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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 03/08/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 1,9 and 17 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Following limitations of Claim 17:
- means for determining an expiration time of an uplink transport block;
- means for transmitting an indication of the expiration time of the uplink transport block; means for transmitting the uplink transport block;
- means for determining an expiration of the indicated expiration time;
- means for refraining from retransmitting the uplink transport block based at least in part on the determined expiration.
Are being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “determining, transmitting and refraining” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 17 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0163], Figure 7.
Following limitations of Claim 19:
- means for means for configuring a new data indicator (NDI) associated with the uplink transport block to further indicate the expiration time; and means for transmitting the NDI.
Are being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “configuring” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 19 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0163], Figure 7.
Following limitations of Claim 20:
- means for receiving an uplink retransmission grant for the uplink transport block; and means for transmitting at least a portion of the uplink transport block based on the received uplink retransmission grant and prior to the expiration of the indicated expiration time.
Are being treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language “transmitting and receiving” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 20 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation: Published Specification Para[0163], Figure 7.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claims so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claims recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,4,9,12,17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Terry (US 2017/0134147 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Terry”).
Regarding Claims 1,9 and 17, Terry discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication and method, comprising: one or more memories (Terry Fig.1 Para[0017] A memory (i.e. controller)) storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors (Terry Fig.1 Para[0017] A processor (i.e. controller)) coupled with the one or more memories and operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: determine an expiration time of an uplink transport block (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-25] A lifespan timer (i.e. expiration timer) for data transmission); transmit an indication of the expiration time of the uplink transport block (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-25] The WTRU sends indication via NDI when the Node-B needs to clear the buffer); transmit the uplink transport block (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-26] The WTRU transmits transport blocks); determine an expiration of the indicated expiration time (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-28] The lifespan timer is checked and is expired); and refrain from retransmitting the uplink transport block based at least in part on the determined expiration (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-29] When the lifespan timer is expired, the WTRU discards data and releases HARQ process (i.e. no retransmission)).
Regarding claims 4,12 and 20, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry further discloses receive an uplink retransmission grant for the uplink transport block; and transmit at least a portion of the uplink transport block based on the received uplink retransmission grant and prior to the expiration of the indicated expiration time (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-29] The physical resources are assigned (i.e. UL grant) for retransmission and the WTRU sends data till the lifespan timer expires).
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 2-3,10-11 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of OH et al. (US 2021/0168849 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Oh”).
Regarding claims 2,10 and 18, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the expiration time is determined with respect to one or more of: an ending symbol of a service request (SR) message, or an end of a physical uplink shared channel transmission containing the uplink transport block.
However, Oh from the same field of invention discloses wherein the expiration time is determined with respect to one or more of: an ending symbol of a service request (SR) message (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or an end of a physical uplink shared channel transmission containing the uplink transport block (Oh Para[0180,0223] A PUSCH transmission end symbol is utilized to determine time resource).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the expiration time is determined with respect to one or more of: an ending symbol of a service request (SR) message, or an end of a physical uplink shared channel transmission containing the uplink transport block” as taught by Oh. The motivation would have been to efficiently allocate resources (Oh Para[0001]).
Regarding claims 3,11 and 19, Terry in view of Oh discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Terry further discloses configure a new data indicator (NDI) associated with the uplink transport block to further indicate the expiration time; and transmit the NDI (Terry Fig.3 Para[0024-25] The WTRU sends indication via NDI when the Node-B needs to clear the buffer).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of SAKODA et al. (US 2016/0205609 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Sakoda”).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time comprises an index to a table of standard expiration time values.
However, Sakoda from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time comprises an index to a table of standard expiration time values (Sakoda Para[0147] An index for a record in a table containing exptime is provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time comprises an index to a table of standard expiration time values” as taught by Sakoda. The motivation would have been to properly generate and manage communication path (Sakoda Para[0007]).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of MOON et al. (US 2018/0049227 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Moon”).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted as a multi-bit service request (SR).
However, Moon from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted as a multi-bit service request (SR) (Moon Para[0184,0203-204] The scheduling request contains multiple bits for buffer status and latency requirement)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted as a multi-bit service request (SR)” as taught by Moon. The motivation would have been to reduce uplink data delay (Moon Para[0017]).
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of Shaheen et al. (WO 2018/232034Al, hereinafter referred to as “Shaheen”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted over a grant-free uplink data channel, and wherein the indication of the expiration time is separately encoded with uplink data.
However, Shaheen from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted over a grant-free uplink data channel, and wherein the indication of the expiration time is separately encoded with uplink data (Shaheen Para[0060] A grant-free resource for UL is used to send fast BSR report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted over a grant-free uplink data channel, and wherein the indication of the expiration time is separately encoded with uplink data” as taught by Shaheen. The motivation would have been to enhance scheduling request (Shaheen Para[0002]).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terry in view of FAN et al. (US 2020/0374888 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Fan”).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Terry discloses the UE and the method as explained above for Claim 1. Terry does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted in a buffer status report (BSR) message.
However, Fan from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted in a buffer status report (BSR) message (Fan Para[0139] A remaining time information is in the BSR).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Terry to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the expiration time is transmitted in a buffer status report (BSR) message” as taught by Fan. The motivation would have been to ensure service data transmission for high reliability and low latency (Fan Para[0005]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0106924 to Seidel (Fig.11 and associated paragraphs)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415