CTNF 18/667,633 CTNF 80192 DETAILED ACTION Claims 1–20 are pending and examined herein. The Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet correspondence received from Applicant. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/PatentForms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 4–8 and 14–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 4-–8 and 14–18 each refer to “the HARQ buffering capability,” which is an optional element of claims 1/11 since the UE capability report indicates a maximum quantity of HARQ processes supported OR indicates a HARQ buffering capability. Since this is an optional element of the claimed apparatus of claim 1 and method of claim 11, it is not clear how the limitations of claims 4-–8 and 14–18 are to be incorporated in an embodiment where “the HARQ buffering capability” is omitted from a capability report. The Examiner recommends amending these claims to clarify that the UE capability report necessarily includes a “HARQ buffering capability.” In the interest of expedited prosecution, claims 4–8 and 14–18 have been examined as though the capability report indicates at least “a HARQ buffering capability.” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1–3, 11–13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2020/0112414) . With regard to claim 1, Khoshnevisan discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories (¶55); and one or more processors (¶55), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: transmit a UE capability report (UE may transmit a capability to a base station)(¶113) indicating a maximum quantity of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes supported across a plurality of component carriers (CCs) (report may identify a quantity of CCs the UE is capable of using and/or the quantity of HARQ processes the UE is capable of using)(¶113) or indicating a HARQ buffering capability; and receive a HARQ process quantity configuration in accordance with the UE capability report (the base station may transmit a HARQ configuration indicating a quantity of HARQ processes based on capabilities reported by the UE)(¶114–115). With regard to claim 2, Khoshnevisan further discloses that the HARQ process quantity configuration configures one or more HARQ processes on a set of CCs (the HARQ configuration may include various distributions of HARQ processes and CCs)(¶115), and wherein a quantity of CCs of the set of CCs does not satisfy a CC quantity threshold, and the UE supports a per-CC maximum quantity of HARQ processes on each CC of the set of CCs, or wherein the quantity of CCs satisfies the CC quantity threshold (i.e., at least two), and the UE supports, on each CC of the set of CCs, fewer HARQ processes than the per-CC maximum quantity of HARQ processes (the HARQ configuration may configure the UE such that HARQ processes are split across CCs as long as the total quantity of HARQ processes does not exceed UE capability)(¶115). With regard to claim 3, Khoshnevisan further discloses that the UE capability report further indicates a maximum quantity of HARQ processes supported on a serving cell of the UE (the capability report may indicate a maximum quantity of processes and cells the UE is capable of using)(¶113; ¶115). Claims 11–13 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1–3, since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are explicitly or inherently taught by the above cited art. With regard to claim 19, Khoshnevisan discloses an apparatus (e.g., UE 120)(¶54) for wireless communication, comprising: means for transmitting (e.g., a combination of an antenna 252a and transmit processor 264 in the UE)(¶59; ¶62) a capability report (UE may transmit a capability to a base station)(¶113) indicating a maximum quantity of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) processes supported across a plurality of component carriers (CCs) report may identify a quantity of CCs the UE is capable of using and/or the quantity of HARQ processes the UE is capable of using)(¶113) or indicating a HARQ buffering capability; and means for receiving (e.g., a combination of antenna 252 and receive processor 258 in the UE)(¶61) a HARQ process quantity configuration in accordance with the capability report (the base station may transmit a HARQ configuration indicating a quantity of HARQ processes based on capabilities reported by the UE)(¶114–115). With regard to claim 20, Khoshnevisan further discloses that the HARQ process quantity configuration configures one or more HARQ processes on a set of CCs (the HARQ configuration may include various distributions of HARQ processes and CCs)(¶115), and wherein a quantity of CCs of the set of CCs does not satisfy a CC quantity threshold, and the UE supports a per-CC maximum quantity of HARQ processes on each CC of the set of CCs, or wherein the quantity of CCs satisfies the CC quantity threshold (i.e., at least two), and the UE supports, on each CC of the set of CCs, fewer HARQ processes than the per-CC maximum quantity of HARQ processes (the HARQ configuration may configure the UE such that HARQ processes are split across CCs as long as the total quantity of HARQ processes does not exceed UE capability)(¶115) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2020/0112414) in view of Chu et al. (US 11,343,026) . With regard to claim 4, while the system disclosed by Khoshnevisan shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed above), it fails to specifically disclose that the UE capability report indicates a HARQ buffering capability and that the HARQ process quantity configuration is in accordance with the HARQ buffering capability. Chu discloses a similar system for communicating via a network (Abstract). Chu teaches transmitting a capability report including a HARQ buffering capability (STA 28 announces its maximal HARQ buffering capabilities)(9:21–25) and configuring the transmitter and receiver such that the initiating device is prohibited from including data beyond the size of the buffer, guaranteeing the buffer will not overflow (10:66–11:6). This would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Khoshnevisan since it would have ensured that the buffering capacity of the UE cannot be exceeded, ensuring that no data is lost due to buffer overflow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a HARQ buffering capability in the UE capability report and configure the HARQ process quantity configuration in accordance with the buffering capability to prevent buffer overflows and associated data loss. With regard to claim 5, while the system disclosed by Khoshnevisan shows substantial features of the claimed invention (discussed above), it fails to specifically disclose that the UE capability report indicates a HARQ buffering capability and that the HARQ process quantity configuration is in accordance with the HARQ buffering capability and configures a quantity of HARQ processes that exceeds the maximum quantity of HARQ processes. Chu discloses a similar system for communicating via a network (Abstract). Chu teaches transmitting a capability report including a HARQ buffering capability (STA 28 announces its maximal HARQ buffering capabilities)(9:21–25) and configuring the transmitter and receiver such that the initiating device is permitted to transmit data exceeding the size of the buffer on the assumption that the number of failed HARQ units is likely to be below the number of units supported by the buffer (11:66–15). This would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Khoshnevisan since it would have permitted the initiating device to transmit data at a faster rate by accepting a small risk of data loss. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a HARQ buffering capability in the UE capability report and configure a quantity of HARQ processes that exceeds the maximum quantity of HARQ processes in order to permit the initiating device to transmit data at a faster rate by accepting a small risk of data loss, improving overall network throughput . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 9 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. As best understood by the examiner in light of the rejection set forth above, it appears claims 6–8 and 16–18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example: Liu et al. (WO 2023/070297) discloses a similar system including transmission of a UE capability report indicating a maximum supported quantity of HARQ processes (e.g., ¶62–64). Chendamarai Kannan et al. (US 2020/0228246) also discloses a similar system including transmission of a UE capability report indicating a maximum number of HARQ processes supported by the UE and receiving a configuration at the UE in accordance with the capability report (¶65–67). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON N STRANGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00. 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, Matthew Sked can be reached at 571-272-7627. 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. /AARON N STRANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 2 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 4 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 5 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 6 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 8 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 9 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 10 Art Unit: 6221 Application/Control Number: 18/667,633 Page 11 Art Unit: 6221
Prosecution Insights