DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
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.
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. In particular, this application is a continuation of a national stage application of an international application that claims a foreign priority to a Chinese application filed on 8 Nov 2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements, submitted on 1 Oct 2024 and 16 Jan 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12143228. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are either broader or of the same scope as the reference claims. As shown in the table below, instant claims 1-5 are directed to the same invention as reference claim 1.
Instant Application
Reference Patent 12,143,228 (limitations provided out of order and repeated as needed)
1. An electronic device on side of a user device, comprising: a processing circuitry configured to:
1. An electronic device, comprising: a processing circuitry configured to:
in response to scheduling information in downlink control information (DCI), transmit a plurality of signals to a control device over a plurality of consecutive slots;
receive Downlink Control Information (DCI) from a control device;
in response to scheduling information in the DCI, perform a sequential transmission to transmit identical user data via a plurality of signals to the control device over a plurality of consecutive slots;
receive hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information which indicate whether a decoding for the user data by the control device is successful or not;
sequentially receive plural pieces of hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information related to the sequentially transmitted plurality of signals, each of the plural pieces of the HARQ feedback information indicating whether a decoding of the user data of a corresponding one of the sequentially transmitted plurality of signals is successful or not,
in a case that the HARQ feedback information is received after a completion of the signal transmission in a first slot from the plurality of slots by a preconfigured duration D, determine the HARQ feedback information as valid if a value of the HARQ feedback information is ACK;
each of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information sequentially received a preconfigured duration D after a corresponding one of the plurality of signals is transmitted;
and/or in a case that the HARQ feedback information is received after a completion of the signal transmission in a last slot from the plurality of slots by a preconfigured duration D, determine the HARQ feedback information as valid if a value of the HARQ feedback information is NACK.
only in a case that the HARQ feedback information corresponding to the last transmitted signal of the plurality of signals is NACK, determine that the NACK is valid HARQ feedback information
2. The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the transmitted plurality of signals comprises a sequential transmission that transmits identical user data via a plurality of signals to the control device over the plurality of consecutive slots.
in response to scheduling information in the DCI, perform a sequential transmission to transmit identical user data via a plurality of signals to the control device over a plurality of consecutive slots;
3. The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the HARQ feedback information comprises plural pieces of HARQ feedback information that is sequentially received, each of the plural pieces of the HARQ feedback information indicating whether a decoding of the user data of a corresponding one of the sequentially transmitted plurality of signals is successful or not, each of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information sequentially received the preconfigured duration D after a corresponding one of the plurality of signals is transmitted.
each of the plural pieces of the HARQ feedback information indicating whether a decoding of the user data of a corresponding one of the sequentially transmitted plurality of signals is successful or not, each of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information sequentially received a preconfigured duration D after a corresponding one of the plurality of signals is transmitted;
4. The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to analyze each of the sequentially received plural pieces of HARQ feedback information in a sequence corresponding to a corresponding arrival time.
analyze each of the sequentially received plural pieces of HARQ feedback information in a sequence corresponding to a corresponding arrival time;
5. The electronic device of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to in a case that any of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information is ACK, determine a first arriving piece of HARQ feedback information that is ACK as valid HARQ feedback information and terminate the sequential transmission; in a case that any of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information other than HARQ feedback information corresponding to a last transmitted signal of the plurality of signals is NACK, determine that the NACK is invalid HARQ feedback information and continue the sequential transmission; and only in a case that the HARQ feedback information corresponding to the last transmitted signal of the plurality of signals is NACK, determine that the NACK is valid HARQ feedback information and perform a sequential retransmission of the identical user data.
in a case that any of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information is ACK, determine a first arriving piece of HARQ feedback information that is ACK as valid HARQ feedback information and terminate the sequential transmission; in a case that any of the plural pieces of HARQ feedback information other than HARQ feedback information corresponding to a last transmitted signal of the plurality of signals is NACK, determine that the NACK is invalid HARQ feedback information and continue the sequential transmission; and only in a case that the HARQ feedback information corresponding to the last transmitted signal of the plurality of signals is NACK, determine that the NACK is valid HARQ feedback information and perform a sequential retransmission of the identical user data, wherein each of the plurality of signals includes a respective redundancy version in addition to the identical user data.
While no table is provided, instant claim 6 is also directed to the same invention as reference claim 1. Instant claim 7 is directed to the same invention as reference claim 2. Instant claim 8 is directed to the same invention as reference claim 3. Instant claim 9 is directed to the same invention as reference claim 4. Instant claim 10 is directed to the same invention as reference claim 5. Instant claim 11 is directed to the same invention as reference claim 6. Lastly, instant claims 12 and 13 are directed to the same invention as reference claim 1.
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 1-13 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.
The independent claims use a combination of conjunctions, “and/or,” to conjoin their limitations. This creates ambiguity as to the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, claim 1 recites, in part, “an electronic device on side of a user device.” Claim 1 (preamble). It is unclear what constitutes a device “on side” of another device. As best the Examiner understands the claimed invention, the functions recited in claim 1 appear to be functions executed by the base station. E.g. Spec., figure 4 (base station transmits data signals and receives HARQ feedback).
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, 2, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20220216954) in view of Park (US 20160020873).
Regarding claims 1, and 12, and 13, Lin teaches an electronic device on side of a user device, a communication method, and a non-transitory computer product containing instructions for a communication method performed by an electronic device, the communication method comprising:
. . . transmitting a plurality of signals to a control device over a plurality of consecutive slots (Lin, ¶¶7, 9, and 53 – UE transmits redundant versions of an uplink packet, where each version is a sub-packet via PUSCHs);
receiving hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback information which indicate whether a decoding for the user data by the control device is successful or not (Lin, ¶41 – UE receives DFI signal which includes an ACK/NACK indication for a plurality of sub-packets that belong to a slot aggregation [i.e. the PUSCH repetitions]);
in a case that the HARQ feedback information is received after a completion of the signal transmission in a first slot from the plurality of slots by a preconfigured duration D, determining the HARQ feedback information as valid if a value of the HARQ feedback information is ACK (Lin, figure 3A, steps 320, 325, and 325A and ¶¶70, 72, and 73 – if the second time duration, which is from the first sub-packet to the reception of the DFI is greater than D and the value of the ACK/NACK indication is equal to ACK, then the ACK/NACK indication is determined as being valid; see also id. at ¶14 for sub-packets as slots); and/or
in a case that the HARQ feedback information is received after a completion of the signal transmission in a last slot from the plurality of slots by a preconfigured duration D, determining the HARQ feedback information as valid if a value of the HARQ feedback information is NACK. Lin, figure 3A, steps 310 and 310A and ¶¶70-71 – if the first duration, which is from last sub-packet to the reception of the DFI is greater than D and regardless of the value of the ACK/NACK indication [i.e. including if its NACK], the ACK/NACK indication is considered valid).
Lin does not explicitly teach transmitting its sub-packets “in response to scheduling information in Downlink Control Information (DCI).” Lin only discusses the UE receiving a DCI. Lin, ¶8. However, Park teaches a UE that receives downlink control information and then transmits its uplink signal according to the DCI. Park, ¶53 and figure 4 (DCI in PDSCCH at s407 that triggers the PUSCH at s408). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to schedule the uplink PUSCH transmissions, taught by Lin, via a DCI from the base station, as taught by Park, in order to provide the UE with resource allocation. Id. at ¶53.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin and Park also teaches wherein the transmitted plurality of signals comprises a sequential transmission that transmits identical user data via a plurality of signals to the control device over the plurality of consecutive slots. Lin, ¶¶7, 9, and 53 (UE transmits redundant versions of an uplink packet, where each version is a sub-packet via PUSCHs); Lin, figure 41 (sequential transmission of PUSCHs over multiple slots).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 lack a prior art rejection. In particular, the prior art teaches that when transmitting a repetition of PUSCHs, HARQ feedback information may be consolidated for more than one PUSCH. For example, in Park, feedback is provided in either subframe 4 or subframe 5 for the data transmissions provided in subframes 0-2. Park, figure 10. Park does not teach each HARQ information of a plurality of HARQ information corresponding to one data transmission. Instead, in Park, a single HARQ may provide feedback for all data transmissions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for using EFS or mail, but not email to authorize electronic communications). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/Benjamin Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights