DETAILED ACTION
This office action is response to an application field on 09/30/2024, in which claims 16-28 are pending and ready for examination.
Claim 1-15 have been cancelled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
As for claims 16 and 27, claim limitations “means for receiving (claim 16, line 2)”, “means for determining (claim 16,line 4)”, “means for determining (claim 16,line 6)”, “means for providing (claim 16, line 9)”, “means for receiving (claim 16, line 11)”, “means for providing (claim 27, line 2)”, “means for receiving (claim 27, line 4)” and “means for determining (claim 27, line 6) in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
As for claims 16-27,these claims 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.
Claim element “apparatus (claims 16-27)” is a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the claimed function such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links or associates the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) State on the record where the corresponding structure, material, or acts are set forth in the written description of the specification and linked or associated to the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Note: The Examiner suggests amending appropriate structure to overcome the rejection".
Dependent claims 17-26 are rejected because these claims depend on claim 16.
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 16-24 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 (a) as being unpatentable over YIN et al. (hereinafter, ”YIN”; WO20129358) in view of XU et al. (hereinafter, “XU”; 20230318753).
In response to claim 16 and 28,
YIN teaches an apparatus comprising: means for receiving at least one downlink data transmission at a user equipment from a network node (page 8, lines 5-14, mobile station is equated to user equipment and base station is equated to a network node);
means for determining that decoding of the at least one downlink data transmission at the user equipment is unsuccessful (page 5, lines 5-20, receiving from a base station explicitly teaches receiving downlink transmission, Page 8, line 30 to page 9, line 4, not decoding some received bits by the mobile station is interpreted as determining decoding of the at least one downlink data transmission at the user equipment is unsuccessful);
means for determining, based on the determining that decoding of the at least one downlink data transmission at the user equipment is unsuccessful and at least in part on the downlink data transmission, soft buffer information (page 8, line 30 to page 9, line 4, soft bits are equated to soft bit information,evacuating correctly decoded FEC blocks as data bits and saving FEC blocks those are not decoded correctly in the form of soft bits explicitly teaches determining, based on the determining that decoding of the at least one downlink data transmission at the user equipment is unsuccessful and at least in part on the downlink data transmission);
means for providing, from the user equipment to the network node, the soft buffer information (page 9, paragraph “Buffer occupancy feedback”, a capability of the HARQ buffer is equated to soft buffer information, reporting a capability of the HARQ buffer to the base station explicitly teaches this limitation); and
YIN does not teach explicitly about means for receiving scheduling for a further downlink data transmission, wherein the scheduling for the further downlink data transmission is dependent on the provided soft buffer information.
XU in view of YIN teaches means for receiving scheduling for a further downlink data transmission, wherein the scheduling for the further downlink data transmission is dependent on the provided soft buffer information (paragraph 70, using a downlink grant or a DCI for dynamically scheduling a PDSCH transmission is interpreted as receiving scheduling for a further downlink data transmission, storing data in a HARQ buffer and doing appropriate processing of HARQ is read as using the HARQ feedback as a soft buffer information, accumulating or associating retransmission data with the data stored in the data stored in the HARQ buffer is interpreted as the scheduling for the further downlink data transmission is dependent on the provided soft buffer information).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YIN for receiving scheduling for a further downlink data transmission, wherein the scheduling for the further downlink data transmission is dependent on the provided soft buffer information as taught by XU because it would provide a common protocol to enables different UEs with multiple access technologies to communicate.
In response to claim 17,
YIN teaches wherein the soft buffer information comprises an indication whether or not soft bits of the downlink data transmission are stored in a soft buffer memory of the user equipment (page 8, line 30 to page 9, line 4, soft bits are equated to soft bit information, evacuating correctly decoded FEC blocks as data bits and saving FEC blocks those are not decoded correctly in the form of soft bits explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 18,
YIN teaches wherein each at least one data transmission is associated with a given hybrid automatic repeat request, HARQ, process (page 3, line 5-29, using ACK and NACK message for a data transmission explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 19,
YIN teaches wherein the indication is provided with HARQ feedback or uplink control information (page 9, line 5 to page 10, line 30, buffer flow indicator 30 is equated to an indication for HARQ feedback, reporting using uplink feedback channel (PUCCH) is read as providing the indication with HARQ feedback or uplink control information).
In response to claim 20,
YIN teaches comprising means for determining whether to store soft bits for the downlink HARQ process based on at least one of the following: a priority associated with the downlink data transmission,
whether the downlink data transmission is decoded successfully or an available capacity of the soft buffer memory (page 8, line 30 to page 9, line 4, soft bits are equated to soft bit information, evacuating correctly decoded FEC blocks as data bits and saving FEC blocks those are not decoded correctly in the form of soft bits explicitly teaches whether the downlink data transmission is decoded successfully).
In response to claim 21,
YIN teaches wherein the soft buffer information comprises an indication of available soft buffer capacity (page 9, line 5 to page 10, line 30, sending a single bit notification for a buffer status report explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 22,
YIN teaches wherein the soft buffer information comprises an indication of available soft buffer capacity with respect to at least one threshold capacity value (page 9, line 5 to page 10,line 30, using a buffer threshold “BufThr” explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 23,
YIN teaches comprising means for receiving a configuration from the network node at the user equipment to provide the soft buffer information (page 9,lines 5-14, section “Buffer occupancy feedback”, request is equated to a configuration from a network node, sending a buffer status report based upon a request (on demand) form a base station explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 24,
YIN teaches wherein the configuration comprises a configuration of soft buffer information reporting or an activation of soft buffer information reporting (page 9,lines 5-14, section “Buffer occupancy feedback”, request is equated to a configuration from a network node, sending a buffer status report based upon a request (on demand) form a base station explicitly teaches this limitation).
In response to claim 27,
YIN teaches an apparatus comprising: means for providing at least one downlink data transmission to a user equipment from a network node (page 3, lines 11-29,base station is equated to a network node, having a data transmission (with separate blocks) between a mobile station and a base stion is interpreted as providing at least one downlink data transmission to a user equipment from a network node);
means for receiving, from the user equipment at the network node, soft buffer information determined based on the at least one downlink data transmission (page 9, paragraph “Buffer occupancy feedback”, a capability of the HARQ buffer is equated to soft buffer information, reporting a capability of the HARQ buffer to the base station explicitly teaches this limitation); and
YIN does not teach explicitly about means for determining further downlink data transmission scheduling based on the received soft buffer information.
XU in view of YIN teaches means for determining further downlink data transmission scheduling based on the received soft buffer information (paragraph 70, using a downlink grant or a DCI for dynamically scheduling a PDSCH transmission is interpreted as receiving scheduling for a further downlink data transmission, storing data in a HARQ buffer and doing appropriate processing of HARQ is read as using the HARQ feedback as a soft buffer information, accumulating or associating retransmission data with the data stored in the data stored in the HARQ buffer is interpreted as determining further downlink data transmission scheduling based on the received soft buffer information).
It would have been obvious within the scope of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YIN for r determining further downlink data transmission scheduling based on the received soft buffer information as taught by XU because it would provide a common protocol to enables different UEs with multiple access technologies to communicate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim25-26 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.
As for dependent claim 25, there is no prior art in the record that teaches the claimed limitation “means for providing an indication of user equipment soft buffer information reporting capability from the user equipment to the network node and means for receiving the configuration from the network node at the user equipment to provide the soft buffer information in response.”
The closest prior art in the record YIN et al.’s (WO20129358) teaching in page 9, line 5 to page 10, line 30 about reporting aa capability of the HARQ buffer status report based on request from a base station, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 26, there is no prior art in the record that teaches the claimed limitation “wherein the scheduling received for the further downlink data transmission is dependent on at least one of the following means: receiving a configuration to use a smaller number of HARQ processes, modified scheduling parameters, receiving an indication not to save soft buffer values for the corresponding downlink data transmission or receiving a scheduling for the further downlink data transmission on a smaller number of HARQ processes.”
The closest prior art in the record YIN et al.’s (WO20129358) teaching in page 9, line 5 to page 10, line 30 about reporting aa capability of the HARQ buffer status report based on request from a base station, but he fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20210400704………………paragraph 134.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights