Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 November 2016 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07 November 2016 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of claims 1-5, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chandrasekhar et al. (US 2012/0063321) in view of Damnjanovic et al. (US 2011/0188481). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Chandrasekhar discloses a method of configuring a cross-carrier Control Format Indicator (CFI) (para. 40) such that a CFI value can be specified for a duration (para. 40; note: semi-statically signaled CFI), the method comprising: applying the same CFI value by the User Equipment (UE) for a duration until the CFI value is reconfigured (para. 44; note: dynamic signaling versus semi-static signaling; para. 42; note: CFI having two bits as standardized as different values) by an evolved Node B (eNB) (paras. 4, 17 and 32; note: DL PCFICH carrying the CFI).
However, Chandrasekhar fails to disclose that a CFI value can be specified for each subframe within an x number of consecutive frames, the method comprising: applying the same CFI value by the User Equipment (UE) for every x consecutive frames. Damnjanovic discloses semi-statically configured subframes (paras. 196-197 and fig. 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have a CFI value specified for each subframe within an x number of consecutive frames, and applying the same CFI value by the User Equipment (UE) for every x consecutive frames in the invention of Chandrasekhar. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, reducing signaling for subframes as is known in the art (i.e., providing a signaling for several subframes as opposed to individual signaling in each subframe) (Damnjanovic, paras. 196-197 and fig. 10; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein x is 1 or 4 (Damnjanovic; para. 196-197 and 203; note: a few consecutive subframes), corresponding to Multicast/Broadcast over Single Frequency Network (MBSFN) subframe configuration of one or four frames (para. 169; note: PFCICH along with other DL channels and the PMCH for broadcast in a MBSFN). Examiner notes x being only “1” would result in a claim objection or a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because a single subframe cannot be consecutive subframes.
Regarding claim 3, Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration method is semi-static RRC signaling (Damnjanovic, para. 212; note: dedicated signaling for PCFICH that is semi-persistently (semi-statically) scheduled).
Regarding claim 4, Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 3, wherein the RRC signaling is dedicated (Damnjanovic, para. 212; note: dedicated signaling for PCFICH that is semi-persistently (semi-statically) scheduled).
Claim 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fong et al. (US 2011/0170496).
Regarding claim 5, Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic fails to teach and make obvious the claimed limitations but Fong discloses operating a communication system by using CFI (paras. 23 and 33; note: a femto cell having PCFICH), comprising: a step of setting up a Macro eNB and a pico/femto eNB (paras. 4-5 and para. 52; note: deployment and signaling exchange between the macro eNB and low power node); a step of exchanging information between the macro eNB and pico/femto eNB (paras. 52 and 123); a step of initially having a User Equipment (UE) accessing and camping on the pico/femto UE (para. 29-31; para. 59-60; paras. 51 and 72, and fig. 6b; note: UE camped on serving cell s as CC2 for the low power node); a step of setting up carrier aggregation and cross-carrier scheduling configuration for the UE (paras. 52, 70 and 79; note: configuring PDCCH used in cross-carrier scheduling and configuring component carriers; para. 60; note: SIB for carrier assignment); a step of activating carrier aggregation (paras. 70 and 79; note: carrier measurement and reporting for communication); a step of transmitting cross-carrier Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) by the pico/femto eNB (fig. 6b and para. 51); and a step of receiving cross-carrier PDCCH and Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) by the pico/femto eNB (fig. 6B and para. 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have operating a communication system by using CFI as configured by the method according to claim 1, comprising: a step of setting up a Macro eNB and a pico/femto eNB; a step of exchanging information between the macro eNB and pico/femto eNB; a step of initially having a User Equipment (UE) accessing and camping on the pico/femto UE; a step of setting up carrier aggregation and cross-carrier scheduling configuration for the UE; a step of activating carrier aggregation; a step of transmitting cross-carrier Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) by the pico/femto eNB; and a step of receiving cross-carrier PDCCH and Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) by the pico/femto eNB in the invention of Chandrasekhar in view of Damnjanovic. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing communication services in a heterogenous network as standardized and known in the art (para. 5 and fig. 6b); MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8-12, 14-19, 21-25 and 27-33 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Park et al. (US 2012/0230239) discloses a cross-carrier CIF to indicate the start of a data section (PDSCH) (fig. 10 and para. 110, especially the last sentence) but is not considered prior art based on its provisional application priority date because its PCT was not published in English.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights