Ack/nack channelization for resource blocks containing both ack/nack and cqi

All actions (5)

Office ActionLatest

Jul 11, 2019

Petition Decision Published — administrative ruling on a procedural matter

Review the full text of the petition decision (available through PAIR or Private PAIR) to understand what was granted or denied. If the petition was denied and a deadline is at risk, you may need to file a request for reconsideration or take corrective action quickly. If granted, follow any instructions in the decision. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Procedural framework (3)

MPEP§ 211.01·§ 211.05

Case lawIn Re Application

Notice of Allowance

Dec 14, 2018

Notice of Allowance — claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 allowed

The applicant must pay the issue fee within three months of the Notice of Allowance mailing date to complete the patent grant process. Once the issue fee is paid and any required drawings or formal matters are resolved, the USPTO will issue the patent. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Allowable subject matter (1)

allowableclaims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Feb 7, 2018 · §101, §103

Non-Final Office Action after RCE — claims rejected under §101 law of nature and §103 obviousness

The applicant has three months from February 7, 2018 to respond, extendable to six months with fees. Common attorney moves include arguing that the claims are not directed to a law of nature (or contain significantly more), amending claims to distinguish them from the cited prior art, or requesting an examiner interview to narrow the issues. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (4)

§ 101Law of natureclaims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 17-18, 20
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Feb 7, 2018
Examiner theory
Claim(s) 1, 12, 15, 18 are directed to the steps of transmitting a size value of a 1st portion of data, which is an abstract idea similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as organizing and manipulating information though a mathematical correlation (Digitech) and collecting, displaying and manipulating data (Int. Ventures vs. Cap One Financial). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites Generic computing components and functions such as a transmitter and receiver are claimed at a high level of generality and are considered well-under-stood, routine and conventional functions that do not meaningfully limit the claim. The steps of rece

Final Office Action

Jan 25, 2017 · §103

Final Office Action — all claims 1-20 rejected under §103 obviousness over multiple prior art combinations

A Final Office Action typically requires a response within three months (extendable up to six months with fees). Common options include filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with amendments or arguments, appealing to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or requesting an examiner interview to narrow the issues. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 103(a)Obviousnessclaims 1-6, 9-20
Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2008/0316957), hereinafter referred to as Shen, in view of Xu (US 2008/0287155), in further view of Cho et al. (US 2008/0175195), hereinafter referred to as Cho.
Final Office Action mailed Jan 25, 2017
§ 103(a)Obviousnessclaims 7
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2008/0316957), hereinafter referred to as Shen, and Xu and Cho in further view of Samsung (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #50 R1-073541 included in IDS).
Final Office Action mailed Jan 25, 2017
§ 103(a)Obviousnessclaims 8

Non-Final Office Action

Apr 21, 2016 · §101, §103

Non-Final Office Action — claims 1-20 rejected under §103 obviousness; claims 11 and 17 also rejected under §101

This is a non-final rejection, so the applicant has three months (extendable to six) to respond. Typical attorney moves include amending claims to distinguish them from the cited prior art, arguing that the references don't teach the claimed features, or addressing the §101 rejection by showing the claims are tied to a specific technical improvement. An interview with the examiner is often valuable at this stage. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (4)

§ 101Non statutory subject matterclaims 11, 17
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Apr 21, 2016
Examiner theory
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a computer readable medium, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se, particularly when the specification is silent. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter.
§ 103(a)Obviousnessclaims 1-6, 9-20

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20080316957	patent publication	Shen et al.	View ↗
US20050201325	patent publication	Kang et al.	View ↗
US20080287155	patent publication	Xu	View ↗
US8077693	us patent	Zhang et al.	View ↗
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, Cho Un can be reached on (571)272-7919	non patent literature	—	View ↗
see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)	non patent literature	—	View ↗

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20080316957	patent publication	Shen et al.	View ↗
US20080287155	patent publication	Xu	View ↗
US20080175195	patent publication	Cho et al.	View ↗
US8077693	us patent	Zhang et al.	View ↗

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20080316957	patent publication	Shen et al.	View ↗
US20080175195	patent publication	Cho et al.	View ↗
US8077693	us patent	Zhang et al.	View ↗
see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)	non patent literature	—	View ↗
refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S	non patent literature	—	View ↗
US9065646	us patent	—	View ↗

The latest Office Action

Claim status

Open 14/713,357 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (5)

Office ActionLatest

Notice of Allowance

Allowable subject matter (1)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (4)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (3)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (4)

Prior art consulted (6)

Prior art consulted (4)

Prior art consulted (6)