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 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, 13, 22 and 28 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 claims 4, 13, 22 and 28, the phrase "minimum of … or …" in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the “minimum” means in the limitation. The examiner understood it as “minimum of the limitation for the total quantity of repetitions and a floor value of a ratio of the limit of link layer blocks and the quantity of the one or more negative acknowledgments” for the examination purpose. See the equation (2) in the specification [0074] in the form of MIN (A, B) which is minimum of A and B.
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 1-3, 10-12, 19-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Priyanto et al. (US Pub. 2024/0163022).
Regarding claims 1, 10, 19 and 25, Priyanto teaches a first wireless device, comprising: a processing system that includes processor circuitry and memory circuitry that stores code, the processing system configured to cause the first wireless device to: transmit a payload to a second wireless device, wherein the payload is segmented into a plurality of link layer blocks, each link layer block of the plurality of link layer blocks comprising a respective portion of the payload (“the TB can be even further structured into the code block groups (CBGs) and each CBG can include a respective checksum. This helps to limit the retransmissions to fractions of the initial TB, i.e., CBG-based retransmissions” in [0067]); receive, from the second wireless device, one or more negative acknowledgments associated with the plurality of link layer blocks (step 9505 NACK in Figure 3); and transmit, to the second wireless device, a quantity of repetitions of at least one link layer block associated with the one or more negative acknowledgments (“the retransmission protocol 900 triggers a retransmission 902 at least of the corrupted parts of the DL data 4030—e.g., one or more corrupted CBGs could be retransmitted” in [0074]), wherein the quantity of repetitions is associated with a quantity of the one or more negative acknowledgments (When there is only one corrupted CBG, 212, the corrupted CBG 212 is repeated 4 times in Figure 7. And when there are two corrupted CBGs, 211 and 212, the corrupted CBG 211 is repeated 2 times and the corrupted CBG is repeated 3 times in Figure 9) and a limit of link layer blocks associated with the payload (see when the block can handle 4 repetitions of CBG in Figure 7 and when the block can handle only 2 repetitions of CBG in Figure 8).
Regarding claims 2, 11, 20 and 26, Priyanto teaches the processing system is further configured to cause the first wireless device to: receive an indication of a capability of the second wireless device to receive link layer block repetitions, wherein transmitting the quantity of repetitions is associated with receiving the indication of the capability.
Regarding claims 3, 12, 21 and 27, Priyanto teaches the quantity of repetitions is associated with a limitation for a total quantity of repetitions of the at least one link layer block (see when the block can handle 4 repetitions of CBG in Figure 7 and when the block can handle only 2 repetitions of CBG in Figure 8).
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 8, 9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyanto et al. in view of Fouad et al. (US Pub. 2024/0421945).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Priyanto teaches transmitting the quantity of repetitions is associated with a first priority of a first link layer block of the plurality of link layer blocks relative to a second priority of a second link layer block of the plurality of link layer blocks (“the number of repetitions may instead (or also) be based on the priority of the CBGs or on the packet delay budget (with, e.g., CBGs with a priority or packet delay budget above a respective threshold (which may be configured, or standard-specified, or dynamically indicated to the UE by the target UE 115) being retransmitted more times)” in [0077]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Fouad teaches a first quantity of repetitions for the first link layer block is greater than a second quantity of repetitions for the second link layer block based at least in part on the first priority being higher than the second priority (“the number of repetitions may instead (or also) be based on the priority of the CBGs or on the packet delay budget (with, e.g., CBGs with a priority or packet delay budget above a respective threshold (which may be configured, or standard-specified, or dynamically indicated to the UE by the target UE 115) being retransmitted more times)” in [0077]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, 22 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5-7, 14-16, 23, 24, 29 and 30 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights