CTNF 18/827,940 CTNF 86311 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This communication is response to claims filed on 09/09/24 . Claims 1-24 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement’s 4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 09/09/24 have being considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file. Priority 5. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Drawings 6. The drawings filed on 09/09/24 are accepted by the examiner. Specification 7. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner suggested to change the title to: “ IMPROVING RETRANSMISSION PROCESS IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK USING AN EARLY RETRANSMISSION MESSAGE” Claim Objections 8. Claims 19-20 & 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: 9. Claim 19 recites “ a method ” in the preamble. Thus, the preamble fail to identify “who” , “where”, or “which component” is performing this management method. The body recite: -estimating a decidability …” his step does not identify such method is performed by a transmitter (i.e., a base station)”. “selecting from a set of one or more … “this step does not identify such method is performed by a transmitter (i.e., a base station) his step does not identify such method is performed by a transmitter (i.e., a base station)”. “requesting retransmission …. “his step does not identify such method is performed by a transmitter (i.e., a base station) “signaling a size of the transmission … “this step does not identify such method is performed by a transmitter (i.e., a base station)”. When considering individual step or as a whole, one cannot identify “who” , “where”, or “which component(s)” is/are performing “A method”. Thus, for clarit y , it is suggested to insert, at least in the preamble , “ who” , “where”, or “which component(s)” is performing “a method”. 10. Claim 24 is also objected for the same reason as set forth above for claim 19 . 11. Claim 20 recites “a computer program stored on non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 19”. It is suggested to amend it to: “a computer program stored on non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor to perform[[ s]] the steps of: the method as claimed in claim 19 generate a data block comprising data, generate the at least one data block using the data such that the at least one data block comprises at least one code block, estimate a decodability of the at least one code block at the receiver using a first portion of the code block, the at least one data block is defined by a plurality of symbols in a time domain and by a plurality of sub-carriers in a frequency domain, wherein the first portion of the at least one code block spans at least one sub-carriers or at least one of the plurality of symbols, send the retransmission in response to a size of the retransmission ” to avoid hybrid claims. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 12. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). 13. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Goktepe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12, 095, 569 B2) , in view of Mayrench et al. (hereinafter referred as Mayrench) US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0249155 A1 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent. Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent. Regarding claims 1: Goktepe discloses a receiver comprising: a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory circuit comprises instructions executable by the processor circuit, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive data from a transmitter, wherein the data comprises at least one data block, wherein the at least one data block comprises at least one code block, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to estimate a decodability of the at least one code block at the receiver using a first portion of the at least one code block, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to estimate the decodability of the at least one code block prior to receiving all of the at least one data block, wherein the at least one data block is defined by a plurality of symbols in a time domain and by a plurality of sub-carriers in a frequency domain, wherein the first portion of the at least one code block spans at least one of the plurality of sub-carriers or at least one of the plurality of symbols, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to request a retransmission and to signal a size of the retransmission when the at least one code block cannot be decoded (See Col. 14; Claim 1; lines 34-58) . Goktepe does not explicitly discloses wherein the processor circuit selects from a set of one or more decoder circuit a decoder circuit, for decoding of the first portion of the at least one code block. However, Mayrench from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the processor circuit selects from a set of one or more decoder circuit a decoder circuit, for decoding of the first portion of the at least one code block (See Para. 0084 & 0091; select decoder that decodes a code block) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor circuit selects from a set of one or more decoder circuit a decoder circuit, for decoding of the first portion of the at least one code block as taught by Mayrench in the system of Goktepe in order to decode a data stream based on multiple transmissions with efficient usages of storage and power resource (See Para. 0003; lines 1-2) . 14. Claim 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Goktepe et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11, 683, 128 B2) , in view of Mayrench et al. (hereinafter referred as Mayrench) US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0249155 A1 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent. Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the "same invention" as the first application or patent. Regarding claims 1: Goktepe discloses a receiver comprising: a processor circuit and a memory circuit, wherein the memory circuit comprises instructions executable by the processor circuit, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to receive data from a transmitter, wherein the data comprises at least one data block, wherein the at least one data block comprises at least one code block, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to estimate a decodability of the at least one code block at the receiver using a first portion of the at least one code block, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to estimate the decodability of the at least one code block prior to receiving all of the at least one data block, wherein the at least one data block is defined by a plurality of symbols in a time domain and by a plurality of sub-carriers in a frequency domain, wherein the first portion of the at least one code block spans at least one of the plurality of sub-carriers or at least one of the plurality of symbols, wherein the processor circuit is arranged to request a retransmission and to signal a size of the retransmission when the at least one code block cannot be decoded (See Col. 14; Claim 1; lines 34-60) . Goktepe does not explicitly discloses wherein the processor circuit selects from a set of one or more decoder circuit a decoder circuit, for decoding of the first portion of the at least one code block. However, Mayrench from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the processor circuit selects from a set of one or more decoder circuit a decoder circuit, for decoding of the first portion of the at least one code block (See Para. 0084 & 0091; select decoder that decodes a code block) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor circuit selects from a set of one or more decoder circuit a decoder circuit, for decoding of the first portion of the at least one code block as taught by Mayrench in the system of Goktepe in order to decode a data stream based on multiple transmissions with efficient usages of storage and power resource (See Para. 0003; lines 1-2) . Allowable Subject Matter 15. Claims 1-20 would be allowed if amended or file a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) against the parent patent applications No. 12, 095, 569, 11, 683, 128 and claims and specification objections. Conclusion 07-96 16. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. A. Chen et al. 2015/0016532 A1 (Title: Selection of target output layers in high efficiency…) (See Para. 0010, 0013 & 0059) . B. Wang et al. 2014/0092994 A1 (Title: Supplemental enhancement information message coding) (See FIG. 3, Para. 0033 & 0061). C. Kim et al. 2012/0219063 A1 (Title: Method and apparatus for encoding images using) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0067, 0100 & claim 12) . 17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m.. 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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 2 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 3 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 4 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 5 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 6 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 7 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 8 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 9 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/827,940 Page 10 Art Unit: 2469
Prosecution Insights