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 .
The instant office action is in response to communication filed on 04/03/2023.
Claims 26-45 are pending of which claims 26 and 38 are independent.
The IDS(s) submitted on 04/03/2024 and 07/24/2025 has been considered.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/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.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Examiner’s Note: In independent claims 26 and 38, even though a single means is recited the claims are not considered a single means plus function. 112(f) is invoked in a claim on a limitation bases and the single means in independent claims 26 and 38 apply to all of the limitations in the independent claims resulting in more than one means plus function in independent claims 26 and 38.
Hence, given the above explanation, independent claim 26 is interpreted to have the following means plus functions: means for enabling transmitting of the M data transmissions…; means for …determining whether forward error correction should be used…; means for determining at least one correction data transmission…; and means for enabling transmission of …correction data transmission. In a similar fashion in independent claims 38, the following means plus function are interpreted to exist: means for receiving M data transmission…; means for enabling transmitting information…; means for transmitting information…; means for receiving at least one correction data transmission..; means for receiving at least one data transmission…; and means for recovering…
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)(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.
Claim(s) 26 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US 20020093937 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding claim 26, Kim discloses an apparatus (see paragraph 5 apparatus is base station but can be mobile station) comprising means for:
enabling transmitting of M data transmissions, wherein M is an integer greater than 1 (i.e. PLP (Physical Layer Packet) constitutes multiple transmission of Transport Units (TU) corresponding to the M data transmission. See paragraphs 108 and 106. Further the transmission of 768 TUs in a single PLP in up to 16 slots where in this case M is 768. Per paragraph 102 traffic can be uplink or downlink. See Fig. 8 the Receiver receiving 1 PLP containing M=4 namely TU0, TU1, TU2, and TU3.); subsequent to enabling transmitting of the M data transmissions, determining whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M data transmissions (i.e. per paragraph 5 it is explicitly stated that HARQ is a retransmission scheme using both FEC (Forward Error Correction) and ARQ (Automatic Repeat Request) for requesting retransmission of a data packet having errors. Per Paragraph 12 only the sub-block or TU indicated received in error in a NACK message is considered for a retransmission and to be encoded with a turbo code as indicated in paragraphs 14-15 and in paragraph 34 it is indicated turbo code is an FEC code. Per paragraphs 108, 113 and 126 it is clear when M TUs are transmitted and only TUs with NACK are considered for applying FEC on retransmission) ;
based on determining that forward error correction should be used in relation to the M data transmissions: (i.e. FEC codes in Tables 5 and 6 per paragraphs 126 and 128 are applied when out of the M TUs to the TUs received with NACK. See Fig. 7 steps 302, 310, 312, 314 and 318)
determining at least one correction data transmission based (See Fig. 7 step 302 retransmission is request for correction data transmission and FEC code is applied or changed in step 312 and in step 314 if the entire M TU transmissions are not successful then the entire PLP with all M (i.e. total) TUs is retransmitted but if only X(i.e. less than Total TUs ) TUs fail then X TUs are retransmitted in Fig. 7 step 320) , at least in part, on X of the M data transmissions, wherein X is an integer less than or equal to M (i.e. M is all TUs in PLP as indicated in Fig. 7 step 318 and X in the case of Fig. 7 step 320 is 1 TU. See paragraphs 152-158 in general and paragraphs 154-155 in particular); and
enabling transmission of the at least one correction data transmission. (See Fig. 7 step 320 repeating only one TU and transmit PLP with just one TU. See also step 328 and paragraph 158)
Regarding claim 38, Kim discloses an apparatus (see paragraph 5 apparatus is mobile station but can be base station) comprising means for:
receiving M data transmissions from a network node, wherein M is an integer greater than 1(i.e. PLP (Physical Layer Packet) constitutes multiple transmission of Transport Units (TU) corresponding to the M data transmission. See paragraphs 108 and 106. Further the transmission of 768 TUs in a single PLP in up to 16 slots where in this case M is 768. Per paragraph 102 traffic can be uplink or downlink. See Fig. 8 the Receiver receiving 1 PLP containing M=4 namely TU0, TU1, TU2, and TU3 );
enabling transmitting information to the network node to enable the network node to determine whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M data transmissions; (See Fig. 8 wherein the receiver sending ACK/NACK to the transmitter being the network node to determine which TUs of TU0, TU1, TU2, and TU3 is received in errored state. i.e. per paragraph 5 it is explicitly stated that HARQ is a retransmission scheme using both FEC (Forward Error Correction) and ARQ (Automatic Repeat Request) for requesting retransmission of a data packet having errors. Per Paragraph 12 only the sub-block or TU indicated received in error in a NACK message is considered for a retransmission and to be encoded with a turbo code as indicated in paragraphs 14-15 and in paragraph 34 it is indicated turbo code is an FEC code. Per paragraphs 108, 113 and 126 it is clear when M TUs are transmitted and only TUs with NACK are considered for applying FEC on retransmission)
based on it being determined that forward error correction should be used in relation to the M data transmissions: (i.e. FEC codes in Tables 5 and 6 per paragraphs 126 and 128 are applied when out of the M TUs to the TUs received with NACK. See Fig. 7 steps 302, 310, 312, 314 and 318)
receiving at least one correction data transmission, wherein the at least one correction data transmission is determined based(See Fig. 7 step 302 retransmission is request for correction data transmission and FEC code is applied or changed in step 312 and in step 314 if the entire M TU transmissions are not successful then the entire PLP with all M (i.e. total) TUs is retransmitted but if only X(i.e. less than Total TUs ) TUs fail then X TUs are retransmitted in Fig. 7 step 320), at least in part, on X of the M data transmissions, wherein X is an integer less than or equal to M(i.e. M is all TUs in PLP as indicated in Fig. 7 step 318 and X in the case of Fig. 7 step 320 is 1 TU. See paragraphs 152-158 in general and paragraphs 154-155 in particular); and
recovering at least one data transmission of the M uplink data transmissions that was not received successfully based, at least in part, on at least one received data transmission of the M data transmissions and the received at least one correction data transmission.(i.e. the M data transmission is fully recovered based on the received correction data transmission which is the retransmitted TU and the correctly received TUs originally without retransmission – see paragraph 110 and Fig. 9 with paragraph 161)
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) 27, 35, and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Anderson et al (US20130163534 A1, hereinafter referred to Anderson).
Regarding claim 27, Kim discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 26, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the M data transmissions comprise M uplink data transmissions. (i.e. Kim discloses the entire invention applies in both uplink/reverse and downlink/forward transmission)
Anderson, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the M data transmissions comprise M uplink data transmissions. (i.e. Fig. 12 FEC encoding M PUCCH data transmissions where M=2 – see paragraphs 54, 103, and 139)
In view of the above, having Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system then given the well- established teaching of Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system as taught by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission, since Anderson states in paragraph 33 that the modification results in efficient use of UL resources and high resource utilization.
Regarding claim 35, Kim modified by Anderson discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, Kim further discloses wherein the at least one correction data transmission comprises information to enable recovery of uplink data transmissions of the M uplink data transmissions that were not successfully received. .(i.e. the M data transmission is fully recovered based on the received correction data transmission which is the retransmitted TU and the correctly received TUs originally without retransmission – see paragraph 110 and Fig. 9 with paragraph 161)
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 is rejected in the same scope as claim 27.
Claim(s) 28, 29, 30, 31,32, 33, 34, 36, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Anderson and further in view of Kimura (US 20220123871 A1).
Regarding claim 28, Kim modified by Anderson discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, Kim discloses the means are configured to determine whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmission based, at least in part, on the received information. ( FEC codes in Tables 5 and 6 per paragraphs 126 and 128 are applied when out of the M TUs to the TUs received with NACK. See Fig. 7 steps 302, 310, 312, 314 and 318)
Kim modified by Anderson fails to disclose wherein determining whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions comprises receiving information configured to allow the apparatus to determine whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions.
Kimura, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein determining whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions comprises receiving information configured to allow the apparatus to determine whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions. (See Figs. 19, 20, and 23 show the Base Station Device configuring the Terminal with FEC (Forward Error Correction) Setting in relation to uplink data transmission as shown in Fig. 19 SeQ1951, Fig. 20 SEQ2051, and Fig. 23 SEQ2304)
In view of the above, having Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system modified by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission then given the well- established teaching of Kimura’s techniques for configuring FEC for uplink data transmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system modified by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission as taught by Kimura’s techniques for configuring FEC for uplink data transmission, since Kimura states in paragraph 140 that the modification results in improving the reliability of broadcast or multicast by increasing the error correction capability by the FEC.
Regarding claim 29, Kim modified by Anderson and Kimura discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 28, Kim further discloses wherein the received information is configured to indicate whether each of the M uplink data transmissions has been successfully received.(See Kim Paragraph 111 indicating a plurality of ACK/NACK indicator bits configured to indicate whether each of the M uplink data transmissions has been successfully received)
Regarding claim 30, Kim modified by Anderson and Kimura discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 29, Kim further discloses wherein determining whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions comprises determining whether any of the M uplink data transmissions were not successfully received.(See Kim Paragraph 111 indicating a plurality of ACK/NACK indicator bits configured to indicate whether each of the M uplink data transmissions has been successfully received. Fig. 7 step 310 indicates any of the M data transmission failed or were not successfully received and in Fig. 7 step 312 FEC code is applied), and wherein the means are configured to determine that forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions based on determining that at least one of the M uplink data transmissions was not successfully received. (See Kim Fig. 7 step 302 where Ack/NACK is received and if NACK or failure in step 310 then FEC code is applied in Fig. 7 step 312.)
Regarding claim 31, Kim modified by Anderson and Kimura discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 29, Kim further discloses wherein the means are configured to: determine, based at least in part on the received information (See Kim Fig. 7 step 302 retransmission request in the form of Ack/NACK bits received indicating which of the M TUs were successfully received and which were not) , which of the M uplink data transmissions were not successfully received;(See Kim Fig. 7 step 310 indicating failure or TUs with NACK indication received and can be all TUs as in step 316 and /or some TUs as in Fig. 7 steps 320, 326 and 328) and
select the X uplink data transmissions for each of the at least one correction data transmission to enable recovery of the uplink data transmissions of the M uplink data transmissions that were not successfully received based, at least in part, on the at least one correction data transmission. .(i.e. the M data transmission is fully recovered based on the received correction data transmission which is the retransmitted TU and the correctly received TUs originally without retransmission – see paragraph 110 and Fig. 9 with paragraph 161 where TU2 and TU3 are transmitted repeatedly)
Regarding claim 32, Kim modified by Anderson and Kimura discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 29, Kim further discloses wherein the means are configured to, based on determining that forward error correction should not be used for the M uplink data transmissions:
enable transmission of at least one signal configured to indicate that forward error correction is not being used for the M uplink data transmissions. (See Kim Paragraph 151 and Fig. 7 step 304 where all TUs in the PLP are acknowledged then no forward error correction as part of the retransmission is applied skipping step 312)
Regarding claim 33, Kim modified by Anderson and Kimura discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 28, Kim further discloses wherein the received information comprises control information configured to indicate whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions. (See Kim Paragraph 111 indicating a plurality of ACK/NACK indicator bits configured to indicate whether each of the M uplink data transmissions has been successfully received. Fig. 7 step 310 indicates any of the M data transmission failed or were not successfully received and in Fig. 7 step 312 FEC code is applied. This means the NACK signal is the control information indicate whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the uplink/downlink traffic ),
Regarding claim 34, Kim modified by Anderson and Kimura discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 33, Kim further discloses wherein the received information comprises information configured to indicate how many correction data transmissions should be determined, and/or which of the M uplink data transmissions should be selected as the X uplink data transmissions for each correction data transmission, and/or at least one algorithm to be used to determine the at least one correction data transmission. (See Kim Paragraph 111 indicating a plurality of ACK/NACK indicator bits configured to indicate whether each of the M uplink data transmissions has been successfully received. Fig. 7 step 310 indicates any of the M data transmission failed or were not successfully received and in Fig. 7 step 312 FEC code is applied. This means the NACK signal is the control information indicate whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the uplink/downlink traffic ),
Regarding claim 36, Kim modified by Anderson discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, but fails to disclose wherein the means are configured to receive configuration information comprising information indicating at least one of the value of M, or at least one forward error correction function.
Kimura, in the same endeavor, discloses wherein the means are configured to receive configuration information comprising information indicating at least one of the value of M, or at least one forward error correction function. . (See Figs. 19, 20, and 23 show the Base Station Device configuring the Terminal with FEC (Forward Error Correction) Function Setting in relation to uplink data transmission as shown in Fig. 19 SeQ1951, Fig. 20 SEQ2051, and Fig. 23 SEQ2304)
In view of the above, having Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system modified by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission then given the well- established teaching of Kimura’s techniques for configuring FEC for uplink data transmission, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system modified by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission as taught by Kimura’s techniques for configuring FEC for uplink data transmission, since Kimura states in paragraph 140 that the modification results in improving the reliability of broadcast or multicast by increasing the error correction capability by the FEC.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 is rejected in the same scope as claim 29.
Regarding claim 41, claim 41 is rejected in the same scope as claim 32.
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 is rejected in the same scope as claim 28.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 is rejected in the same scope as claim 30.
Regarding claim 44, claim 44 is rejected in the same scope as claim 31.
Claim(s) 37 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Anderson and further in view of Mariner et al (US 20230239080 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Kim modified by Anderson discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 27, but fails to disclose wherein the means are configured to receive at least one signal to schedule radio resources for transmitting the at least one correction data transmission as a dynamic grant or as a configured grant, prior to determining whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions.
Mariner discloses wherein the means are configured to receive at least one signal to schedule radio resources for transmitting the at least one correction data transmission as a dynamic grant or as a configured grant, prior to determining whether forward error correction should be used in relation to the M uplink data transmissions. (See paragraphs 6 and 72 wherein Mariner discloses configuration information of Configured Grant and Dynamic Grant. Mariner discloses A configured uplink grant may be used for a retransmission for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process if the timer is running.)
In view of the above, having Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system modified by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission and then given the well- established teaching of Mariner’s techniques for configuring grants, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify Kim’s data transmitting/receiving in HARQ data communication system modified by Anderson’s techniques for configuring uplink data transmission as taught by Mariner’s techniques for configuring grants, since Mariner states in paragraph 5 that the modification results in improving the efficiency of wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) transmitting transport blocks (TBs).
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 is rejected in the same scope as claim 45.
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: Zhu et al (US 20200396275) retrieved from IDS can replace the primary reference, Kim, with the disclosure in paragraphs 91-93.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HABTE MERED whose telephone number is (571)272-6046. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-10 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/HABTE MERED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights