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 .
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
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.
Reissue Applications
The instant application is a broadening reissue of U.S. Patent No. 11,362,767 (hereinafter the ‘767 patent), granted on 14 June 2022. In response to the previous office action, claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 15-17, 27, and 29-33 have been amended and claims 4, 5, 8-11, 13, 14, and 18-26 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 15-17, and 27-33 have been examined.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘767 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue declaration is objected to because the claim cited as correcting a defect in the declaration has been amended to no longer correct that defect. Because the original reissue declaration as filed was valid, it would now be sufficient for Applicant to correct this deficiency by simply stating a new corrected error (the identified correction should be broadening in scope) in the Attorney’s arguments.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a processor configured to evaluate…; to cause…” in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 173 because of the following informalities:
The claim should be marked against the original patent, rather than the previous version of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 30 and 32 are objected to because a comma is immediately followed by a semi-colon in lines 11 and 13 (in claim 30) and lines 12 and 14 (in claim 32).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 15-17, and 27-33 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the reissue declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
The previous indications of allowable subject matter are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the previously allowable claims.
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)(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 1-3, 6, 7, 12, 16, 17, and 27, 28, and 30-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0287746 to Bergström et al. (hereinafter Bergström).
As per claim 1, Bergström discloses a user device, UE (see paragraph 78), comprising:
an antenna (see paragraph 78);
a transceiver coupled to the antenna (see paragraph 78-79 and figures 7-8), the transceiver configured to receive from a base station of a wireless communication network a data block (HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner), the data block comprising encoded data transmitted on a plurality of resources allocated to the UE (is feedback for multiple HARQ processes, see paragraph 46), and a report indicating for one or more of the plurality of the allocated resources that encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources is not decodable (see paragraph 61);
a decoder configured to decode the encoded data and to determine for the allocated resources whether decoding of the encoded data was successful or failed (since the received report is acted upon, it must have been successfully decoded, see paragraph 64); and
a processor configured to
evaluate whether the one or more of the allocated resources for which the decoding failed are comprised in the report (see paragraph 64), and
to cause the transceiver to send a retransmission request to the base station responsive to the evaluation (see paragraph 64),
wherein the retransmission request is a one bit message (single bit NACK in use of Fast HARQ component for feedback/retransmissions on same fast HARQ process, see paragraphs 48, 55, 56, 64, 70 figures 2 and 5), and
wherein, in case the decoding failed for one or more of the resources included in the report, the processor is configured to cause the transceiver to send a first one bit message to the base station, the first one bit message initiating a retransmission or additional redundancy for the encoded data transmitted on the one or more resources included in the report (fast HARQ after each transmission, see paragraph 49).
As per claim 2, Bergström discloses the UE cannot decode data in case the one or more allocated resources experience one or more impairments by the base station and/or by the one or more further base stations of the wireless communication network (cannot decode due to Signal-to-Interference and Noise-Ratio, SINR, see paragraphs 61-62).
As per claim 3, Bergström discloses the one or more impairments comprise puncturing, interference or a reduction of a signal strength caused by the base station and/or by the one or more further base stations of the wireless communication network (SINR can come from any source, including the base stations, see paragraphs 61-62; the claim language does not specify that such interference must be specifically identified as being caused by the base station).
As per claim 6, Bergström discloses in case the decoding failed for one or more allocated resources of the plurality of resources not comprised in the report, the processor is configured to cause the transceiver to send a further retransmission request to the base station, the further retransmission request causing the base station to transmit a retransmission or additional redundancy for encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources not comprised in the report for which the decoding failed or for the data block (feedback may be based on accumulated amount of bits, causing retransmission request, see paragraphs 61-62).
As per claim 7, Bergström discloses in case the decoding was successful for all resources of the data block, the processor is configured to cause the transceiver to send a second one bit message to the base station to acknowledge correct reception of the data block to the base station (ACK may be sent, see paragraph 62).
As per claim 12, Bergström discloses the processor is configured to cause the transceiver to send a report request to the base station following the decoding of the data block and prior to determining for the allocated resources whether decoding of the encoded data was successful or failed, or in case decoding failed for one or more of the resources of the data block, and the report request causes the base station to transmit the report to the UE (sending of ACK/NACK, upon decoding, resulting in retransmission if NACK, see paragraphs 62 and 64).
As per claim 16, Bergström discloses the UE operates in accordance with a Hybrid Automatic Repeat reQuest (HARQ) process, a predictive HARQ process or an early HARQ process, and the retransmission request comprises a request for information to correct decoding failures (use of HARQ and fast HARQ, as discussed in base claim 1).
As per claim 17, Bergström discloses a base station comprising:
an antenna (see paragraph 79); and
a transceiver coupled to the antenna, the transceiver configured to communicate with one or more user devices, UEs, of a wireless communication network, the one or more UEs served by the base station (see figures 2 and 8 and paragraph 79),
wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit to the one or more UEs a report, the report indicating for one or more of a plurality of resources allocated for transmitting to the one or more UEs that encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources is not decodable at the one or more UEs (HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner),
wherein the transceiver is configured to transmit a data block to one of the plurality of UEs, the data block including encoded data transmitted on a plurality of resources allocated to the UE (see paragraphs 61 and 68);
wherein the transceiver is configured to receive from the UE, responsive to the transmission of the data block, a retransmission request (see paragraph 64);
wherein the retransmission request is a one bit message, and wherein, in case the decoding failed for one or more of the resources included in the report, the retransmission request includes a first one bit message, the first one bit message initiating a retransmission or additional redundancy for the encoded data transmitted on the one or more resources included in the report (fast HARQ after each transmission, see paragraph 49).
As per claim 27, Bergström discloses a communication network comprising, over and above the UE of claim 1, one or more base stations, wherein the one or more base stations are configured to transmit to the one or more UEs the report (see figure 2; also, HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner.
As per claim 28, Bergström discloses the communication network comprises a wired communication network, a wireless communication network, a cellular network, a wireless local area network or a wireless sensor system (see paragraph 23).
As per claim 30, Bergström discloses a method, comprising
receiving from a base station of a wireless communication network a data block, the data block comprising encoded data transmitted on a plurality of resources allocated to a user device, UE, and a report indicating for one or more of the plurality of the allocated resources that encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources is not decodable (HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner);
decoding the encoded data (since the received report is acted upon, it must have been successfully decoded, see paragraphs 61 and 64);
determining for the allocated resources whether decoding of the encoded data was successful or failed (see paragraph 61);
evaluating whether the one or more of the allocated resources for which the decoding failed are comprised in the report (ACK/NACK test, see paragraph 62); and
sending a retransmission request to the base station responsive to the evaluation, wherein the retransmission request is a one bit message (single bit NACK in use of Fast HARQ component for feedback/retransmissions on same fast HARQ process, see paragraphs 48, 55, 56, 64, 70 figures 2 and 5), and
wherein, in case the decoding failed for one or more of the resources included in the report, the method comprises sending a first one bit message to the base station, the first one bit message initiating a retransmission or additional redundancy for the encoded data transmitted on the one or more resources included in the report (optional limitations in method claims lack patentable weight; however, this is nonetheless disclosed, i.e. fast HARQ after each transmission, see paragraph 49).
As per claim 31, Bergström discloses a method comprising
communicating with one or more user devices, UEs, of a wireless communication network, the one or more UEs served by a base station (see figure 2);
wherein communicating with one or more UEs comprises transmitting to the one or more UEs a report, the report indicating for one or more of a plurality of resources allocated for transmitting to the one or more UEs that encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources is not decodable at the one or more UEs (HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner),
transmitting a data block to one of the plurality of UEs, the data block including encoded data transmitted on a plurality of resources allocated to the UE (is feedback for multiple HARQ processes, see paragraph 46); and
receiving from the UE, responsive to the transmission of the data block, a retransmission request (see paragraph 64),
wherein the retransmission request is a one bit message (single bit NACK in use of Fast HARQ component for feedback/retransmissions on same fast HARQ process, see paragraphs 48, 55, 56, 64, 70 figures 2 and 5), and
wherein, in case the decoding failed for one or more of the resources included in the report, the retransmission request includes a first one bit message, the first one bit message initiating a retransmission or additional redundancy for the encoded data transmitted on the one or more resources included in the report (optional limitations in method claims lack patentable weight; however, this is nonetheless disclosed, i.e. fast HARQ after each transmission, see paragraph 49).
As per claim 32, Bergström discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program (see paragraph 78) for performing a method, comprising
receiving from a base station of a wireless communication network a data block, the data block comprising encoded data transmitted on a plurality of resources allocated to a user device, UE, and a report indicating for one or more of the plurality of the allocated resources that encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources is not decodable (HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner);
decoding the encoded data; determining for the allocated resources whether decoding of the encoded data was successful or failed (since the received report is acted upon, it must have been successfully decoded, see paragraph 64);
evaluating whether the one or more of the allocated resources for which the decoding failed are comprised in the report (see paragraph 64); and
sending a retransmission request to the base station responsive to the evaluation (see paragraph 64)
wherein the retransmission request is a one bit message (single bit NACK in use of Fast HARQ component for feedback/retransmissions on same fast HARQ process, see paragraphs 48, 55, 56, 64, 70 figures 2 and 5), and
wherein, in case the decoding failed for one or more of the resources included in the report, the method comprises sending a first one bit message to the base station, the first one bit message initiating a retransmission or additional redundancy for the encoded data transmitted on the one or more resources included in the report (fast HARQ after each transmission, see paragraph 49), when said computer program is run by a computer (see paragraph 78).
As per claim 33, Bergström discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having stored thereon a computer program (see paragraph 78) for performing a method, comprising
communicating with one or more user devices, UEs, of a wireless communication network, the one or more UEs served by a base station (HARQ feedback, see figure 2 and paragraphs 28 and 46, is sent to the UE (the DL direction) in the primary embodiment, see paragraph 52; however, Bergström discloses that the invention may be implemented in the opposite (UL) direction, see paragraph 53, thus, the UE, receiving from a base station, is also disclosed as being covered by this disclosure in the corresponding manner);
wherein the communicating with one or more UEs comprises
transmitting to the one or more UEs a report indicating for one or more of a plurality of resources (is feedback for multiple HARQ processes, see paragraph 46) allocated for transmitting to the one or more UEs that encoded data transmitted on the one or more allocated resources is not decodable at the one or more UEs (see paragraph 61),
transmitting a data block to one of the plurality of UEs, the data block including encoded data transmitted on a plurality of resources allocated to the UE (is feedback for multiple HARQ processes, see paragraph 46); and
receiving from the UE, responsive to the transmission of the data block, a retransmission request, wherein the retransmission request is a one bit message (single bit NACK in use of Fast HARQ component for feedback/retransmissions on same fast HARQ process, see paragraphs 48, 55, 56, 64, 70 figures 2 and 5), and
wherein, in case the decoding failed for one or more of the resources included in the report, the retransmission request includes a first one bit message, the first one bit message initiating a retransmission or additional redundancy for the encoded data transmitted on the one or more resources included in the report (optional limitations in method claims lack patentable weight; however, this is nonetheless disclosed, i.e. fast HARQ after each transmission, see paragraph 49),
when said computer program is run by a computer (see paragraph 78).
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.
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 15 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergström as applied to claims 1 and 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0181986 to Kitamura et al. (hereinafter Kitamura)
Regarding claim 15, Bergström discloses the data block is defined by a plurality of symbols in time domain (using TDD, time division duplex, see paragraph 48) and by a plurality of sub-carriers in frequency domain (frequency division duplex, FDD, see paragraph 72), and that the data is organized in transport blocks (TB, see paragraphs 69-70), but does not state that the encoded data transmitted on the plurality of resources allocated to the UE comprises a plurality of code blocks (CBs) or a plurality of code block groups (CBGs).
Kitamura discloses an analogous invention for controlling radio communication systems (see abstract) in which HARQ is performed on a per TB basis (see paragraph 7), wherein each TB may be subdivided into smaller units, such as CBs or CBGs, in order to improve efficiency of the use of radio resources (see paragraph 47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Bergström by allocating blocks according to CBs and CBGs, as per Kitamura, in order to improve efficiency of the use of radio resources.
Regarding claim 29, Bergström does not disclose that the communication network is configured to use an Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) based signal for transmissions between the one or more UEs and the one or more base stations, and wherein the IFFT based signal comprises Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM) with Cyclic Prefix (CP), Discrete Fourier Transform-spread-OFDM (DFT-s-OFDM) with CP, IFFT-based waveforms without CP, filtered OFDM (f-OFDM), Filter-Bank MultiCarrier (FBMC), Generalized Frequency Division Multiplexing (GFDM) or Universal Filtered Multi Carrier (UFMC).
Kitamura further discloses the communication network uses an IFFT (see paragraphs 193 and 222) and includes the use of OFDM (see paragraph 186) with CPs (see paragraph 270) and/or DFT processing (see paragraphs 197 and 222), as these are commonly-used protocols in the art.
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 MATTHEW E HENEGHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Fuelling can be reached at (571)270-1367. 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.
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Ovidio Escalante/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992