FINAL REJECTION
This Office action is responsive to the amendment and response (“Amendment”) filed March 18, 2026.
The instant 18/749,242 application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent 11,368,256 to Li et al. “the ‘256 Patent”), which issued June 21, 2022 from U.S. Patent Application Ser. No. 16/698,190, filed November 27, 2019 as a continuation application PCT/CN2018/089637, filed June 1, 2018. The ‘256 Patent claims priority to CN201710409942.9, filed June 2, 2017.
Claims 1-22 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application, claims 1, 7, 13, and 18 are amended, claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-17, and 19-22 are canceled, and claims 23-34 are added. In the Amendment, claims 18 and 32-34 are further canceled. Thus claims 1, 7, 13, and 23-31 are pending and are rejected below.
This action is Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘256 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘593 Patent.
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 ‘256 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, 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.
Because the instant ‘593 Patent is not deemed to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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 Declaration
The supplemental declaration of March 18, 2026 is objected to for the following:
As per 37 CFR 1.175(b), a declaration in a reissue which intends to present broadened claims, as is the case here, must identify a broadened claim. The statement in the supplemental Declaration states an error correctable by reissue in issued claims 1 and 7, however, no actual broadened claim is identified. The Examiner suggests appending “These limitations have been removed from independent claims 1 and 7.” to the end of the existing statement.
A proper declaration meeting Rule 175 is required in response to this Office action. See also MPEP § 1414.
Claim Rejections - § 251
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 23-31 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 in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
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 1, 7, 13, and 23-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over U.S. Patent PGPUB 2018/0123765A1 to Cao et al. (“Cao”) in view of U.S. Patent PGPUB 2021/0289488A1 to Cheng et al. (“Cheng”) (both of record) and U.S. Patent PGPUB 2013/0182653A1 to Earnshaw et al. (“Earnshaw”) (newly cited).
As to claim 1, Cao discloses:
A method, comprising:
sending, by a terminal device, autonomous uplink control information (AUL-UCI) on AUL physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) […];
sending, by the terminal device, a first data packet to a network device in a first transmission time interval (TTI) and in an AUL transmission manner on uplink shared channel (UL-SCH), wherein the first data packet […] correspond to a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process;
Cao discloses a terminal device sending grant-free uplink data and control information to a network in an uplink data channel. Cao at ¶¶45 and 48 and at FIG 1, UE 102. This reads autonomous as the ‘256 Patent states that grant-free and autonomous are synonyms for the same thing. ‘256 Patent at Background (“[c]urrently, a scheduling-free-based grant free uplink (GUL) transmission mechanism, or referred to as an autonomous uplink (AUL) transmission mechanism is known”).
The data is sent in a first TTI and corresponds to a HARQ process. Id. at ¶¶64-68 and 93 (“based on the subframe or TTI used by the UE to send the grant-free uplink transmission”).
receiving, by the terminal device, uplink (UL) grant, wherein the UL grant is for the terminal device to send a second data packet in a second TTI, the second data packet corresponds to the HARQ process, and the TTI is located after the first TTI in time;
Cao discloses receiving by the UE an UL grant to send a second data packet in a second, later TTI, the second data packet corresponding to the HARQ process. Cao at ¶¶100 and 110.
receiving, by the terminal device, second new data indication;
determining, by the terminal device, that a value of the second new data indication information has been toggled compared to a value of the first new data indication information, […];
in response to determining that the value of the second new data indication information has been toggled compared to the value of the first new data indication information, sending, by the terminal device, the second data packet as a new transmission, […]; and
Cao discloses receiving NDI from the network after the grant-free transmission, and determining if the second data is new transmission or retransmission based on the value of the NDI, and also discloses that if NDI has been toggled compared to a first NDI the terminal the second data is sent as new transmission and if it has not been toggled the second data is sent as retransmission. Cao at ¶1101. As the two limitations are written in alternate form (i.e. determining A or determining B and further limiting the first and second alternate functions), only the first determination and the subsequent function needs to be met by the prior art.
performing, by the terminal device, buffering processing on the first data packet or sending the second data packet […]
Cao discloses sending the second data packet in the alternate form limitation above. Cao at ¶110. In this case, the second data packet being a new transmission means “the second data packet is an initially transmitted data packet different from the first data packet” as further claimed.
wherein which of the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on the value of the first new data indication information and the value of the second new data indication information,
As noted above, the decision to send the second data packet is based on the values of the first and second NDI i.e. whether it has been toggled. Cao at ¶110. Further, Cao discloses that when the second data packet is to be sent as a retransmission, that is, resending the first data packet, said packet will be buffered until an ACK arrives which will flush the buffer. Cao at ¶211.
However, Cao does not disclose that the first NDI was associated with the grant-free communication by the terminal.
Further, Cao does not disclose that whether the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by the UL grant.
As to NDI associated with grant-free communication, Cheng teaches an analogous art, namely sending grant free uplink control information (G-UCI) in an autonomous uplink system similar to Cao. Cheng at ¶¶133 and ¶138 and at FIG 11 (1125). Cheng teaches sending, by a user equipment (UE) 115 to a base station 105, uplink control information associated with grant-less uplink transmissions, wherein the G-UCI includes a first new data indication information (NDI). Id. Further, Cheng discloses the network sending NDI information back to the UE for the purposes of HARQ ACK/NACK feedback. Id. at ¶130. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the NDI bit is used for HARQ feedback by comparing it to previous values to determine new or retransmission.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cao by including first new data indication information in the grant free uplink control information as taught by Cheng because efficient coordination and control channel configurations improve autonomous uplink communications. Cheng at ¶4. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to whether the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by the UL grant, Earnshaw discloses an analogous invention, namely a retransmission system for a data packet using a HARQ process. Earnshaw at FIG 6 and ¶¶3-6. Earnshaw specifies that the determination of whether a second data packet is to be considered a new transmission of a retransmission of an earlier (first) data packet is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by an UL grant. Id. at Abstract and at ¶¶14, 24, 112, and claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cao by comparing the TBS of the data packets as taught by Earnshaw because it can help avoid missed detection. Earnshaw at ¶¶5-6 and 146. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 23:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the value of the second new data information has been toggled compared to the value of the first new data information means the value of the second new data information is different from the value of the first new data information.
Cao discloses that “toggled” means the value is different. Cao at ¶110. Further, Earnshaw specifically refers to the toggling of the NDI throughout his disclosure.
Further as to claim 24:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the value of the second new data information has not been toggled compared to the value of the first new data information means the value of the second new data information is same as the value of the first new data information.
Since Cao discloses that “toggled” means the value is different, “not toggled” means they are the same. Cao at ¶110.
Further as to claim 25:
The method according to claim 1, wherein for the AUL transmission manner, AUL resource is allocated to the terminal device in a semi-persistent manner.
Cao discloses the grant-free resource may be used in a semi-persistent manner. Cao at ¶¶71, 112, and 173.
As to claim 7, Cao discloses:
An apparatus, comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the processor, the programming including instructions that instruct the processor to:
Cao discloses a UE comprising a processor and memory for instructing the processor. Cao at FIG 1 element 102 and FIG 2 element 212, and at ¶41.
send autonomous uplink control information (AUL-UCI) on AUL physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), […];
send a first data packet to a network device in a first transmission time interval (TTI) in an AUL transmission manner on uplink shared channel (UL-SCH), wherein the first data packet […] correspond to a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process;
Cao discloses a terminal device sending grant-free uplink data and control information to a network in an uplink data channel. Cao at ¶¶45 and 48 and at FIG 1, UE 102. This reads autonomous as the ‘256 Patent states that grant-free and autonomous are synonyms for the same thing. ‘256 Patent at Background (“[c]urrently, a scheduling-free-based grant free uplink (GUL) transmission mechanism, or referred to as an autonomous uplink (AUL) transmission mechanism is known”).
The data is sent in a first TTI and corresponds to a HARQ process. Id. at ¶¶64-68 and 93 (“based on the subframe or TTI used by the UE to send the grant-free uplink transmission”).
receive uplink (UL) grant, wherein the UL grant is for the apparatus to send a second data packet in a second TTI, the second data packet corresponds to the HARQ process, the second TTI is located after the first TTI in time;
Cao discloses receiving by the UE an UL grant to send a second data packet in a second, later TTI, the second data packet corresponding to the HARQ process. Cao at ¶¶100 and 110.
receive second new data indication;
determine that a value of the second new data indication information has been toggled compared to a value of the first new data indication information, […];
in response to the value of the second new data indication being determined to have been toggled compared to the value of the first new data indication information, sending, by the terminal device, the second data packet as a new transmission, […]; and
Cao discloses receiving NDI from the network after the grant-free transmission, and determining if the second data is new transmission or retransmission based on the value of the NDI, and also discloses that if NDI has been toggled compared to a first NDI the terminal the second data is sent as new transmission and if it has not been toggled the second data is sent as retransmission. Cao at ¶1102. As the two limitations are written in alternate form (i.e. determining A or determining B and further limiting the first and second alternate functions), only the first determination and the subsequent function needs to be met by the prior art.
perform buffering processing on the first data packet or sending the second data packet […]
Cao discloses sending the second data packet in the alternate form limitation above. Cao at ¶110. In this case, the second data packet being a new transmission means “the second data packet is an initially transmitted data packet different from the first data packet” as further claimed.
wherein which of the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on the value of the first new data indication information and the value of the second new data indication information,
As noted above, the decision to send the second data packet is based on the values of the first and second NDI i.e. whether it has been toggled. Cao at ¶110. Further, Cao discloses that when the second data packet is to be sent as a retransmission, that is, resending the first data packet, said packet will be buffered until an ACK arrives which will flush the buffer. Cao at ¶211.
However, Cao does not disclose that the first NDI was associated with the grant-free communication by the terminal.
Further, Cao does not disclose that whether the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by the UL grant.
As to NDI associated with grant-free communication, Cheng teaches an analogous art, namely sending grant free uplink control information (G-UCI) in an autonomous uplink system similar to Cao. Cheng at ¶¶133 and ¶138 and at FIG 11 (1125). Cheng teaches sending, by a user equipment (UE) 115 to a base station 105, uplink control information associated with grant-less uplink transmissions, wherein the G-UCI includes a first new data indication information (NDI). Id. Further, Cheng discloses the network sending NDI information back to the UE for the purposes of HARQ ACK/NACK feedback. Id. at ¶130. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the NDI bit is used for HARQ feedback by comparing it to previous values to determine new or retransmission.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cao by including first new data indication information in the grant free uplink control information as taught by Cheng because efficient coordination and control channel configurations improve autonomous uplink communications. Cheng at ¶4. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to whether the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by the UL grant, Earnshaw discloses an analogous invention, namely a retransmission system for a data packet using a HARQ process. Earnshaw at FIG 6 and ¶¶3-6. Earnshaw specifies that the determination of whether a second data packet is to be considered a new transmission of a retransmission of an earlier (first) data packet is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by an UL grant. Id. at Abstract and at ¶¶14, 24, 112, and claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cao by comparing the TBS of the data packets as taught by Earnshaw because it can help avoid missed detection. Earnshaw at ¶¶5-6 and 146. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 26:
The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the value of the second new data information has been toggled compared to the value of the first new data information means the value of the second new data information is different from the value of the first new data information.
Cao discloses that “toggled” means the value is different. Cao at ¶110. Further, Earnshaw specifically refers to the toggling of the NDI throughout his disclosure.
Further as to claim 27:
The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the value of the second new data information has not been toggled compared to the value of the first new data information means the value of the second new data information is same as the value of the first new data information.
Since Cao discloses that “toggled” means the value is different, “not toggled” means they are the same. Cao at ¶110.
Further as to claim 28:
The apparatus according to claim 7, wherein for the AUL transmission manner, AUL resource is allocated to the terminal device in a semi-persistent manner.
Cao discloses the grant-free resource may be used in a semi-persistent manner. Cao at ¶¶71, 112, and 173.
As to claim 13, Cao discloses:
A method, comprising:
receiving, by a network device, autonomous uplink control information (AUL-UCIT) on AUL physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) […];
receiving, by the network device, a first data packet from a terminal device in a first transmission time interval (TTI) and in an AUL transmission manner on uplink shared channel (UL-SCH), wherein the first data packet […] correspond to a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process;
Cao discloses a network device receiving grant-free uplink data and control information from a terminal over an uplink data channel (reads PUSCH). Cao at ¶¶45 and 48 and at FIG 1, UE 102. This reads autonomous as the ‘256 Patent states that grant-free and autonomous are synonyms for the same thing. ‘256 Patent at Background (“[c]urrently, a scheduling-free-based grant free uplink (GUL) transmission mechanism, or referred to as an autonomous uplink (AUL) transmission mechanism is known”).
The data is sent in a first TTI and corresponds to a HARQ process. Id. at ¶¶64-68 and 93 (“based on the subframe or TTI used by the UE to send the grant-free uplink transmission”).
sending, by the network device, uplink (UL) grant to the terminal device, wherein the UL grant is for the terminal device to send a second data packet in a second TTI, the second data packet corresponds to the HARQ process;
sending, by the network device, a second new data indication information; and
Cao discloses sending to the UE an UL grant to send a second data packet in a second, later TTI, the second data packet corresponding to the HARQ process. Cao at ¶¶100 and 110. It further includes sending a new NDI. Id.
receiving, by the network device, the second data packet,
determining, by the terminal device, that a value of the second new data indication information has been toggled compared to a value of the first new data indication information, […];
in response to determining that the value of the second new data indication information has been toggled compared to the value of the first new data indication information, sending, by the terminal device, the second data packet as a new transmission, […]; and
Cao discloses receiving NDI from the network after the grant-free transmission, and determining if the second data is new transmission or retransmission based on the value of the NDI, and also discloses that if NDI has been toggled compared to a first NDI the terminal the second data is sent as new transmission and if it has not been toggled the second data is sent as retransmission. Cao at ¶1103. As the two limitations are written in alternate form (i.e. determining A or determining B and further limiting the first and second alternate functions), only the first determination and the subsequent function needs to be met by the prior art.
wherein whether the second data packet is a retransmitted data packet of the first data packet or an initially transmitted data packet is based on the value of the first new data indication information,
As noted above, the decision to send the second data packet is based on the values of the first and second NDI i.e. whether it has been toggled. Cao at ¶110. Further, Cao discloses that when the second data packet is to be sent as a retransmission, that is, resending the first data packet, said packet will be buffered until an ACK arrives which will flush the buffer. Cao at ¶211.
However, Cao does not disclose that the first NDI was associated with the grant-free communication by the terminal.
Further, Cao does not disclose that whether the buffering processing on the first data packet or the sending of the second data packet is performed is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by the UL grant.
As to NDI associated with grant-free communication, Cheng teaches an analogous art, namely sending grant free uplink control information (G-UCI) in an autonomous uplink system similar to Cao. Cheng at ¶¶133 and ¶138 and at FIG 11 (1125). Cheng teaches sending, by a user equipment (UE) 115 to a base station 105, uplink control information associated with grant-less uplink transmissions, wherein the G-UCI includes a first new data indication information (NDI). Id. Further, Cheng discloses the network sending NDI information back to the UE for the purposes of HARQ ACK/NACK feedback. Id. at ¶130. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the NDI bit is used for HARQ feedback by comparing it to previous values to determine new or retransmission.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cao by including first new data indication information in the grant free uplink control information as taught by Cheng because efficient coordination and control channel configurations improve autonomous uplink communications. Cheng at ¶4. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As to whether the second data packet is a retransmitted data packet or not is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by the UL grant, Earnshaw discloses an analogous invention, namely a retransmission system for a data packet using a HARQ process. Earnshaw at FIG 6 and ¶¶3-6. Earnshaw specifies that the determination of whether a second data packet is to be considered a new transmission of a retransmission of an earlier (first) data packet is based on determining whether the TBS corresponding to the first data packet is the same size as the TBS corresponding to the second data packet scheduled by an UL grant. Id. at Abstract and at ¶¶14, 24, 112, and claim 1.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Cao by comparing the TBS of the data packets as taught by Earnshaw because it can help avoid missed detection. Earnshaw at ¶¶5-6 and 146. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found such to merely be an example of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143, citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 29:
The method according to claim 13, wherein the value of the second new data information has been toggled compared to the value of the first new data information means the value of the second new data information is different from the value of the first new data information.
Cao discloses that “toggled” means the value is different. Cao at ¶110. Further, Earnshaw specifically refers to the toggling of the NDI throughout his disclosure.
Further as to claim 30:
The method according to claim 13, wherein the value of the second new data information has not been toggled compared to the value of the first new data information means the value of the second new data information is same as the value of the first new data information.
Since Cao discloses that “toggled” means the value is different, “not toggled” means they are the same. Cao at ¶110.
Further as to claim 31:
The method according to claim 13, wherein for the AUL transmission manner, AUL resource is allocated to the terminal device in a semi-persistent manner.
Cao discloses the grant-free resource may be used in a semi-persistent manner. Cao at ¶¶71, 112, and 173.
Response to Arguments
Patent Owner provides arguments in his response (“Remarks”).
As to previous rejections under § 251 (recapture, Remarks at 10-13 and 14), such is withdrawn in light of the Amendment.
As to previous rejections under § 251 (declaration, Remarks at 13), the Examiner notes the new reissue Declaration filed with the amendment is not sufficient for the reasons set forth above.
As to previous rejections under § 112(b) (Remarks at 13), the Examiner withdraws the rejection in light of the Amendment.
As to previous rejections under § 103 (Remarks at 14-15), the Examiner notes Patent Owner’s argument that Cao fails to disclose, inter alia, a TBS or comparing such. However, the Examiner notes the new ground of rejection above including this teaching.
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 Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ROBERT J HANCE/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 It is noted that “if the second NDI has been toggled compared to a value of the first NDI” is not described in the ‘256 Patent specification as an actual determination, but rather merely that if the value is different, the second data is treated as a new transmission. Here, Cao’s determination, in a grant-free initial uplink transmission embodiment, that a second NDI=1 would mean retransmission meets the claim as, if the initial first NDI is set to 1, the two would be the same.
2 See footnote 1.
3 See footnote 1.
Prosecution Insights