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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment received 11/12/2024.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17 are amended.
Claims 12 – 14 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 18 – 24 are new.
Claims 1 – 11, 15, and 17 – 24 are presented for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language “being performing” is unclear and fails to provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 15, and 17, claim 1 as representative, objected to because of the following informalities:
The language “being performing” is unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 discloses “are the same or different” which includes all possible results and therefor fails to limit the parent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 – 11, 15, and 17 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al., U.S. Publication 2015/0358117 (herein Li), in view of Trifina et al., "Determining the number of different cubic permutation polynomial based interleavers for lengths in the LTE standard," 2015 International Symposium on Signals, Circuits and Systems (ISSCS) (herein Trifina).
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 17, claim 1 as representative, Li teaches: A method for resource allocation, applied to user equipment or a network side device, and comprising: determining a resource allocation scheme, the resource allocation scheme being performing resource allocation based on an interleaver (paragraph 0063 – 0065); performing resource allocation according to the resource allocation scheme (paragraph 0063 – 0065); and sending configuration information, wherein the configuration information is used to determine an allocated resource (paragraph 0065 – 0067).
Li does not specifically teach: a cubic permutation polynomial (CPP) interleaver.
Trifina teaches: a cubic permutation polynomial (CPP) interleaver (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, would find it obvious to combine the teaching of Li: determining a resource allocation scheme, the resource allocation scheme being performing resource allocation based on an interleaver; with the teaching of Trifina: a cubic permutation polynomial (CPP) interleaver for the purpose of optimizing the interleaver function (I. INTRODUCTION). Resource allocation with an interleaver is are well-known in the art for turbo codes (I. INTRODUCTION). A cubic permutation polynomial interleaver well-known design choice in the art (I. INTRODUCTION). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of well-known design choice would yield a predictable result.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, claim 2 as representative, Li teaches: obtaining a first subcarrier index sequence by sequentially arranging N subcarrier indexes in a symbol (paragraph 0026 – 0032); obtaining a second subcarrier index sequence by performing an interleaving operation on the first subcarrier index sequence by using the interleaver (paragraph 0026 – 0032); obtaining K subcarrier groups by dividing subcarrier indexes in the second subcarrier index sequence to perform grouping, wherein K is a quantity of data receiving ends (paragraph 0026 – 0032); and allocating a subcarrier group to a data receiving end, wherein a subcarrier corresponding to a subcarrier index in the subcarrier group is a frequency domain resource allocated to the data receiving end (paragraph 0026 – 0032). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, claim 3 as representative, Li does not explicitly teach: determining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver; wherein the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver comprises at least one of: a CPP interleaver calculation formula; a decomposition formula corresponding to the CPP interleaver; or a parameter value rule in the CPP interleaver calculation formula.
Trifina teaches: determining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver; wherein the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver comprises at least one of: a CPP interleaver calculation formula; a decomposition formula corresponding to the CPP interleaver; or a parameter value rule in the CPP interleaver calculation formula (II. CPPS OVER INTEGER RINGS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claims 4 and 20, claim 4 as representative, Li does not explicitly teach: the CPP interleaver calculation formula is:
π
i
=
f
1
*
i
+
f
2
*
i
2
+
f
3
*
i
3
m
o
d
N
wherein, iis used to indicate an ith bit in the second subcarrier index sequence, ,r(i)is a value of the fi bit in the second subcarrier index sequence, f1 , f2 and f3 are three parameters of the CPP interleaver, and values of f, , f2 and f3 are determined based on the parameter value rule
Trifina teaches: CPP interleaver calculation formula is:
π
i
=
f
1
*
i
+
f
2
*
i
2
+
f
3
*
i
3
m
o
d
N
wherein, iis used to indicate an ith bit in the second subcarrier index sequence, ,r(i)is a value of the fi bit in the second subcarrier index sequence, f1 , f2 and f3 are three parameters of the CPP interleaver, and values of f, , f2 and f3 are determined based on the parameter value rule (II. CPPS OVER INTEGER RINGS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claims 5 and 21, claim 5 as representative, Li does not explicitly teach: the decomposition formula corresponding to the CPP interleaver is:
N
=
∏
i
=
1
w
(
n
)
p
i
∝
N
,
i
wherein w (N)is a positive integer, p,is a factor of N , aN, is a corresponding index.
Trifina teaches: the decomposition formula corresponding to the CPP interleaver is:
N
=
∏
i
=
1
w
(
n
)
p
i
∝
N
,
i
wherein w (N)is a positive integer, p,is a factor of N , aN, is a corresponding index (II. CPPS OVER INTEGER RINGS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claims 6 and 22, claim 6 as representative, Li does not explicitly teach: wherein the parameter value rule is:
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Trifina teaches: wherein the parameter value rule is:
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1022
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(III. DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TRUE CUBIC PERMUTATION POLYNOMIAL BASED INTERLEAVERS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claims 7 and 23, claim 7 as representative, Li does not explicitly teach: performing the interleaving operation on the first subcarrier index sequence by using the CPP interleaver comprises: determining values of pi, and aN,1 by performing decomposition on the N based on the decomposition formula; determining values of f1, f2, and f3 based on the parameter value rule and the values of pi, and aN,1 and obtaining the second subcarrier index sequence by calculating based on the CPP interleaver calculation formula.
Trifina teaches: performing the interleaving operation on the first subcarrier index sequence by using the CPP interleaver comprises: determining values of pi, and aN,1 by performing decomposition on the N based on the decomposition formula; determining values of f1, f2, and f3 based on the parameter value rule and the values of pi, and aN,1 and obtaining the second subcarrier index sequence by calculating based on the CPP interleaver calculation formula (III. DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TRUE CUBIC PERMUTATION POLYNOMIAL BASED INTERLEAVERS).
And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claims 8 and 24, claim 8 as representative, Li does not explicitly teach: the K subcarrier groups satisfy one of following conditions: in response to N being divisible by K , a quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in a subcarrier group of the K subcarrier groups being the same; or in response to N being not divisible by K, a quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in a subcarrier group of d subcarrier groups among the K subcarrier groups being the same, a quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in a subcarrier group of other subcarrier groups being the same, and the quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in the subcarrier group of the d subcarrier groups is greater than the quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in the subcarrier group of the other subcarrier groups by 1, wherein d is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation on K by using N.
Trifina teaches: the K subcarrier groups satisfy one of following conditions: in response to N being divisible by K , a quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in a subcarrier group of the K subcarrier groups being the same; or in response to N being not divisible by K, a quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in a subcarrier group of d subcarrier groups among the K subcarrier groups being the same, a quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in a subcarrier group of other subcarrier groups being the same, and the quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in the subcarrier group of the d subcarrier groups is greater than the quantity of subcarrier indexes comprised in the subcarrier group of the other subcarrier groups by 1, wherein d is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation on K by using N (III. DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TRUE CUBIC PERMUTATION POLYNOMIAL BASED INTERLEAVERS).
(III. DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TRUE CUBIC PERMUTATION POLYNOMIAL BASED INTERLEAVERS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Li additionally teaches: frequency domain resources allocated to a same data receiving end under different symbols are the same or different (paragraph 0063 – 0065). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 10, Li does not explicitly teach: determining the resource allocation scheme comprises at least one of: obtaining the resource allocation scheme sent by a network device; obtaining the resource allocation scheme sent by a base station, wherein the resource allocation scheme is pre-configured by a core network device to the base station; obtaining the resource allocation scheme sent by a base station, wherein the resource allocation scheme is pre-configured by another base station to the base station; determining the resource allocation scheme based on a protocol agreement; or determining the resource allocation scheme by itself.
Trifina teaches: determining the resource allocation scheme comprises at least one of: obtaining the resource allocation scheme sent by a network device; obtaining the resource allocation scheme sent by a base station, wherein the resource allocation scheme is pre-configured by a core network device to the base station; obtaining the resource allocation scheme sent by a base station, wherein the resource allocation scheme is pre-configured by another base station to the base station; determining the resource allocation scheme based on a protocol agreement; or determining the resource allocation scheme by itself (III. DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TRUE CUBIC PERMUTATION POLYNOMIAL BASED INTERLEAVERS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Regarding claim 11, Li does not explicitly teach: determining the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver comprises at least one of: obtaining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver sent by a network device; obtaining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver sent by a base station, wherein the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver is pre-configured by a core network device to the base station; obtaining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver sent by a base station, wherein the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver is pre-configured by another base station to the base station; or determining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver based on a protocol agreement.
Trifina teaches: determining the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver comprises at least one of: obtaining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver sent by a network device; obtaining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver sent by a base station, wherein the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver is pre-configured by a core network device to the base station; obtaining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver sent by a base station, wherein the interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver is pre-configured by another base station to the base station; or determining an interleaving parameter of the CPP interleaver based on a protocol agreement (III. DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TRUE CUBIC PERMUTATION POLYNOMIAL BASED INTERLEAVERS). And in view of the motivation previously stated above, for claim 1, the claim is rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Berggren; Fredrik et al. US 20240414040 A1
Molnar; Karl et al. US 20100260036 A1
Higuchi; Kenichi US 20130128834 A1
KIM; Kijun et al. US 20190109672 A1
Pratt; Thomas G. et al. US 20160219506 A1
Lorca Hernando; Javier US 20160099824 A1
resource allocation, applied to user equipment or a network side device, and comprising:
determining a resource allocation scheme, the resource allocation scheme being performing resource allocation based on a cubic permutation polynomial (CPP) interleaver;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F MCMAHON whose telephone number is (571)270-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am - 5pm 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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at (571)270-3750. 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.
/Daniel F. McMahon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights