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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application claims priority from provisional application 62106594 (filed 01/22/2015).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 31, 33, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YOU et al. (WO 2013/125871 A1, hereinafter YOU, NOTE: corresponding US 20150030090 A1 is used below for translation and rejection citation purposes), in view of Chen et al. (US 20130028149 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 31, YOU teaches a method, comprising:
receiving allocation information on a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) (see at least para. 83, e.g. receiving information in PBCH),
the PBCH being entirely included in each of at least two non-adjacent slots (see fig. 12 in view of at least para. 108, for one non-limiting example, see fig. 12 “5 ms shift” where the first 10 slots comprise “FFFDDFSUFF”, note that this is one possible example of many examples in fig. 12, also note that each one of fig. 7, 9, 10, 11, and 13 has same or similar examples that could also be used for rejection),
the 10ms interval having an uplink/downlink (UL/DL) configuration where at least the first three slots of the 10ms interval are downlink slots (see fig. 12 in view of at least para. 108, for one non-limiting example, see fig. 12 “5 ms shift” where the first 10 slots comprise “FFFDDFSUFF”, note that “...For reference, since each of ‘F’ and ‘F/S’ may be used as ‘D’, ‘F’ and ‘F/S’ correspond to subframes which may be used by the UE for reception of the PBCH,...”),
decoding the allocation information (see at least para. 83 in view of para. 151, e.g. decoding information in PBCH); and
receiving procedural information on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) in response to the decoded allocation information (see at least para. 61, e.g. PDSCH is indicated by PDCCH).
YOU does not explicitly teach the PBCH being entirely included in each of at least two non-adjacent slots within a 10 millisecond (ms) interval.
Chen, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches the PBCH being entirely included in each of at least two non-adjacent slots within a 10 millisecond (ms) interval (see fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs at least 42-44, e.g. PBCH within frame 204).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Chen into the method of YOU for effectively reducing signaling overhead.
Regarding claim 33, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 31 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, YOU in view of Chen also teaches a same or similar apparatus with a transceiver (YOU, see at least fig. 17), which is well known in the art and commonly used for providing robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 37, YOU in view of Chen teaches receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) corresponding to the PDCCH; and transmitting one of an acknowledgement (ACK) or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) in response to receiving the PDSCH. (YOU, see at least para. 67 in view of para. 61, “...HARQ-ACK is a response to a PDCCH and/or a response to a DL data packet (e.g. a codeword) on a PDSCH. HARQ-ACK indicates whether the PDCCH or PDSCH has been successfully received...”)
Regarding claim 38, YOU in view of Chen teaches transmitting one of the ACK or the NACK includes transmitting the ACK or the NACK on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). (YOU, see at least para. 65 and 67, “...The PUCCH may be used to transmit the following control information ... HARQ-ACK: ...”)
Regarding claim 39, in view of claim 33 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 37 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 40, in view of claim 33 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 38 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Regarding claims 33, 39, and 40, the rejection is withdrawn. Examiner finds that the “transceiver” in itself, as opposed of a component included in a wireless communication device (as examiner interpreted), is of the remote unit (RU) disclosed in the Specification. For example, in at least paragraph 78 the Specification (as published US20160219558A1) discloses the RU performs the steps of the transceiver of claim 33. In addition, the RU disclosed in figure 1 appears to be a physical device of a wireless relay system, and such RU is known to inherently have circuitries for processing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding independent claim 31, applicant argues that:
“The Examiner acknowledged that You et al. (WO 2013/125871) fails to "explicitly teach the PBCH being entirely included in each of at least two non-adjacent slots within a 10 millisecond (ms) interval," and turned to paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and FIG. 2 of Chen et al. (US Pub. 2013/0028149) in an attempt to cure this deficiency.
The cited portions of Chen et al. are describing a portion of the LTE standard, specifically "a down link frame structure 200 used in LTE." (Chen et al., paragraph [0042]). According to paragraph [0043] of Chen et al., in the LTE frame structure, "the eNodeB may send a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) in symbol periods 0 to 3 in slot 1 of subframe 0." Thus, in LTE (and Chen et al.) the PBCH is sent in only one slot per frame, which results in the PBCH being sent only in one slot per 10ms interval. The PBCH shown for slot 11 in FIG. 2 of Chen et al. is a typographical error, as it is inconsistent with both paragraph [0043] of the Chen et al. and the LTE standard. Thus, Chen et al. merely describes a PBCH occurring in one slot per 10 ms interval, and therefore does not cure the shortcomings of You et al. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.” (Remarks, page 4)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. To be more specific, fig. 2 of Chen is reproduced hereinbelow for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
290
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clearly, slots of subframe 1 and subframe 11, which are included in a 10ms radio frame, are non-adjacent and comprise PBCH. Hence, Chen combined or alone, indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...the PBCH being entirely included in each of at least two non-adjacent slots within a 10 millisecond (ms) interval...”, as recited in claim 31.
Regarding independent claim 33, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 31 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 31, and 33, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights