DETAILED ACTION
Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 4
II. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 4
III. Priority 4
IV. Pertinent Prosecution History 5
V. Claim Status 7
VI. Reissue Requirements 8
VII. Reissue Oath/Declaration 9
VIII. Claim Objections 10
IX. Claim Interpretation 11
A. Lexicographic Definitions 12
B. 35 U.S.C § 112 6th Paragraph 12
X. Broadening of Examined Claims 12
A. Broadening of Examined Claims’ Limitations 13
i. Method and Computer Readable Medium (CRM) Claims 13
a. RI Claims 13, 20 and 23 13
XI. Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 13
A. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph 13
(1) New Matter 14
B. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph 16
XII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 18
A. Oath/Declaration 18
B. New Matter 18
XIII. Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103 18
A. Claims 13-17, 19, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0039297) in view of Park (International Publication No. WO 2012/148083 A2 (“Park’083”); utilizing Park (U.S. Patent 9,590,784)(“Park’784”) as the English equivalent for translation). 19
B. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0039297) in view of Park (International Publication No. WO 2012/148083 A2 (“Park’083”); utilizing Park (U.S. Patent 9,590,784)(“Park’784”) as the English equivalent for translation) as applied to claims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 above, and further in view of Heo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/02358152)(“Heo”). 38
XIV. Response to Arguments 40
A. Oath/Declaration Objection(s) 40
B. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection over Wang 41
(1) Independent Claims 13 and 23 41
(2) Dependent Claims 16 and 23 42
XV. Conclusion 44
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 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 06 January 2023 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant filed the instant continuation application 17/331,049 (“‘049 Reissue Application”) on 26 May 2021, for U.S. Application No. 14/441,149 (“‘149 Application"), filed 06 May 2015, now U.S. Patent No. 10,321,446 (“‘446 Patent”), issued 11 June 2019, which is a National Stage Application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of PCT International Application No. PCT/KR2013/011300, filed 06 December 2013, and which claims domestic priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/734,382 (“’382 Prov Application”), filed 07 December 2012.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that for examination purposes the instant ‘049 Reissue Application claims a priority date of 07 December 2012.
Pertinent Prosecution History
As set forth supra, Applicant filed the application for the instant ‘049 Reissue Application on 26 May 2021. The Examiner finds that the instant ‘049 Reissue Application included a preliminary amendment (“May 2021 Preliminary Amendment”) to the claims (“May 2021 Claim Amendment”), and the specification (“May 2021 Spec Amendment”). The May 2021 Claim Amendment includes an amendment canceling original claims 1-10 and adding new claims 11-30.
The Office issued a non-Final Office action on 13 July 2022 (“July 2022 Non-Final Office Action”). In particular, the July 2022 Non-Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 11-30 (“Rejected Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103, 112 and 251. 1
On 30 September 2022, Applicant filed a response to the July 2022 Non-Final Office Action (“Sept 2022 Applicant Response”). The Sept 2022 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” “Amendments to the Specification” (“Sept 2022 Spec Amendment”), and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Sept 2022 Claim Amendment”) including: previously canceled original claims 1-10; amended new claims 13, 21, 23, 26 and 302; previously presented new claims 14-20, 22, 24, 26 and 27-29, and canceled new claims 11 and 12.
The Office issued a Final Office action on 21 October 2022 (“July 2022 Non-Final Office Action”). In particular, the Oct 2022 Non-Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 13-30 (“Rejected Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112 and 251. 3
On 06 January 2023, Applicant filed a “Response to Final Office Action” (“Jan 2023 Applicant Response”). The Jan 2023 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” “Amendments to the Specification” (“Jan 2023 Spec Amendment”); and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Jan 2023 Claim Amendment”) including: previously canceled original claims 1-10; twice4 amended new claims 13 and 23; previously amended new claim 265; previously presented new claims 14-17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27 and 29; new claims 31-346; previously canceled new claims 11 and 127; and canceled new claims 18, 21, 22, 28 and 308.
On 13 November 2023, Applicant filed a Supplemental Response (“Nov 2023 Applicant Sup Response”). The Nov 2023 Applicant Sup Response contained: “Remarks,” “Amendments to the Specification” (“Nov 2023 Spec Amendment”); and “Amendments to the Claims” (“Nov 2023 Claim Amendment”). The Examiner finds that the “Remarks,” and Nov 2023 Spec Amendment, and Nov 2023 Claim Amendment in the Nov 2023 Applicant Sup Response are equivalent to the “Remarks,” and Jan 2023 Spec Amendment, and Jan 2023 Claim Amendment in the Jan 2023 Applicant Response, except for the Nov 2023 Claim Amendment now being compliant with 37 CFR 1.173.
The Office issued a non-Final Office action on 01 February 2024 (“Feb 2024 Non-Final Office Action”). In particular, the Feb 2024 Non-Final Office Action provided rejections for claim 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 (“Rejected Claims”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 251. 9
On 01 May 2024, Applicant filed a Response to Final Office Action” (“May 2024 Applicant Response”). The May 2024 Applicant Response contained: “Remarks,” and “Amendments to the Claims” (“May 2024 Claim Amendment”) including: previously canceled original claims 1-10; thrice10 amended new claims 13 and 23; twice11 amended new claim 26; once12 amended new claim 16; previously presented new claims 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31-34; previously canceled new claims 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 28 and 3013.
Claim Status
The Examiner finds that the claim status in the instant ‘049 Reissue Application is as follows:
Claim(s) 1-10 (Original and canceled)
Claim(s) 13 and 23 (New and thrice amended)
Claim(s) 26 (New and twice amended)
Claim(s) 16 (New and once amended)
Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29 and 31-34 (New and previously presented)
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 28 and 30 (New and previously canceled)
Thus, the Examiner concludes that claims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 are pending in the instant ‘049 Reissue Application. Claims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 are examined (“Examined Claims”).
Reissue Requirements
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘446 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, post-grant proceedings and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
The Examiner notes that Amendment practice for Reissue Applications is NOT the same as for non-provisional applications. See MPEP §§ 1413 and 1453. Reissue application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173, while non-provisional application amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.173. Particularly,
Manner of making amendments under 37 CFR 1.173:
All markings (underlining and bracketing) are made relative to the original patent text, 37 CFR 1.173(g) (and not relative to the prior amendment).
For amendments to the abstract, specification and claims, the deleted matter must be enclosed in brackets, and the added matter must be underlined. See 37 CFR 1.173(d).
For amendments to the drawings, any changes to a patent drawing must be submitted as a replacement sheet of drawings which shall be an attachment to the amendment document. Any replacement sheet of drawings must be in compliance with § 1.84 and shall include all of the figures appearing on the original version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. Amended figures must be identified as "Amended," and any added figure must be identified as "New." In the event that a figure is canceled, the figure must be surrounded by brackets and identified as "Canceled." All changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.173(d)(3).
The Examiner further notes that all amendments to the instant ‘049 Reissue Application must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)-(g).
Reissue Oath/Declaration
The Examiner finds that the Declaration filed by Applicant on 26 May 2021 (“May 2021 Declaration”) is defective because it does not correctly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the May 2021 Declaration indicates:
Claim 1 is broadened, via Applicant's proposed independent claims, by omitting at least features related to "receiving, based on a preset resource index, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) signal through a physical HARQ indicator channel (PHICH)."
(May 2021 Declaration at 1). In examination of the May 2021 Preliminary Amendment, the Examiner finds that new claims 11 and 12, added with the May 2021 Claim Amendment, were broadened with the removal of the features asserted above. (See May 2021 Preliminary Amendment at 10-11). In addition, in the May 2021 Preliminary Amendment, Applicant asserted that
Independent claims 13, 21, 23 and 30 are directed to an alternative embodiment than that of claims 11 and 12.
(Id. at 11). In prosecution of the instant ‘049 Reissue Application, Applicant canceled new claims 11 and 12 in the Sept 2022 Applicant Response. (See Sept 2022 Applicant Response at 11; also see Sept 2022 Claim Amendment). Thus, since the error indicated by Applicant is no longer being corrected by the instant ‘049 Reissue Application, the Examiner finds that the May 2021 Declaration is defective because it does not correctly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
Claim Objections
MPEP § 1453 states,
pursuant to 37 CFR 1.173(c), each amendment submitted must set forth the status of all patent claims and all added claims as of the date of the submission. The status to be set forth is whether the claim is pending or canceled. The failure to submit the claim status will generally result in a notification to applicant that the amendment before final rejection is not completely responsive (see 37 CFR 1.135(c) ) (see 37 CFR 1.135(c)).
(MPEP § 1453; emphasis added). The Examiner finds the “Claim Status” provided by Applicant indicates that “[c]laims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 are pending in the current application.” (May 2024 Applicant Response at 6). While the May 2024 Applicant Response did indicate which claims were pending, the April 2024 Applicant Response did not explicitly indicate which claims were canceled. Appropriate correction is required
The Examiner further asserts that a claim amendment filed after final not complying with 37 CFR 1.173(c) will not be entered. (Id.)
In addition, the May 2024 Claim Amendment does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) and is objected to because Applicant has not provided the correct parenthetical expression for a claim. Specifically, instantly provided new claim 27 is indicated as “(New, Twice Amended)” when instead it should be indicated as just “(New).” (See 37 CFR 1.173(b); and MPEP §§ 1453.II, V.D-E). Appropriate correction is required
Claim Interpretation
During examination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP § 2111, MPEP § 2111.01 and In re Yamamoto et al., 222 USPQ 934 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111.01(I). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP § 2111.01(II). Therefore, unless one of the exceptions applies below, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Lexicographic Definitions
A first exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the claims is when the Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term. See MPEP § 2111.01(IV). Following an independent review of the claims in view of the specification herein, Examiners find that Applicant has not provided any lexicographic definitions related to claim terms with any reasonable clarity, deliberateness and precision.
35 U.S.C § 112 6th Paragraph
A second exception to giving words in the claims their ordinary and customary meaning is when a claimed phrase is interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 6th paragraph. See MPEP § 2181 et seq.
The Examiner finds that because the Examined Claims do not recite “step,” “means” or a claim term used as a substitution for “means” (i.e. a generic placeholder for “means”), the Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181. Because the forty (40) Examined Claims fail Prong (A) as set forth in MPEP §2181 I., the Examiner concludes that all Examined Claims do not invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, 6th paragraph. See also Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1215-16 (B.P.A.I. 2008)(precedential).
Broadening of Examined Claims
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 251(d):
(d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS.—No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent.
The Examiner finds that amended independent new claims 13 and 23 are broadened claims because the claims enlarge the scope of the patent, i.e., a claim which is greater in scope than each and every claim of the original patent. (See MPEP § 1412.03(I)).
Broadening of Examined Claims’ Limitations
Method and Computer Readable Medium (CRM) Claims
RI Claims 13, 20 and 23
The Examiner finds that new independent claims 13, 20 and 23 (“RI Claims 13/20/23”) of the instant ‘049 Reissue Application recite different embodiments that were not claimed in the original ‘446 Patent. (See May 2021 Preliminary Amendment at 11). The Examiner finds these new embodiments are not a broadening of the invention. (See MPEP §§ 1412.03.II-III).
Since, the instant ‘049 Reissue Application was filed within two years, a 35 U.S.C. § 251(d) rejection does not apply.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
New Matter
Claims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to the limitations of claims 13 and 23, the Examiner finds that claim 13 recites:
… receiving scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS)…
(May 2024 Claim Amendment at claim 13; emphasis added); and claim 23 recites:
… transmitting scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS)…
(Id. at claim 23; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that recitations to receiving/transmitting first information related to resource allocation and second information related to MCS is not sufficiently described in the ‘446 Patent. First, the Examiner finds insufficient support for the claim requirements in of the ‘446 Patent as indicated by Applicant. (See May 2024 Remarks at 11). Second, and to support the Examiner’s position, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ‘446 Patent discloses utilizing scheduling information including “preallocated/set RA/MCS/TB information” to provide preset conditions for UL/DL receipt and transmission (‘446 Patent at c.17, ll.45-63; c.19, ll.17-23), the Examiner finds that the ‘446 Patent does not disclose receiving/transmitting any information in the RRC signaling that is broader than the RA or MCS information itself (i.e., related to RA or MCS information itself). Moreover, the Examiner finds that the ‘446 Patent does not even provide sufficient disclosure to what exactly information related to RA and/or MCS is.
Thus, as such, the Examiner concludes that there is insufficient indication in the specification that Applicant had possession of “receiving scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS)…,” nor “transmitting scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS)…,” as recited. [Emphasis added].
Claims 14-17, 19, 20, 24-27, 29 and 31-34 are similarly rejected based on their dependency from independent claims 13 and 23.
With respect to the limitations of claims 16 and 26, the Examiner finds that claim 16 recites:
receiving the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal
(May 2024 Claim Amendment at claim 16; emphasis added); and claim 26 recites:
transmitting the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal
(Id. at claim 26; emphasis added). The Examiner finds that recitations to receiving/transmitting the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal is not sufficiently described in the ‘446 Patent. First, the Examiner finds insufficient support for the claim requirements in of the ‘446 Patent as indicated by Applicant. (See May 2024 Remarks at 11). Second, and to support the Examiner’s position, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the ‘446 Patent discloses the RA may comprise information including cycle (i.e., the Examiner construes “periodicity,” as recited in new claims 16 and 26, to be equivalent to “cycle , as disclosed in the ‘446 Patent) or offset for monitoring the physical channel (‘446 Patent at c.2, ll.27-35, emphasis at 30-35; id. at c.3, ll.8-15, emphasis at 11-15; c.18, ll.46-63, emphasis at 49-54; also see original claims 4, 9), the Examiner finds that the ‘446 Patent does not sufficiently disclose the offset information being “time offset” information associated with time. (Id.)
Thus, as such, the Examiner concludes that there is insufficient indication in the specification that Applicant had possession of “receiving the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal,” nor “transmitting the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal,” as recited. [Emphasis added].
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph
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 16 and 26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
With respect to the limitations of claims 16 and 26, the Examiner finds that claim 16 recites:
receiving the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal
(May 2024 Claim Amendment at claim 16; emphasis added); and claim 26 recites:
transmitting the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal
(Id. at claim 26; emphasis added). The Examiner finds it unclear and indefinite to what exactly a “time offset” is and what actual time the claim requirement is offset from. To support the Examiner’s position, the Examiner finds that the ‘446 Patent discloses an “offset” and monitoring said offset. (‘446 Patent at c.2, ll.27-35, emphasis at 30-35; id. at c.3, ll.8-15, emphasis at 11-15; c.18, ll.46-63, emphasis at 49-54; also see original claims 4, 9). In addition, the Examiner finds that claims 16 and 26, and the preceding claims, do not recite any time information at all, nor the time information being monitored. From this perspective, the Examiner queries Applicant to what exactly the claim requirement “time offset” is and what time is it actually offset from. Further clarification is required.
From this perspective, and to advance prosecution by providing art rejections infra, the Examiner construes “time offset” as some kind of timing parameter provided in the scheduling information. The claims will be examined as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Oath/Declaration
Claims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action. (See § VII supra).
New Matter
Claims 13-17, 19, 20, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
The Examiner finds that there is insufficient indication in the specification that Applicant had possession of at least a method for performing wireless communications by either a base station or user equipment that 1) receives/transmits scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS), or 2) receives/transmits the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal. (See § XI.A.(1) supra).
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 of this title, 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 negatived 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 13-17, 19, 23-27, 29 and 31-34 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Wang (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0039297) in view of Park (International Publication No. WO 2012/148083 A2 (“Park’083”); utilizing Park (U.S. Patent 9,590,784)(“Park’784”) as the English equivalent for translation).
With respect to the limitations of claim 13, Wang discloses
[a] method of performing wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses an apparatus and method for performing data communications by user equipment (UE). (Wang at Abstract; ¶¶ 0002, 0007-0011, 0023-0045, 0053-0057; see Figures 1-5A, 9).
receiving scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS), for performing uplink communications on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH);
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses an RRC message 400 being received by the UE at step S201. (Wang at ¶¶ 0030-0032, 0034-0043; see Figures 2, 4). The Examiner finds that the RRC message is scheduling information that includes resource allocation (RA) information for the data communication, modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information, and transport block (TB) size information. (Id.; see ¶ 0032 for the RRC message including “data and/or control signaling of UL/DL resource allocation assignment;” and ¶ 0041 for the RRC message including “a MCS indicator to indicate the modulation and code rate used for aggregate transmission”).
wherein the scheduling information including the first and the second information is pre-allocated to the UE through higher layer signaling prior to the uplink data communication being performed;
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the RRC message 400 received by the UE at step S201 being a “configuring or reconfiguring message” that is provided before any aggregated data is sent. (Id. at ¶¶ 0032, 0034-0044; see Figures 2, 4).
receiving, through physical layer signaling, after the scheduling information including the first information and the second information has been pre-allocated to the UE through higher layer signaling, a trigger signal related to the uplink data communication, based on monitoring periodicity and offset information configured for the trigger signal; and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the first embodiment utilizing PDCCH in downlink assignments during the first transmissions and subsequent re-transmission to inform a UE group of its resource allocation based upon the RNTI. (Wang at ¶ 0052-0054). Specifically, the Examiner finds that each transmission and re-transmission PDCCH signal may be dedicated to specific parameters (e.g., parameters included in the CCI such as MCS, HARQ information, etc.) with an example of a re-transmission PDCCH signal including specific information relating to RNTI or other parameters. (Id. at ¶¶ 0053-0054. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Wang discloses the UE receiving the first transmission (i.e., step S203), after receiving the RRC message 400 at step S201, as a trigger signal in the form of a PDCCH. (Id. at ¶¶ 0030-0032; 0053-0057; see Figures 2, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that Wang discloses parameters within the RRC message being utilized to configure the PDCCH trigger signal; and the parameters of the PDCCH trigger signal being utilized to further provide and/or specific parameters to encoded/decoded. (Id. at ¶¶ 0034, 0038-0039, 0053-0057).
determining, based on hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) information in the trigger signal, whether the pre-allocated scheduling information including the resource allocation information is activated; and
transmitting an uplink signal through the PUSCH based on a determination that the pre- allocated scheduling information including the first information and the second information is activated through the HARQ information in the trigger signal,
wherein a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) signal having a specific format of downlink control information (DCI) is used as the trigger signal for activating the pre-allocated scheduling information including the first information and the second information.
In this regard, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the user equipment (UE) receiving a PDCCH trigger with HARQ information/parameters therein. (See § XI.A.(3), supra). With respect to transmitting an uplink signal through the PUSCH, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the eNB 303 sending aggregated data to the UE 301, at step S203, based upon the RRC message 400 received at step S201. (Wang at ¶¶ 0024, 0030-0031, 0053-0057). The Examiner finds that Wang discloses the aggregated data including “data and/or control signaling of UL/DL resource allocation assignment to the UE.” (Id. at ¶ 0031).
While Wang discloses all the limitations as set forth above, Wang is silent to specifically calling for the user equipment (UE) utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information, which includes the resource allocation information, is active (i.e., able to use pre-allocated scheduling information and perform data transmission); and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination.
However, user equipment (UE) utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination is known in the art. The Examiner finds that Park’083, for example, teaches a method and device for controlling the transception of multiple pieces of control information in a wireless communication system through either RRC signaling or PDCCH. (Park’784 at Title; Abstract; c.1, l.55 – c.3, l.5; see c.12, l.52 – c.14, l.40 for RRC signaling; and c.14, l.41 – c.15, l.49; c.16, l.48 – c.17, l.6 ; see Figures 2-9, 12). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches providing a stand-alone PDCCH signal including scrambled DCI information to the UE, and the UE descrambling the DCI information in the PDCCH signal to determine the activation and/or release of pre-allocated scheduling information. (Id. also see c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; see Figures 6, 12). The Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches transmitting an uplink signals based upon the determination. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate user equipment (UE) utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination as described in Park’083 in the method of performing wireless communication by a UE of Wang.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide user equipment (UE) with the functionality of utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination, since it provides a mechanism to flexibly and extensively determine transceived information. (Id. at c.1, ll.40-51). In other words, such a modification would have provided a method of performing wireless communication that effectively and dynamically exchanges the control information among UE devices, thereby increasing the operational efficiency of performing wireless communication.
This combination of references also satisfies at least rationale C identified by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007): "Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way." (See MPEP 2143.) The elements of the Graham factual inquiry for supporting a finding of obviousness based on this rationale are provided below:
(1) A finding that the prior art (Wang) contained a “base” device (a device and method for performing wireless communication by a UE) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement” for including user equipment (UE) with the functionality of utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination in order to provide for effective and dynamic exchanges of the control information among UE devices.
(2) A finding that the prior art (Park’083) contained a "comparable" device (a device and method for performing wireless communication by a UE) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention, i.e. the Park’083 device(s) for controlling the transception of multiple pieces of control information in a wireless communication system utilizes user equipment (UE) with the functionality of utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination parameters in order to flexibly and extensively determine transceived information.
(3) A finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known “improvement” technique in the same way to the “base” device (the Wang device and method for performing wireless communication by a UE) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, because Wang indicates that the device and method can be utilized for providing data transmission for both a base station and UE and Park’083 teaches a manner for improving this, the results would be predictable. In other words, the Park’083 successful implementation or providing user equipment (UE) with the functionality of utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination proves that the implementation is both successful and entirely predictable. In Wang, the device and method for performing wireless communication by a UE modified according to Park’083 would be capable of incorporating user equipment (UE) utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger signal to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination to carry out the function of: flexibly and extensively determining transceived information that provides effective and dynamic exchanges of the control information among UE devices, as evidenced by the success in the Park’083 device(s) and method(s) for controlling the transception of multiple pieces of control information in a wireless communication system.
In that regard, the Examiner asserts the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the manner of enhancing a particular device (providing flexibly and extensively determining transceived information that provides effective and dynamic exchanges of the control information among UE devices including user equipment (UE) with the functionality of utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination) was made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in Park’083. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known “improvement” technique in the same manner to the prior art device and method for performing wireless communication by a UE of Wang and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely, one skilled in the art would have readily recognized that providing flexibly and extensively determining transceived information that provides effective and dynamic exchanges of the control information among UE devices including user equipment (UE) with the functionality of utilizing the HARQ information within the received PDCCH trigger to determine whether the pre-allocated scheduling information is active; and transmitting an uplink signal based upon the determination in Wang would positively provide a means to carry out, in addition to providing data transmission for both a base station and UE, a new function of: providing flexibly and extensively determining transceived information that provides effective and dynamic exchanges of the control information among UE devices, since such functionality is taught to be highly desirable by Park’083, as set forth above.
Thus, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that if the actual application of the technique would have been beyond the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, then using the technique would not have been obvious. KSR, 550 U.S. at 398, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to the limitations of claims 14, 15 and 17, Wang and Park’083 teaches and/or renders obvious
wherein the UE is configured with a scrambling identifier for detecting the trigger signal (claim 14); and
wherein the scrambling identifier is a specific radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) (claim 15); and
wherein a timing for the uplink signal transmission is determined based on the trigger signal (claim 17).
As set forth above, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches the base station providing a stand-alone PDCCH signal including scrambled DCI information to the UE, and the UE descrambling the DCI information in the PDCCH signal to determine the activation and or release of pre-allocated scheduling information. (Park’784 at Abstract; c.1, l.55 – c.3, l.5; see c.12, l.52 – c.14, l.40 for RRC signaling; and c.14, l.41 – c.15, l.49; c.16, l.48 – c.17, l.6 ; see Figures 2-9, 12; also see c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; see Figures 6, 12). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches the scrambled identifier being the C-RNTI information within the DCI. (Id. at c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; c.15, ll.41; see Figures 6, 12). In addition, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches transmitting an uplink signals based upon the determination. (Id. at c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; see Figures 6, 12).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the UE being configured with a scrambling identifier, i.e., RNTI, for detecting the trigger signal; and the uplink signal transmission being determined based on the trigger signal, as described in Park’083, to the method of performing wireless communication by a UE of Wang and Park’083.14
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, Wang and Park’083 teaches and/or renders obvious
further comprising: receiving the monitoring periodicity and time offset information and information regarding candidates of the PDCCH signal ( claim 16);
With respect to the limitations of claim 16, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that claim requirement of “time offset” as recited in claim 16 is indefinite. In this light and to advance prosecution by providing art rejections even though this claim is indefinite, the Examiner construes “time offset” as a timing parameter provided in the scheduling information. (See § XI.B, supra).
From this perspective, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the user equipment (UE) receiving a PDCCH trigger with HARQ information/parameters therein. (See § XIII.A.(3), supra). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the eNB 303 sending aggregated data to the UE 301, at step S203, based upon the RRC message 400 received at step S201. (Wang at ¶¶ 0024, 0030-0031, 0053-0057). The Examiner finds that Wang discloses the aggregated data including “data and/or control signaling of UL/DL resource allocation assignment to the UE.” (Id. at ¶¶ 0031, 0053). The Examiner finds that that Wang discloses the RRC signal including a periodicity of data transformation information, a current transmission time interval information, subframe information. (Id. at ¶¶ 0038-0040, 0053, 0055).
With respect to the limitations of claim 19, Wang and Park’083 teaches and/or renders obvious
wherein the higher layer signaling is radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the RRC message 400 being received by the UE at step S201. (Wang at ¶¶ 0030-0032, 0034-0043; see Figures 2, 4).
With respect to the limitations of claim 31 and 32, Wang and Park’083 teaches and/or renders obvious
wherein the HARQ information in the trigger signal is set to a first state for activating the pre-allocated scheduling information (claim 31); and
wherein the scrambling identifier is a specific radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) wherein a second state of the HARQ information is used for deactivating the pre-allocated scheduling information (claim 32)
With respect to the limitations of claims 31 and 32, as set forth above, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches the base station providing a stand-alone PDCCH signal including scrambled DCI information to the UE, and the UE descrambling the DCI information in the PDCCH signal to determine the activation and or release of pre-allocated scheduling information. (Park’784 at Abstract; c.1, l.55 – c.3, l.5; see c.12, l.52 – c.14, l.40 for RRC signaling; and c.14, l.41 – c.15, l.49; c.16, l.48 – c.17, l.6 ; see Figures 2-9, 12; also see c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; see Figures 6, 12). Specifically, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches the scrambled identifier being the C-RNTI information within the DCI. (Id. at c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; c.15, ll.41; see Figures 6, 12). In addition, the Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches transmitting an uplink signals based upon the determination. (Id. at c.11, l.54 – c.12, l.43; see Figures 6, 12). The Examiner finds that Park’083 teaches the C-RNTI information within the DCI activating or releasing the transmission scheme. (Id. at c.12, ll.38-44, 48-51).
The Examiner finds that that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to incorporate the UE being configured with a scrambling identifier, i.e., RNTI, for setting a first state for activating the pre-allocated scheduling information and a second state for releasing the pre-allocated scheduling information, as described in Park’083, to the method of performing wireless communication by a UE of Wang and Park’083.15
With respect to the limitations of claim 23, Wang discloses
[a] method of performing wireless communication by a base station (BS), the method comprising:
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses an apparatus and method for performing data communications between an eNB (i.e. base station) and user equipment (UE). (Wang at Abstract; ¶¶ 0002, 0007-0011, 0023-0045, 0053-0057; see Figures 1-5A, 9).
transmitting scheduling information including i) first information related to resource allocation and ii) second information related to modulation and coding scheme (MCS), for performing uplink communications on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH);
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses an eNB (i.e. base station) providing an RRC message 400 which is received by a UE at step S201. (Wang at ¶¶ 0030-0032, 0034-0043; see Figures 2, 4). The Examiner finds that the RRC message is scheduling information that includes resource allocation (RA) information for the data communication, modulation and coding scheme (MCS) information, and transport block (TB) size information. (Id.; see ¶ 0032 for the RRC message including “data and/or control signaling of UL/DL resource allocation assignment;” and ¶ 0041 for the RRC message including “a MCS indicator to indicate the modulation and code rate used for aggregate transmission”).
wherein the scheduling information including the first information and the second information is pre-allocated to the UE through higher layer signaling prior to the uplink data communication being performed;
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses an eNB (i.e. base station) providing an RRC message 400 which is received by a UE at step S201. (Wang at ¶¶ 0030-0032, 0034-0043; see Figures 2, 4). The Examiner finds that Wang discloses the RRC message 400 received by the UE at step S201 being a “configuring or reconfiguring message” that is provided before any aggregated data is sent. (Id. at ¶¶ 0032, 0034-0044; see Figures 2, 4).
transmitting through physical layer signaling, after the scheduling information including the first information and the second information has been pre-allocated to the UE through higher layer signaling, a trigger signal related to the uplink data communication, based on monitoring periodicity and offset information configured for the trigger signal: and
In this regard, the Examiner finds that Wang discloses the first embodiment utilizing PDCCH in downlink assignments during the first transmissions and subsequent re-transmission to inform a UE group of its resource allocation based upon the RNTI. (Wang at ¶ 0052-0054). Specifically, the Examiner finds that each transmission and re-transmission PDCCH signal may be dedicated to specific parameters (e.g., parameters included in the CCI such as MCS, HARQ information, etc.) with an example of a re-transmission PDCCH signal including specific information relating to RNTI or other parameters. (Id. at ¶¶ 0053-0054. From this perspective, the Examiner finds that that Wang discloses the UE receiving the first transmission from the eNB (i.e. base station) at step S203, after receiving the RRC message 400 at step S201, as a trigger signal in the form of a PDCCH. (Id. at ¶¶ 0030-0032; 0053-0057; see Figures 2, 7, 8). The Examiner finds that