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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 10-12:
The subject matter of claim 10 appears to lack written description in the specification. For example, [0185] of the specification describes “determining the CB threshold is performed by a transmitter and signaled to the receiver by: an RRC bit field indication made by semi-static signaling; a bit field indication made by dynamic signaling via a DCI scheduling at least one PDSCH transmission; a bit field indication made by dynamic signaling via a DCI scheduling at least one group of PDSCH transmissions; or some combination thereof.” The “receiver” in this case refers to a UE. Claim 10 recites “the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to signal: an RRC bit field indication made by semi-static signaling; a bit field indication made by dynamic signaling via a DCI scheduling at least one PDSCH transmission; a bit field indication made by dynamic signaling via a DCI scheduling at least one group of PDSCH transmissions; or a combination thereof.” Claims 11-12 depend from claim 10. Claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reason as claim 10.
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 8, 9, 11, and 15 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 8
The meaning of the following claim language is unclear which renders the claim indefinite:
“iven the NC configuration” (lines 7, 10), “d of a tolerated maximum” (line 14), and “combination thereof” (line 21).
Regarding claim 9
The meaning of the following claim language is unclear which renders the claim indefinite:
“nCB CBs” (line 5), “iven the NC configuration” (lines 7, 11), “d of the necessary minimum number” (line 17), and “combination thereof” (line 25).
Regarding claim 11
The meaning of the following claim language is unclear which renders the claim indefinite: “lerated maximum” (line 4), and “nimum number” (line 6).
Regarding claim 15:
It is unclear whether “a receiver device” recited in line 16, and in line 18, refer to the same claim element, or otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XU et al. (US 2024/0129068 A1, hereinafter “XU”).
Regarding independent claim 1:
XU discloses a user equipment (UE) (e.g., Fig. 16, 2000) comprising: at least one memory (e.g., Fig. 16, 2030); and at least one processor (e.g., Fig. 16, 2010) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
determine a network coding (NC) configuration for transmission of a scheduled network-coded application data unit (ADU) (e.g., [0239], [0248], [0258]-[0261], scheduling information, configuration thresholds); receive the scheduled network-coded ADU in at least one transport block (TB) (e.g., [0253], second TB); determine, for each TB of the at least one TB, a code block (CB) threshold based at least on the NC configuration (e.g., [0261]-[0264], configuration threshold of one TB); configure, for each TB of the at least one TB, a NC-aware hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process as a HARQ process with the CB threshold (e.g., [0317], [0332], [0333], [0377]); use the CB threshold to determine a NC-aware HARQ feedback report (e.g., [0261]-[0265]); and feed back the NC-aware HARQ feedback report to a transmitting device (e.g., [0256]).
Regarding claim 2:
XU further discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the NC configuration comprises: a type of NC codebook; a size of an NC packet; a size of an NC symbol; a number of systematic network-coded information carrying packets; a number of systematic network-coded information carrying symbols; a number of network-coded repair packets; a number of network-coded repair symbols; a total number of network-coded packets; a total number of network-coded symbols; a maximum size of a network-coded transmission; a redundancy level of the NC; or a combination thereof (e.g., [0240], [0332], [0333], M network-coded original packets, one network-coded redundant packet).
Regarding claim 3:
XU further discloses the UE of claim 1, whereby the NC configuration is signaled by: a semi-static radio resource control (RRC) signaling indication; a dynamic signaling indication of a downlink control information (DCI) scheduling at least one physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) data traffic instance; a dynamic signaling indication of a DCI scheduling of at least one group of PDSCH data traffic instances; or a combination thereof (e.g., [0159], [0259]).
Regarding claim 4:
XU further discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the CB threshold encodes: a necessary minimum number of correctly received CB threshold; a tolerated maximum number of CB errors threshold; or a combination thereof (e.g., [0261]-[0265]).
Regarding claim 7:
XU further discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to process: a total number of network-coded information carrying packets; a total number of network-coded information carrying symbols; a number of source data packets to undergo NC; a number of source symbols to undergo NC; a number of network-coded systematic information carrying packets; an NC redundancy level; an available RRC and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) configuration information; or a combination thereof (e.g. [0245], [0253], [0332], [0333]).
Regarding claim 13:
XU further discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein the NC-aware HARQ process reports an acknowledgment (ACK) as HARQ feedback for a TB of the at least one TB in response to: a number of correctly received CBs being greater than or equal to the CB threshold as a necessary minimum number of correctly received CBs; a number of erroneously received CBs being less than or equal to the CB threshold as a tolerated maximum number of CB errors; or a combination thereof (e.g., [0260]-[0265]).
Regarding independent claim 14:
XU discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining a network coding (NC) configuration for transmission of a scheduled network-coded application data unit (ADU); receiving the scheduled network-coded ADU in at least one transport block (TB); determining, for each TB of the at least one TB, a code block (CB) threshold based at least on the NC configuration; configuring, for each TB of the at least one TB, a NC-aware hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process as a HARQ process with the CB threshold; using the CB threshold to determine a NC-aware HARQ feedback report; and feeding back the NC-aware HARQ feedback report to a transmitting device. (See detailed rejection with respect to independent claim 1.)
Regarding independent claim 15:
XU discloses a base station (e.g., Fig. 17, 3000), comprising: at least one memory (e.g. Fig. 17, 3021); and at least one processor (e.g., Fig. 17, 3013, 3022) coupled with the at least one memory (e.g., Fig. 17, 3014, 3021) and configured to cause the base station to:
determine a network coding (NC) configuration for encoding an application data unit (ADU) for transmission over a plurality of transport blocks (TBs) (e.g., [0239], [0248], [0258]-[0261], scheduling information, configuration thresholds); determine a plurality of CB thresholds, wherein each CB threshold of the plurality of CB thresholds corresponds to each TB of the plurality of TBs to meet for successful NC decoding and recovery of the ADU (e.g., [0261-[0266]); signal the NC configuration, the plurality of CB thresholds, or a combination thereof to a receiver device for a NC-aware hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback of the plurality of TBs (0239], [0248], [0258]-[0261], scheduling information, configuration thresholds); schedule the ADU for transmission to a receiver device (e.g., [0239], [0248], [0253]); and receive an NC-aware HARQ feedback from the receiver device for each TB of the plurality of TBs, wherein the processor applies the NC-aware HARQ feedback to determine necessary TB retransmissions of the ADU (e.g., [0260]).
Regarding independent claim 16:
XU discloses a processor (e.g., Fig. 16, 2000) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory and configured to cause the processor to: determine a network coding (NC) configuration for transmission of a scheduled network-coded application data unit (ADU); receive the scheduled network-coded ADU in at least one transport block (TB); determine, for each TB of the at least one TB, a code block (CB) threshold based at least on the NC configuration; configure, for each TB of the at least one TB, a NC-aware hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process as a HARQ process with the CB threshold; use the CB threshold to determine a NC-aware HARQ feedback report; and feed back the NC-aware HARQ feedback report to a transmitting device. (See detailed rejection with respect to independent claim 1.)
Regarding claims 17-19:
Similar features to claims 2-4. See detailed rejections with respect to claims 2-4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 6, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU in view of REN et al. (US 2018/0287736 A1, hereinafter “REN”).
Regarding claim 5:
XU is silent regarding wherein a correctness of a CB is determined based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) comparison with a correctly received CB validating the CRC and with an erroneously received CB not validating the CRC.
REN teaches a correctness of a CB is determined based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) comparison with a correctly received CB validating the CRC and with an erroneously received CB not validating the CRC (e.g., [0026]-[0028], [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of XU based on the teaching from REN to include the feature a correctness of a CB is determined based on a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) comparison with a correctly received CB validating the CRC and with an erroneously received CB not validating the CRC, in order to efficiently determine if a TB is successfully received at a receiver.
Regarding claim 6:
XU is silent regarding wherein any medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) partly or fully contained within an erroneous CB of the TB of the at least one TB is discarded by higher layers from further processing.
REN teaches any medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) partly or fully contained within an erroneous CB of the TB of the at least one TB is discarded by higher layers from further processing (e.g., [0028], [0035], a retransmit request is sent to the transmitting device for a CB failing the CRC check to request retransmission of the CB, a CB containing MAC PDU partly or fully is inherent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of XU based on the teaching from REN to include the feature any medium access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) partly or fully contained within an erroneous CB of the TB of the at least one TB is discarded by higher layers from further processing, in order to efficiently determine if a TB is successfully received at a receiver.
Regarding claim 20:
Similar features to claim 5. See detailed rejections with respect to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvin ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1086. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6am-9am and 2pm-7pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/BO HUI A ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights