Sengupta teaches comprising: in response to the feedback information being same for each TB in the n TBs, sending the feedback information comprising a feedback indication for the n TBs, wherein: in response to each TB in the n TBs being received successfully, the feedback information comprises an acknowledgement (ACK) indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received successfully; and in response to each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully, the feedback information comprises a NAK indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully (e.g. paragraph [0087]-[0089]; [0133]-[0134]; [0138]; [0174]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use comprising: in response to the feedback information being same for each TB in the n TBs, sending the feedback information comprising a feedback indication for the n TBs, wherein: in response to each TB in the n TBs being received successfully, the feedback information comprises an acknowledgement (ACK) indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received successfully; and in response to each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully, the feedback information comprises a NAK indication indicating each TB in the n TBs being received unsuccessfully as taught by Sengupta into Nammi in order to reduce losing or dropping of packet.
Regarding claim 20, as applied above, Nammi discloses transmission of the set of TBs. However, Nammi does not disclose wherein: the third wireless device is configured to receive or send transmission of the set of TBs, and the third wireless device comprises at least one of the following: a user equipment (UE); or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node.
Sengupta teaches wherein: the third wireless device is configured to receive or send transmission of the set of TBs, and the third wireless device comprises at least one of the following: a user equipment (UE); or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node (fig. 2; paragraph [00136]-[0146]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein: the third wireless device is configured to receive or send transmission of the set of TBs, and the third wireless device comprises at least one of the following: a user equipment (UE); or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node as taught by Sengupta into Nammi in order to reduce latency.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Sengupta and Bhamri, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2018/0279328 A1).
Regarding claim 3, as pplied above, Nammi discloses each TB in the set of TBs. Nammi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein: each TB in the set of TBs corresponds to a media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU).
Yang teaches each TB in the set of TBs corresponds to a media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (paragraph [0053]-[0055]; [0060]-[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use each TB in the set of TBs corresponds to a media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) as taught by Yang into Nammi in order to improve reliability of transmission.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nammi in view of Sengupta and Bhamri, and further in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2021/0289540 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nammi discloses wherein: the second wireless device determines a transport block size (TBS) of each TB in the n TBs by: receiving the control information corresponding to the resource allocation of the n TBs (figs. 3-6; paragraph [0169]-[0170]; and so on). Nammi doesn’t disclose determining, in a HARQ process, a number of resource elements (REs) for each TB, a modulation coding scheme (MCS), a number of layers; and determining the TBS of each TB in the n TBs based on the number of resource elements (REs) for each TB, the modulation coding scheme (MCS), the number of layers.
Khoshnevisan teaches determining, in a HARQ process, a number of resource elements (REs) for each TB, a modulation coding scheme (MCS), a number of layers; and determining the TBS of each TB in the n TBs based on the number of resource elements (REs) for each TB, the modulation coding scheme (MCS), the number of layers (paragraph [081]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use determining, in a HARQ process, a number of resource elements (REs) for each TB, a modulation coding scheme (MCS), a number of layers; and determining the TBS of each TB in the n TBs based on the number of resource elements (REs) for each TB, the modulation coding scheme (MCS), the number of layers as taught by Khoshnevisan into Nammi in order to reduce congestion and overloading.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights