DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
Priority
No domestic benefit or foreign priority is claimed by this Application, which was filed on 12 Jun 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 12 Jun 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, the Reply contends Yunusov fails to teach “decoding the message based at least in part on uniform puncturing distribution of the puncturing scheme as generally recited in amended claim 1.” Reply, 9. The Reply notes that the Non-final Rejection’s citation to figure 6 and paragraph 114 of Yunusov “show[] an example decoding scheme that supports transmission puncturing schemes for rateless coding,” but that the Non-Final Rejection is “without citation to a uniform puncturing scheme in Yunusov.” Id. at 10. The Examiner asserts that the word “uniform” need not be present in Yunusov in order for it to teach a uniform puncturing distribution and the Applicant’s own disclosure supports the Examiner’s assertion.
In the disclosure, figure 4 is described as “an example of a puncturing scheme 400 that supports improved puncturing scheme for spinal codes.” Spec., ¶96. The disclosure further describes figure as “a puncturing scheme that uniformly the [sic] punctured symbols 415.” Spec., ¶104 (emphasis added). Figure 5 of Yunusov appears to show the same “uniformity” as figure 4 of the disclosure. In particular, the same symbols or spines are untransmitted or punctured in both figures. Yunusov, ¶110. Because the disclosure describes figure 4 as a “uniform” puncturing, the Examiner contends the puncturing in figure 5 of Yunusov is also “uniform.”
Regarding claim 9, the Reply includes an additional argument besides the one addressed for claim 1. Reply, 10-11. Specifically, the Reply notes that “[w]hile Popov discloses comparing average rates among different puncturing factors . . . and patterns, Popov is silent with respect to puncturing factor[s] or patterns being based on an average number of consecutive punctured symbols.” Reply, 11 (emphasis added). This argument is persuasive. The prior art does not teach a uniform puncturing distribution based on the average number of consecutive punctured symbols. As a result, claims 9-13 and 22-26 are allowed.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18-20, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yunusov (US 20230155719).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Yunusov teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to execute a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Yunusov, ¶65 – UE 115 may be the receiving device 210; Yunusov, figure 10 – components of a network device such as UE 115), comprising:
receiving, from a network entity, an indication of a puncturing scheme for a spinal coding scheme based at least in part on a capability of the UE (Yunusov, figure 2 – receiving device 210 receives a puncturing scheme indication 225 from transmitting device 205; Yunusov, ¶110 – puncturing scheme is chosen in accordance with the capabilities or channel conditions; Yunusov, ¶161 – the puncturing scheme is in accordance with the indication of a coding index [element 230 in figure 2] provided by the receiving device),
wherein the puncturing scheme indicates a uniform puncturing distribution for one or more symbols of one or more spines of the spinal coding scheme (Yunusov, ¶¶76, 135 – puncturing scheme for rateless coding, such as spinal coding; Yunusov, figure 5 – example of uniform puncturing scheme for rateless coding);
receiving, from the network entity, a message encoded according to the spinal coding scheme associated with the puncturing scheme (Yunusov, ¶76 – receiving device receives from transmitting device a message encoded according to the rateless coding scheme); and
decoding the message encoded according to the spinal coding scheme to obtain one or more message segments corresponding to the one or more symbols and to the one or more spines based at least in part on the uniform puncturing distribution of the puncturing scheme. Yunusov, ¶¶109, 118 (receiving device 210 decodes message 305, which includes segments 310); Yunusov, ¶¶114, 129 (during decoding shown in figure 6, which supports puncturing, the receiving device 210 generates candidate symbol values for each spine).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Yunusov also teaches receiving/outputting one of a radio resource control message or a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) indicating the puncturing scheme. Yunusov, ¶77 (RRC signaling used by transmitting device to indicate the puncturing scheme indication 225).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Yunusov also teaches puncturing the one or more symbols of the one or more spines of the spinal coding scheme (Yunusov, ¶¶115, 117 - during decoding shown in figure 6, which supports puncturing, the receiving device 210 generates candidate symbol values for each spine) based at least in part on a uniform puncturing distribution indicated by the puncturing scheme. Yunusov, figure 6 (transmitted spines are uniformly distributed across each transmission occasion by interleaving).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Yunusov also teaches puncturing the one or more symbols of the one or more spines of the spinal coding scheme based at least in part on a puncturing prioritization associated with the uniform puncturing distribution. Yunusov, ¶111 (in the beginning, transmissions with spine indices of 8, 16, 24, and 32 are prioritized for transmission in figure 5).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Yunusov also teaches wherein the puncturing prioritization comprises a prioritization of at least one symbol associated with a beginning of the one or more spines. Yunusov, ¶111 (symbol values 330 are prioritized because they are part of the initial [i.e. beginning] transmission occasion 335-b-1 in figure 5 with spine indices of 8, 16, 24, and 32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 3, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunusov (US 20230155719) in view of Kutz (US 2023/0155728).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Yunusov teaches the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach “transmitting/obtaining an indication of a capability of the UE to decode the message according to one or more puncturing schemes for the spinal coding scheme, wherein the indication of the puncturing scheme for the spinal coding scheme is based at least in part on the capability of the UE.” However, Kutz teaches a UE indicating, to a transmitting device, its search and scanning capabilities, such as k – the quantity of bits per coding index. Kutz, ¶83. Kutz is similarly related to a puncturing scheme for a rateless code. Kutz, ¶74. At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to consider UE capabilities, as taught by Kutz, when determining which rateless coding and puncturing schemes to use for encoding, as taught by Yunusov, in order to ensure the transmitting device encodes a message in accordance with the capability of the receiving device (Kutz, ¶83), which reduces the likelihood of an unsuccessful transmission.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the combination of Yunusov and Kutz also teaches the following:
receiving/outputting, based at least in part on the capability of the UE, an indication of a second puncturing scheme for the spinal coding scheme different from the puncturing scheme (Yunusov, ¶81 – puncturing indication 225 may provide an updated puncturing scheme from the ordered list of puncturing schemes; Kutz, ¶83 – UE capabilities, which limit what coding/puncturing);
transmitting/receiving a second message encoded according to the spinal coding scheme in accordance with the second puncturing scheme (Yunusov, ¶78 – transmitting device encodes a retransmission selected in accordance with the ordered list); and
outputting/decoding the second message according to the spinal coding scheme based at least in part on a second puncturing distribution of the second puncturing scheme. Yunusov, ¶82 (receiving device 210 decodes the retransmission using the updated or modified puncturing scheme).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yunusov (US 20230155719) in view of Popov, Nikita, “The Tradeoff of Latency, Reliability, and Rate for Spinal Codes,” Master Thesis for Technical University of Berlin, August 2018, pg. 1-52, available at https://www.npopov.com/pdf/thesis_cs_master_spinal_codes.pdf.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Yunusov teaches the UE of claim 1, and the methods of claim 14, but does not explicitly teach “wherein the puncturing distribution is based at least in part on an average number of consecutive punctured symbols, an average number of spines of the spinal coding scheme, a growth factor associated with one or more puncturing locations, or a combination thereof.” However, Popov teaches an “average rate of spinal codes . . . for different puncturing factors and patterns.” Popov, pg. 18 (describing figure 2.4). The puncturing factor is the number of symbols punctured in each subpass. Id. at pg. 17 (last paragraph). At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to puncture spinal coding symbols, as taught by Yunusov, based in part on the average spinal coding rate, in order to achieve good data rates at high SNR. Id. at pg. 18 (p = 8 is found to be the reasonable choice).
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 BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights