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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 1 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 1 of the instant Application is slightly broader than claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Therefore, Claim 1 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 2 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 2 of the instant Application has a different order of multiplexing. This is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to multiplex these three pieces of data; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. one combination of the three pieces of data each ordered differently); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing different ordering of the same data) Therefore, this is an obvious variant.
Claim 3 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 3 of the instant Application has a different order of multiplexing. This is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to multiplex these three pieces of data; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. one combination of the three pieces of data each ordered differently); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing different ordering of the same data) Therefore, this is an obvious variant.
Claim 4 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 4 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 5 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 5 of the instant Application is slightly broader than claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Therefore, Claim 5 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 6 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 6 of the instant Application has a different order of multiplexing. This is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to multiplex these three pieces of data; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. one combination of the three pieces of data each ordered differently); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing different ordering of the same data) Therefore, this is an obvious variant.
Claim 7 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 7 of the instant Application has a different order of multiplexing. This is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to multiplex these three pieces of data; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. one combination of the three pieces of data each ordered differently); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing different ordering of the same data) Therefore, this is an obvious variant.
Claim 8 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 8 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 9 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 9 of the instant Application is slightly broader than claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Therefore, Claim 9 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 10 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 10 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 11 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 11 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 12 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 12 of the instant Application is slightly broader than claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Therefore, Claim 12 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 13 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 13 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim 14 of the instant Application conflicts with claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438. Claim 14 of the instant Application is anticipated by claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,438.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5-8, 9-11, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites ‘the number of HARQ-ACK bits’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 5-8, claim 5 recites ‘wherein the first, second and second sets of resource elements…’ This limitation is unclear. It appears that the second ‘second’ should be ‘third’ Claims 6-8 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claims 9-11, claim 9 recites ‘coded Rank Indicator (RI) bits’ but then recites ‘the RI bits’ and later says ‘the coded RI bits’ It is unclear if these are the same bits or different bits. Claims 10-11 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 9 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites ‘the number of HARQ-ACK bits’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 12-14, claim 12 recites ‘coded Rank Indicator (RI) bits’ but then recites ‘the RI bits’ and later says ‘the coded RI bits’. It is unclear if these are the same bits or different bits. Claims 13-14 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites ‘the number of HARQ-ACK bits’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (2015/0189646) and further in view of Chen (2012/0039279).
Regarding claim 1, Chung discloses a method of operating a wireless communication device, comprising: (See Chung fig. 14; UE (e.g. a wireless communication device))
multiplexing coded Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) bits, coded CSI bits, and coded data bits, wherein the multiplexing comprises: (See Chung fig. 7; multiplexing channel coded control and data; para. 66; channel coding of HARQ-ACK at step s170; para. 81; control information includes CQI/PMI, RI, etc. (e.g. CSI); para. 63; multiplexing data on UL-SCH; see also para. 64, 65)
assigning the coded HARQ-ACK bits for transmission on a first set of resource elements in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and assigning the coded CSI bits and coded data bits for transmission on respective second and third sets of resource elements in the PUSCH, (See Chung para. 66; HARQ-ACK encode 1 for Ack, 0 for NACK (e.g. coded) on resource elements shown in fig. 13 (e.g. first set of resource elements; fig. 13; dotted resource elements CQI/PMI and/or slashed RI (e.g. second set of resource elements); fig. 13; PUSCH data (e.g. third sets of resource elements); each individual block is a resource element; para. 67; PUSCH; see also para. 110, 111, fig. 8)
transmitting the multiplexed coded HARQ-ACK bits, coded CSI bits, and coded data bits on the PUSCH. (See Chung fig. 13; PUSCH is transmitted (e.g. uplink transmission by UE), fig. 7)
Chung discloses that if there are a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK information may be transmitted using a transmission mode as opposed to conventional PUSCH piggybacking. (See Chung para. 98) Chung does not explicitly disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. However, Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung to include the teaching of wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data of Chen with the motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Regarding claim 2, Chung in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the multiplexing comprises assigning the coded HARQ-ACK bits for transmission on the first set of resource elements in the PUSCH, and assigning the coded CSI bits for transmission on the second set of resource elements in the PUSCH, and assigning the coded data bits for transmission on the third set of resource elements in the PUSCH. (See Chung para. 66; HARQ-ACK encode 1 for Ack, 0 for NACK (e.g. coded) on resource elements shown in fig. 13 (e.g. first set of resource elements; fig. 13; dotted resource elements CQI/PMI and/or slashed RI (e.g. second set of resource elements); fig. 13; PUSCH data (e.g. third sets of resource elements); each individual block is a resource element; para. 67; PUSCH; see also para. 110, 111, fig. 8)
Chen discloses wherein ACK/NACK information is reserved first and the remaining is used for other information. (See Chen para. 114) The motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Chung in view of Chen do not explicitly disclose the specific order of HARQ-ACK bits then, CSI bits, then data bits. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung in view of Chen to include the teaching of the specific order of HARQ-ACK bits then, CSI bits, then data bits with the motivation being it is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to multiplex these three pieces of data; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. one combination of the three pieces of data each ordered differently); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing different ordering of the same data and one may do so for priority purposes.)
Regarding claim 3, Chung in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the multiplexing further comprises configuring an input for an interleaver, comprising the coded HARQ-ACK bits, the coded CSI bits, and the coded data bits. (See Chung fig. 7, para. 74; interleaver multiplexes control info and UL-SCH data; para. 81, fig. 13; control data includes HARQ-ACK bits, CQI/PMI and/or RI)
Regarding claim 4, Chung in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Chung discloses if there is a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK info may be transmitted using transmission mode and multiplexing. (See Chung para. 98) Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) The motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Chung in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung in view of Chen to include the teaching of determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value with the motivation being routine optimization under MPEP 2144.05 (in that, Chung already states that if there is a large number of bits then a transmission mode and multiplexing scheme other than PUSCH piggybacking may be applied; Chen discloses that the ACK/NACK bits maybe explicitly reserved from other data; it is routine to optimize what constitutes a large number of bits through routine experimentation and setting that as a threshold value; in other words, the result-effect variable is recognized in the prior art by stating large number and para. 98 determines that what is large matters) and further it is common sense (that is, para. 98 of Chung already outlines two ways of sending ACK/NACK bits and states that if it is large enough to use one method; one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity would recognize that there must be a threshold for determining what is large vs what is small in determining which method to use).
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (2015/0189646) and further in view of Chen (2012/0039279).
Regarding claim 5, Chung discloses a wireless communication device, comprising:
at least one memory, at least one processor, and at least one transceiver collectively configured to: (See Chung fig. 14; UE (e.g. a wireless communication device) with processor memory and RF unit (e.g. transceiver))
multiplex coded Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) bits, coded CSI bits, and coded data bits, wherein the multiplexing comprises: (See Chung fig. 7; multiplexing channel coded control and data; para. 66; channel coding of HARQ-ACK at step s170; para. 81; control information includes CQI/PMI, RI, etc. (e.g. CSI); para. 63; multiplexing data on UL-SCH; see also para. 64, 65)
assigning the coded HARQ-ACK bits for transmission on a first set of resource elements in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and assigning the coded CSI bits and coded data bits for transmission on respective second and third sets of resource elements in the PUSCH, (See Chung para. 66; HARQ-ACK encode 1 for Ack, 0 for NACK (e.g. coded) on resource elements shown in fig. 13 (e.g. first set of resource elements; fig. 13; dotted resource elements CQI/PMI and/or slashed RI (e.g. second set of resource elements); fig. 13; PUSCH data (e.g. third sets of resource elements); each individual block is a resource element; para. 67; PUSCH; see also para. 110, 111, fig. 8)
transmit the multiplexed coded HARQ-ACK bits, coded CSI bits, and coded data bits on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). (See Chung fig. 13; PUSCH is transmitted (e.g. uplink transmission by UE), fig. 7)
Chung discloses that if there are a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK information may be transmitted using a transmission mode as opposed to conventional PUSCH piggybacking. (See Chung para. 98) Chung does not explicitly disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. However, Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung to include the teaching of wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data of Chen with the motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Regarding claim 6, Chung in view of Chen discloses the wireless communication device of claim 5, wherein the multiplexing comprises assigning the coded HARQ-ACK bits for transmission on the first set of resource elements in the PUSCH, and assigning the coded CSI bits for transmission on the second set of resource elements in the PUSCH, and assigning the coded data bits for transmission on the third set of resource elements in the PUSCH. (See Chung para. 66; HARQ-ACK encode 1 for Ack, 0 for NACK (e.g. coded) on resource elements shown in fig. 13 (e.g. first set of resource elements; fig. 13; dotted resource elements CQI/PMI and/or slashed RI (e.g. second set of resource elements); fig. 13; PUSCH data (e.g. third sets of resource elements); each individual block is a resource element; para. 67; PUSCH; see also para. 110, 111, fig. 8)
Chen discloses wherein ACK/NACK information is reserved first and the remaining is used for other information. (See Chen para. 114) The motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Chung in view of Chen do not explicitly disclose the specific order of HARQ-ACK bits then, CSI bits, then data bits. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung in view of Chen to include the teaching of the specific order of HARQ-ACK bits then, CSI bits, then data bits with the motivation being it is obvious to try (in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to multiplex these three pieces of data; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. one combination of the three pieces of data each ordered differently); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results of choosing different ordering of the same data and one may do so for priority purposes.)
Regarding claim 7, Chung in view of Chen discloses the wireless communication device of claim 6, wherein the multiplexing further comprises configuring an input for an interleaver, comprising the coded HARQ-ACK bits, the coded CSI bits, and the coded data bits. (See Chung fig. 7, para. 74; interleaver multiplexes control info and UL-SCH data; para. 81, fig. 13; control data includes HARQ-ACK bits, CQI/PMI and/or RI)
Regarding claim 8, Chung in view of Chen discloses the wireless communication device of claim 5.
Chung discloses if there is a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK info may be transmitted using transmission mode and multiplexing. (See Chung para. 98) Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) The motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Chung in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung in view of Chen to include the teaching of determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value with the motivation being routine optimization under MPEP 2144.05 (in that, Chung already states that if there is a large number of bits then a transmission mode and multiplexing scheme other than PUSCH piggybacking may be applied; Chen discloses that the ACK/NACK bits maybe explicitly reserved from other data; it is routine to optimize what constitutes a large number of bits through routine experimentation and setting that as a threshold value; in other words, the result-effect variable is recognized in the prior art by stating large number and para. 98 determines that what is large matters) and further it is common sense (that is, para. 98 of Chung already outlines two ways of sending ACK/NACK bits and states that if it is large enough to use one method; one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity would recognize that there must be a threshold for determining what is large vs what is small in determining which method to use).
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 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (2015/0189646) and further in view of Chen (2012/0039279).
Regarding claim 9, Chung discloses a method of operating a wireless communication device, comprising: (See Chung fig. 14; UE (e.g. a wireless communication device))
multiplexing coded Rank Indicator (RI) bits, Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) bits, coded channel state information (CSI) bits, and coded data bits, wherein the multiplexing comprises: (See Chung fig. 7; multiplexing channel coded control and data; para. 66; channel coding of HARQ-ACK at step s170; para. 81; control information includes CQI/PMI (e.g. CSI), RI, etc. para. 63; multiplexing data on UL-SCH; see also para. 64, 65; fig. 13)
assigning the RI bits for transmission on a first set of resource elements in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and assigning the coded CSI bits and coded data bits for transmission on a second set of resource elements in the PUSCH and the coded HARQ-ACK bits for transmission on a third set of resource elements in the PUSCH, (See Chung para. 66; HARQ-ACK encode 1 for Ack, 0 for NACK (e.g. coded) on resource elements shown in fig. 13 (e.g. third set of resource elements; fig. 13; dotted resource elements CQI/PMI and white boxes of PUSCH data (e.g. second set of resource elements); fig. 13; slashed RI boxes (e.g. first set of resource elements); each individual block is a resource element; para. 67; PUSCH; see also para. 110, 111, fig. 8)
transmitting the multiplexed coded RI bits, coded HARQ-ACK bits, coded CSI bits, and coded data bits on the PUSCH. (See Chung fig. 13; PUSCH is transmitted (e.g. uplink transmission by UE), fig. 7)
Chung discloses that if there are a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK information may be transmitted using a transmission mode as opposed to conventional PUSCH piggybacking. (See Chung para. 98) Chung does not explicitly disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. However, Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung to include the teaching of wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data of Chen with the motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Regarding claim 10, Chung in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the multiplexing further comprises configuring an input for an interleaver, comprising the coded RI bits, followed by the coded CSI and data bits, followed by the HARQ-ACK bits. (See Chung fig. 7, para. 74; interleaver multiplexes control info and UL-SCH data; para. 81, fig. 13; control data includes HARQ-ACK bits, CQI/PMI and/or RI; para. 76; RI is mapped first; followed by CQI/UL-SCH data; para. 78; HARQ is written next to RS which puts HARQ-ACK after RI and after CQI/UL-SCH data)
Regarding claim 11, Chung in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 9. Chung discloses if there is a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK info may be transmitted using transmission mode and multiplexing. (See Chung para. 98) Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) The motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Chung in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung in view of Chen to include the teaching of determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value with the motivation being routine optimization under MPEP 2144.05 (in that, Chung already states that if there is a large number of bits then a transmission mode and multiplexing scheme other than PUSCH piggybacking may be applied; Chen discloses that the ACK/NACK bits maybe explicitly reserved from other data; it is routine to optimize what constitutes a large number of bits through routine experimentation and setting that as a threshold value; in other words, the result-effect variable is recognized in the prior art by stating large number and para. 98 determines that what is large matters) and further it is common sense (that is, para. 98 of Chung already outlines two ways of sending ACK/NACK bits and states that if it is large enough to use one method; one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity would recognize that there must be a threshold for determining what is large vs what is small in determining which method to use).
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (2015/0189646) and further in view of Chen (2012/0039279).
Regarding claim 12, Chung discloses a wireless communication device, comprising:
at least one memory, at least one processor, and at least one transceiver collectively configured to: (See Chung fig. 14; UE (e.g. a wireless communication device) with processor memory and RF unit (e.g. transceiver))
multiplex coded Rank Indicator (RI) bits, Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) bits, coded channel state information (CSI) bits, and coded data bits, wherein the multiplexing comprises: (See Chung fig. 7; multiplexing channel coded control and data; para. 66; channel coding of HARQ-ACK at step s170; para. 81; control information includes CQI/PMI (e.g. CSI), RI, etc. para. 63; multiplexing data on UL-SCH; see also para. 64, 65; fig. 13)
assigning the RI bits for transmission on a first set of resource elements in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), and assigning the coded CSI bits and coded data bits for transmission on a second set of resource elements in the PUSCH and the coded HARQ-ACK bits for transmission on a third set of resource elements in the PUSCH, (See Chung para. 66; HARQ-ACK encode 1 for Ack, 0 for NACK (e.g. coded) on resource elements shown in fig. 13 (e.g. third set of resource elements; fig. 13; dotted resource elements CQI/PMI and white boxes of PUSCH data (e.g. second set of resource elements); fig. 13; slashed RI boxes (e.g. first set of resource elements); each individual block is a resource element; para. 67; PUSCH; see also para. 110, 111, fig. 8)
transmit the multiplexed coded RI bits, coded HARQ-ACK bits, coded CSI bits, and coded data bits on the PUSCH. (See Chung fig. 13; PUSCH is transmitted (e.g. uplink transmission by UE), fig. 7)
Chung discloses that if there are a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK information may be transmitted using a transmission mode as opposed to conventional PUSCH piggybacking. (See Chung para. 98) Chung does not explicitly disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. However, Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung to include the teaching of wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data of Chen with the motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Regarding claim 13, Chung in view of Chen discloses the wireless communication device of claim 12, wherein the multiplexing further comprises configuring an input for an interleaver, comprising the coded RI bits, followed by the coded CSI and data bits, followed by the HARQ-ACK bits. (See Chung fig. 7, para. 74; interleaver multiplexes control info and UL-SCH data; para. 81, fig. 13; control data includes HARQ-ACK bits, CQI/PMI and/or RI; para. 76; RI is mapped first; followed by CQI/UL-SCH data; para. 78; HARQ is written next to RS which puts HARQ-ACK after RI and after CQI/UL-SCH data)
Regarding claim 14, Chung in view of Chen discloses the wireless communication device of claim 12. Chung discloses if there is a large number of ACK/NACK bits, the ACK/NACK info may be transmitted using transmission mode and multiplexing. (See Chung para. 98) Chen does disclose wherein the ACK/NACK bits do not puncture the other data. (See Chen para. 114; reserving RE for acknowledging data on PUSCH and other data sent on not used remaining RE) The motivation being for maximum error correction capability and further greater reliability in noisy environments and further higher coding gain and further simpler decoding process and further to prevent excessive puncturing of data which may cause too many errors that turbo encoding cannot overcome.
Chung in view of Chen does not explicitly disclose determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Chung in view of Chen to include the teaching of determining if the number of bits is greater than a threshold value with the motivation being routine optimization under MPEP 2144.05 (in that, Chung already states that if there is a large number of bits then a transmission mode and multiplexing scheme other than PUSCH piggybacking may be applied; Chen discloses that the ACK/NACK bits maybe explicitly reserved from other data; it is routine to optimize what constitutes a large number of bits through routine experimentation and setting that as a threshold value; in other words, the result-effect variable is recognized in the prior art by stating large number and para. 98 determines that what is large matters) and further it is common sense (that is, para. 98 of Chung already outlines two ways of sending ACK/NACK bits and states that if it is large enough to use one method; one of ordinary skill possessing ordinary creativity would recognize that there must be a threshold for determining what is large vs what is small in determining which method to use).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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 D 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights