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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He; Hong et al. US 20140293842 A1, in view of Stern-Berkowitz; Janet A. et al. US PGPUB 11671233 B2 (hereinafter Stern) supported by provisional application 61753354.
Regarding claim 2. He teaches A terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives (Fig. 1, UE Receiver 144) a configuration indicating a plurality of timings of subframe assigned to uplink, ([0026] the TDD UL/DL configuration indicated in a system information block (SIB) message. In some embodiments the SIB message indicating of DL subframe or a set of DL subframes conveying the DCI may be the system information block type 1 (SIB1) as described in the 3GPP LTE standards. The SIB1 may be broadcast by the eNB 104, and correspondingly received by the UE 108, on the PDSCH. )
receives a first downlink control information including a first timing information indicating a transmission timing of a HARQ-ACK feedback within a radio frame relative to a reception timing of a physical downlink shared channel within a radio frame, ([0031] the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n, while the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n+1 may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n+1.) and
receives a second downlink control information including a second timing information indicating a transmission timing of the HARQ-ACK feedback within a radio frame relative to a reception timing of the physical downlink shared channel within a radio frame; ([0031] the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n, while the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n+1 may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n+1.) and
performs transmission of the HARQ-ACK feedback at the selected timing, ([0026] In some embodiments, the transmission of data, either from the eNB 104 or the UE 108, and/or the transmission of a HARQ-ACK signal may be performed according to the timing prescribed by one or more of the TDD UL/DL configurations depicted above in Table 1.)
wherein the second timing information is different from the first timing information. ([0044] Otherwise, in a third case, the HARQ-ACK timing for DL type 2 subframes in radio frame n may follow a TDD UL/DL configuration that is different from the TDD UL/DL configuration of radio frames n or n+1 if the DL subframes of the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n is neither a subset nor a superset of the DL subframes of the TDD UL/DL configuration of radio frame n+1.)
He does not teach
a processor that determines whether the first timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within a specific range of timings corresponding to the plurality of timings of the subframes assigned to uplink, and determines whether the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings,
wherein, when it is determined that the first timing information does not indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings and that the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range, the processor does not select, from among the plurality of timings, a timing based on the first timing information, selects, from among the plurality of timings, the timing based on the second timing information,
However, Stern teaches
a processor (Fig. 4B Processor 118) that determines whether the first timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within a specific range of timings corresponding to the plurality of timings of the subframes assigned to uplink, (col 56, paragraph of line 13-40 “The WTRU 501 may receive 505 an indication of directions to use for subframes with conflicting directions between the first TDD UL/DL configuration and the second TDD UL/DL configuration from the eNB 502. The WTRU 501 may follow (or use) 506 the first TDD UL/DL configuration for timing of UL scheduling and UL HARQ.”
See also col 50 line 60 Conflicting subframes may consist of subframes which are marked UL in config_cell and DL in config_wtru_1.
Supported by ‘354 page 30, para 109) and
determines whether the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings, (col 56, paragraph of line 13-40 “The WTRU 501 may follow (or use) 507 the second TDD UL/DL configuration for timing of DL scheduling and DL HARQ.”
See also col 50 line 60 Conflicting subframes may consist of subframes which are marked UL in config_cell and DL in config_wtru_1.
Supported by ‘354 page 32, para 112)
wherein, when it is determined that the first timing information does not indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings and that the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range, (col 50 line 60 Conflicting subframes may consist of subframes which are marked UL in config_cell and DL in config_wtru_1) the processor does not select, from among the plurality of timings, a timing based on the first timing information, selects, from among the plurality of timings, the timing based on the second timing information, (col 50, paragraph line 60-67 “The WTRUs may use config_wtru_1 for the reference timing and/or opportunity rules for UL scheduling (for example, the timing between the reception of the UL grant and corresponding transmission or allocation for transmission of the UL data) and/or PUSCH HARQ timing (for example, the timing between the transmission of the UL data and the reception of its corresponding HARQ feedback, such as PHICH) and/or UL retransmission”
supported by ‘354 page 34 para 0118 )
in order to increase system efficiency by reducing conflicting UL/DL reconfigurations in the base station and the WTRU (col 45, lines 5-10])
He and Stern are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in He with the technique of conflict resolution for multiple UL/DL configurations in order to increase system efficiency.
Regarding claim 3. He and Stern teach A radio communication method for a terminal comprising the identical steps performed by the UE in claim 2. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4. He teaches A base station comprising: a transmitter (Fig. 1, eNB 104, Transmitter circuitry 124) that
transmits a configuration indicating a plurality of timings of subframes assigned to uplink; ([0026] the TDD UL/DL configuration indicated in a system information block (SIB) message. In some embodiments the SIB message indicating of DL subframe or a set of DL subframes conveying the DCI may be the system information block type 1 (SIB1) as described in the 3GPP LTE standards. The SIB1 may be broadcast by the eNB 104, and correspondingly received by the UE 108, on the PDSCH. ) and
a processor (Fig. 1 Processor 128) that determines a first timing information indicating a transmission timing of a HARQ-ACK feedback within a radio frame relative to a reception timing of a physical downlink shared channel within a radio frame, ([0031] the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n, while the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n+1 may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n+1.) determines that a second timing information indicating a transmission timing of the HARQ-ACK feedback within a radio frame relative to a reception timing of a physical downlink shared channel withina radio frame, ([0031] the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n, while the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n+1 may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n+1.) controls transmitting a first downlink control information including the first timing information, and controls transmitting a second downlink control information including the second timing information,([0031] the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n, while the DCI message that indicates the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n+1 may be transmitted in a subframe of radio frame n+1.)
wherein the second timing information is different from the first timing information. . ([0044] Otherwise, in a third case, the HARQ-ACK timing for DL type 2 subframes in radio frame n may follow a TDD UL/DL configuration that is different from the TDD UL/DL configuration of radio frames n or n+1 if the DL subframes of the TDD UL/DL configuration for radio frame n is neither a subset nor a superset of the DL subframes of the TDD UL/DL configuration of radio frame n+1.)
He does not teach
a processor that determines whether the first timing information indicates a subframe within a specific range corresponding to one or more subframes assigned to uplink, and determines whether the second timing information indicates a subframe within the specific range,
wherein, when the first timing information does not indicate a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings corresponding to the plurality of timings of the subframe assigned to uplink
and that the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings, the processor controls receiving the HARQ-ACK feedback at a timing that is not selected from among the plurality of timings, based on the first timing information, and that is selected from among the plurality of timings, the timing based on the second timing information,
However, Stern teaches
a processor (Fig. 4B Processor 118) that determines whether the first timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within a specific range of timings corresponding to the plurality of timings of the subframes assigned to uplink, (col 56, paragraph of line 13-40 “The WTRU 501 may receive 505 an indication of directions to use for subframes with conflicting directions between the first TDD UL/DL configuration and the second TDD UL/DL configuration from the eNB 502. The WTRU 501 may follow (or use) 506 the first TDD UL/DL configuration for timing of UL scheduling and UL HARQ.”
See also col 50 line 60 Conflicting subframes may consist of subframes which are marked UL in config_cell and DL in config_wtru_1. ) and
determines whether the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings, (col 56, paragraph of line 13-40 “The WTRU 501 may follow (or use) 507 the second TDD UL/DL configuration for timing of DL scheduling and DL HARQ.”
See also col 50 line 60 Conflicting subframes may consist of subframes which are marked UL in config_cell and DL in config_wtru_1.)
wherein, the first timing information does not indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range of timings and that the second timing information indicates a timing of a subframe within the specific range, (col 50 line 60 Conflicting subframes may consist of subframes which are marked UL in config_cell and DL in config_wtru_1)
the processor does not select, from among the plurality of timings, a timing based on the first timing information, selects, from among the plurality of timings, the timing based on the second timing information, (col 50, paragraph line 60-67 “The WTRUs may use config_wtru_1 for the reference timing and/or opportunity rules for UL scheduling (for example, the timing between the reception of the UL grant and corresponding transmission or allocation for transmission of the UL data) and/or PUSCH HARQ timing (for example, the timing between the transmission of the UL data and the reception of its corresponding HARQ feedback, such as PHICH) and/or UL retransmission” )
in order to increase system efficiency by reducing conflicting UL/DL reconfigurations in the base station and the WTRU (col 45, lines 5-10])
He and Stern are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in He with the technique of conflict resolution for multiple UL/DL configurations in order to increase system efficiency.
Regarding claim 5. He and Stern teach A system comprising: a terminal performing the method in claim 4. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
