DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-19 and 27-28 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, 15-19 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 1, Applicant’s claimed invention falls under the “Mental Processes” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas in the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Dep’t of Commerce Jan. 07, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) as the claimed invention, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’; and CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of ‘‘computer’’ or ‘‘computer readable medium’’ does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that ‘‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’’ patent eligible)). The limitations that are directed to the judicial exception (i.e., mental process) are:
“… determining a redundancy version (RV) sequence of more than one slot for transmitting a same TB within a configured grant (CG) period; and
determining at least one start transmission position of the TB from the more than one slot corresponding to the RV sequence.”
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The use of generic computer component(s) (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”) does not add a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). As such, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Unlike claim 1, as per claim 2, the step of “repeatedly transmitting the TB within the CG period based on the at least one start transmission position” is not a step that can be performed mentally. Moreover, in combination with the mental process steps of claim 1, the step of “repeatedly transmitting the TB within the CG period based on the at least one start transmission position” provides an improvement to the functioning of the terminal device/apparatus (i.e., “…data transmission delay is shortened and data transmission reliability is improved”, see ¶0003 of Applicant’s specification). As such, claim 2 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Similar to claim 1, claims 3-7 and 9 solely recite “determining” steps (see claim 3: “determining a first RV in the RV sequence” and “determining, from more than one slot used for each transmission of the TB and corresponding to the RV, at least one slot as the at least one starting transmission position”; claim 4: “determining a first slot used for each transmission of the TB and corresponding to the first RV as the at least one start transmission position”; claim 5: “determining the first slot corresponding to each of first RVs other than a first RV which is the last one in the RV sequence as the at least one start transmission position, wherein the RV sequence comprises only the first RVs” or “determining the at least one slot used as the at least one start transmission position based on the number of slots occupied by each transmission of the TB and the position determination scaling factor”; claim 6: “determining at least one slot used as the at least one start transmission position and corresponding to the first RV based on at least one of a number of slots occupied by each transmission of the TB or a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) parameter”; claim 7: “determining a position determination scaling factor based on the MCS parameter” and “determining the at least one slot used as the at least one start transmission position based on the number of slots occupied by each transmission of the TB and the position determination scaling factor”; claim 9: “determining the position determination scaling factor as a first value, wherein the MCS parameter is less than a preset threshold” or “determining the position determination scaling factor as a second value, wherein the MCS parameter is greater than or equal to a preset threshold”) which, but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. As such claims 3-7 and 9, similar to claim 1, are directed to an abstract idea (i.e., “mental processes”).
Moreover, the claims fail to recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the judicial exception. As noted in claim 1, the use of the generic computer component (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”) does not add a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). As such, similar to claim 1, claims 3-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 10, similar to claim 1, the step of “determining the at least one slot used as the at least one start transmission position in the first RV based on the indication information”, but for the recitation of generic computer component(s) (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. As such claim 10, similar to claim 1, is directed to an abstract idea (i.e., “mental processes”).
Finally, there are no additional elements in the claim that add significantly more to the abstract idea. As noted above, the use of generic computer component(s) (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”) do not add significantly more to the claim (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). Moreover, the further limitation “receiving indication information sent by a network device”, written at a high-level of generality, is analogous to generic data gathering step (see MPEP §2106.05(g)), which even in combination with the generic computer components (i.e., terminal device) does not add a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., “mental processes”). As such claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As per claim 11, similar to claim 1, the steps of “obtaining an enabling signaling” and “determining a number of slots used as the as at least one starting transmission position in the first RV based on the enable signaling”, but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “…performed by a terminal device”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind. Moreover, there are no additional elements that add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception.
Alternatively, for purposes of Step 2A, prong 2A and/or Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, even considering the step of “obtaining an enabling signaling” as an additional element, as opposed to a mental process step. Similar to the analysis of claim 10 above, “Obtaining an enabling signaling”, written at a high-level of generality, is analogous to a generic data gathering step, which even in combination with the use of generic processing components (i.e., terminal device) does not add a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05(f), §2106.05(g), and §2106.05(d), i.e., “receiving or transmitting data over a network”). As such, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12, unlike claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11, adds the further step of “sending remaining encoded data to a network device starting from encoded data corresponding to a slot where the start transmission position is located” which is not capable of being performed as mental process. Moreover, in combination with the mental process “determining” steps, provides an improvement to the functioning of the terminal device/apparatus (i.e., “…data transmission delay is shortened and data transmission reliability is improved”, see ¶0003 of Applicant’s specification). As such claim 12, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 13, 15-19 and 27-28, are directed to substantially identical subject matter as claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11, which, but for the recitation of generic computer components (see claims 13-19: “…performed by a network device”; see claims 27-28: “…a processor and memory, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory”), could otherwise be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Moreover, for reasons noted above, there are no additional elements that add a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception. As such, similar to claim 1, 3-7, and 9-11, claims 13, 15-19 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-6, 10-18, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (US 2022/0312442)(“Yang”).
As per claim 1, Yang teaches a method for determining a start transmission position of a transport block (TB), performed by a terminal device (i.e., UE, see for example ¶0004), comprising:
determining a redundancy version (RV) sequence of more than one slot (i.e., set of slots) for transmitting a same TB within a configured grant (CG) period (i.e., “the UE may determine a set of slots that are available for uplink transmissions in the uplink grant period. Based on the set of slots, the UE may determine a corresponding RV for repetitions of the uplink communication associated with each slot”, see abstract, which implies repetitions of the same TB within the grant period, also see ¶0100, i.e., “K repetitions of a TB” and/or “a same TB may be transmitted with repetitions that span from one period of uplink grant period resources 400…”, which provides further support for the uplink communication being associated with a same TB); and
determining at least one start transmission position of the TB from the more than one slot corresponding to the RV sequence (see Fig. 16, ref. 1625, also see ¶0093, i.e., “the initial transmission of a transport block (TB) may only be started in the first occasion of the K repetitions”).
As per claim 2, Yang further teaches:
repeatedly transmitting the TB within the CG period based on the at least one start transmission position (i.e., “Based on the set of slots, the UE may determine a corresponding RV for repetitions of the uplink communication associated with each slot”, see abstract, which implies repetitions of the same TB within the grant period, also see ¶0100, i.e., “K repetitions of a TB” and/or “a same TB may be transmitted with repetitions that span from one period of uplink grant period resources 400…”).
As per claim 3, Yang further teaches:
determining a first RV in the RV sequence (i.e., RV0, see ¶0095); and
determining, from more than one slot used for each transmission of the TB and corresponding to the first RV, at least one slot as the at least one start transmission position (see Fig. 16, ref. 1625, also see ¶0093, i.e., “the initial transmission of a transport block (TB) may only be started in the first occasion of the K repetitions”).
As per claim 4, Yang further teaches wherein determining, from the more than one slot used for each transmission of the TB and corresponding to the first RV, the at least one slot as the at least one start transmission position comprises:
determining a first slot used for each transmission of the TB and corresponding to the first RV as the at least one start transmission position (see ¶0095, e.g., “the slots that correspond to RV0 are slots 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28”).
As per claim 5, Yang further teaches:
determining the first slot corresponding to each of first RVs other than a first RV which is the last one in the RV sequence as the at least one start transmission position, wherein the RV sequence comprises only the first RVs (see ¶0095, “…it can start from any occasion associated with RV0, in other words, “the slots that correspond to RV0 are slots 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28”); or
determining the first slot corresponding to at least one first RV as the at least one start transmission position (see ¶0095, i.e., “slots 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28”), wherein the RV sequence comprises the at least one first RV and at least one other RV (see ¶0095, i.e., “For example, the UE may be configured with a repetition number of 32 and RV sequence of [0,2,3,1]”).
As per claim 6, Yang further teaches:
determining at least one slot used as the at least one start transmission position and corresponding to the first RV based on at least one of a number of slots occupied by each transmission of the TB (see Fig. 16, ref. 1625, also see ¶0093, i.e., “the initial transmission of a transport block (TB) may only be started in the first occasion of the K repetitions”) or a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) parameter (see also ¶0092).
As per claim 10, Yang further teaches:
receiving indication information sent by a network device (see ¶0095, i.e., “the base station may configure the UE to start configured grant repetitions from a subset of slots…”, also see ¶0096-0097, i.e., base station may provide one or more configured grants to a UE … the uplink grand period resources 400 may include a set of slots…”); and
determining the at least one slot used as the at least one start transmission position in the first RV based on the indication information. Id.
As per claim 11, Yang further teaches:
obtaining an enable signaling (see ¶0095, i.e., “the base station may configure the UE to start configured grant repetitions from a subset of slots…”, also see ¶0096-0097, i.e., base station may provide one or more configured grants to a UE … the uplink grand period resources 400 may include a set of slots…”); and
determining a number of slots used as the at least one starting transmission position in the first RV based on the enable signaling. Id.
As per claim 12, Yang further teaches:
determining encoded data of data (i.e., uplink communication) to be transmitted on each slot in the first RV (see abstract, i.e., “the UE may determine a corresponding RV for repetitions of the uplink communication associated with each slot”); and
sending remaining encoded data to a network device starting from encoded data corresponding to a slot where the start transmission position is located (see ¶0095, e.g., slots “4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28”).
Claims 13-18, 27, and 28 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-6 and 10-12 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 taught by the above cited art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, and 19 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Qualcomm Inc., "TB Processing over Multi-Slot PUSCH", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #104c, R1-2101478, (January 25-February 5, 2021)(“R1-2101478”) and Nhan et al. (US 2022/0321269)(“Nhan”), are representative of the prior art at the earliest effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention. R1-2101478 describes multi-slot TB transmission using scaling (see i.e., “we propose to alter Step 3 and introduce a scale factor S, so that the intermediate information bits
N
i
n
f
o
is computed as
S
*
N
R
E
*
R
*
Q
m
*
ν
,
where
S
is a scale factor taking values greater than or equal to 1”). Similarly, Nhan teaches multi-slot TB transmission using scaling that is tied to, inter alia, MCS (e.g., “the value of a may be determined based on a ratio between the number of bits that can be conveyed per slot/PUSCH segment (i.e., G) and the TBS”, where impliedly is tied to MCS).
Although both R1-2101478 and Nahn describe the use of a scaling factor, they are with respect to mapping RVs to bits from the circular buffer (see for example, Fig. 3, R1-2101478), without regard to transmission slots within a configuration grant (CG) period as claimed, and thus do not anticipate or render obvious, in the specific combinations and manner recited within the claims, the features of: “determining the at least one slot [within the configured grant (CG) period] used as the at least one start transmission position based on the number of slots occupied by each transmission of the TB and the position determination scaling factor” as currently claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441