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 .
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, 3, 10-11, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittichokechai et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0052812 A1) in view of Hassan et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0021373 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Kittichokechai et al. discloses a network device performing a method for handling downlink (DL) multi-user multiplexing for a wireless local area network (WLAN), comprising: at least one storage device, configured to store instructions; and at least one processing circuit, coupled to the at least one storage device and configured to execute the instructions (See paragraph 6, paragraph 49, paragraphs 138-139, and Figures 1 and 6A of Kittichokechai et al. for reference to a WLAN network node, which is a network device, performing a method of handling DL transmissions to multiple UEs and comprising a memory, which is a storage device, storing program code, which are instructions, executed by processing circuits). Kittichokechai et al. also discloses identifying a first traffic and a second traffic; in response to the first traffic being a normal traffic and the second traffic being a low latency traffic, performing a first correlation operation according to the first traffic and the second traffic, to generate a plurality of first correlation results (See paragraphs 43-45 and paragraphs 77-86 of Kittichokechai et al. for reference to identifying two transmissions including a punctured transmission and a puncturing transmission, wherein the punctured transmission may be an eMBB transmission, which is a type of normal traffic, and the puncturing transmission may be an Ultra-High Reliability and Low Latency (URLLC) transmission, which is a type of low latency traffic, and for reference to performing a correlation operation according to the eMBB and URLLC transmissions). Kittichokechai et al. further discloses determining a first maximum correlation result and a first position index according to the plurality of first correlation results (See paragraphs 77-86 and paragraphs 95-101 of Kittichokechai et al. for reference to determining a most overlapped bit position, which is an indication of a maximum correlation result and a bit position of that result). Kittichokechai et al. also discloses in response to the first maximum correlation result, puncturing the first traffic with the second traffic according to the first maximum correlation result and the first position index (See paragraphs 77-86 of Kittichokechai et al. for reference to puncturing the eMBB data with the URLLC data based on the determined most overlapped bit position as a result of the correlation). Although Kittichokechai et al. does disclose puncturing eMBB traffic with URLLC traffic based on a correlation result, Kittichokechai et al. does not specifically disclose puncturing being determined in response to the first maximum correlation result being greater than a first threshold. However, Hassan et al., in the field of communications, discloses determining puncturing according to whether or not a correlation value meets or exceeds a threshold value (See paragraph 20 of Hassan et al.). Using a correlation threshold value to determine puncturing has the advantage of ensuring puncturing is only performed when appropriate and in a manner such that the punctured and puncturing traffic may each be properly transmitted and received. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Hassan et al., to combine using a correlation threshold value to determine puncturing, as suggested by Hassan et al., within the system and method of Kittichokechai et al., with the motivation being to ensure puncturing is only performed when appropriate and in a manner such that the punctured and puncturing traffic may each be properly transmitted and received.
With respect to claims 3 and 13, Kittichokechai et al. discloses wherein the first maximum correlation result is a maximum of the plurality of first correlation results, and the first position index corresponds to the maximum of the plurality of first correlation results (See paragraphs 77-86 and paragraphs 95-101 of Kittichokechai et al. for reference to determining a most overlapped bit position, which is an indication of a maximum correlation result and a bit position of that result).
With respect to claims 10 and 20, as shown above in the rejections of claims 1 and 11, the combination of Kittichokechai et al. and Hassan et al. teaches each of the claimed processes of identifying traffic, performing a correlation operation, determining a maximum correlation result, and puncturing traffic based on the maximum correlation result being above a threshold. Claims 10 and 20 are directed to repeating these claimed processes for a third traffic in addition to the second traffic. This repletion of the claimed functions is an obvious variation of the teachings of Kittichokechai et al. and Hassan et al., and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kittichokechai et al. and Hassan et al., that these steps could be repeated for additional identified traffic such that different types of traffic may be punctured into the first traffic.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-9, 12, and 14-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 12, these claims would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious using the specifically claimed equation for the first correlation operation.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, these claims would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the puncturing operation comprising generating a weighted second traffic and replacing a part of the first traffic with the weighted second traffic, as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-8 and 15-18, these claims would be allowable since they each depend on and further limit the above indicated allowable subject matter of claims 4 and 14.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, these claims would be allowable since the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious adjusting the first threshold, as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gao et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0146036 A1) and Dong et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0327751 A1) disclose additional relevant prior art regarding traffic puncturing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights