DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 3, 6, 12-14, 16, 19, 25-27, 29, 32, 38-40, 42, 45, 51, and 52 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner addresses the Applicant’s concerns in the following response.
Applicant argues Nagata fails to disclose or render obvious the feature reciting “receiving, by a terminal, downlink control information (DCI), wherein N component carriers (CCs) are scheduled by the DCI, N being a positive integer greater than or equal to 2” (Remarks, page 5). In support of this argument, Applicant alleges that Nagata only discloses a single scheduled CC and not multiple CCs simultaneously (Remarks, pages 5-6) – “Although Nagata uses the plural form ‘component carriers’ (e.g., in paragraph [0068]), the context clearly defines the CIF as being used to specify one scheduled cell or CC”. Applicant further alleges “In summary, Nagata cannot teach the features of claim 1 because it does not disclose a technical scheme of ‘single-DCI scheduling of multiple CCs’. As with Khoshnevisan, the plural phrasing regarding the CIF in Nagata is merely a linguistic form. The substantive content remains limited to single-CC scheduling” (Remarks, page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim1 does not require that multiple CCs be scheduled simultaneously by a DCI, but only requires that the DCI includes scheduling information for two or more CCs. That is, the claim does not require that two CCs be scheduled at the same time, but two scheduled CCs be identified or indicated in the DCI. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., two or more CCs scheduled simultaneously) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Nagata is particularly relevant with respect to identifying a plurality of CCs in a DCI. Nagata, in fact, does not use a linguistic form to describe plural CIFs, but uses CIF in a DCI to identify a plurality of CCs. In the plurality of cited portions of Nagata including [0067-0068], [0074-0076], and Figure 8 with [0085-0091], the CIF of the DCI is utilized for the purpose of reducing the amount of signaling overhead in a DCI for networks in a Coordinated Multi-Point configuration. That is, Nagata explicitly discloses the signaling of a “plurality of CCs” in a DCI as an index value of a CIF, as is required by claim 1. Although Applicant includes Nagata’s paragraphs [0056-0057], [0067-0068], [0074], and [0076] in the Remarks, Examiner respectfully notes the additionally citations of [0075], Figure 8, and [0085-0091] which include further explanations with respect to the inclusion of a “plurality of CCs” indicated/identified in a DCI.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections as well as the objection to novel subject matter included below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
4. Claims 1, 14, 27, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0037551 A1 to Khoshnevisan et al. (hereinafter “Khoshnevisan”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0254888 A1 to Nagata et al. (hereinafter “Nagata”).
Regarding Claim 1, Khoshnevisan discloses a carrier determination method (Khoshnevisan: [0028-0030], [0042] – Examiner interprets cross-carrier schedules serving cells to be synonymous with component carriers (CC).), comprising:
receiving, by a terminal, a downlink control information (DCI) (Khoshnevisan: Figure 5A with [0126] – wireless device receives DCI.), wherein [a] component carrier (CC) [is] scheduled by the DCI (Khoshnevisan: [0003], [0028] - identifying a plurality of component carriers in the DCI.);
determining, by the terminal,…CC scheduled by a base station through the DCI (Khoshnevisan: Figure 5A, step 506 – terminal determines DCI schedules carriers. See also [0138].);
wherein the terminal determines the…CC scheduled by the base station through the DCI as follows:
determining the…CC scheduled by the DCI according to a carrier indicator field (CIF) in the DCI (Interpreted as a dispositive/alternative limitation and noted herein as Option 1.) However, Khoshnevisan at [0007], [0028], [0039], [0128] discloses wireless device receives DCI which includes a carrier indication field (CIF) identifying a plurality of component carriers.), or,
determining the…CC scheduled by the DCI according to a bit field in the DCI used for indicating the…CC scheduled by the DCI (Interpreted as a dispositive/alternative limitation and noted herein as Option 2. However, Khoshnevisan at [0007], [0028], [0039], [0128] discloses wireless device receives DCI which includes a carrier indication field (CIF) identifying a plurality of component carriers, the CIF comprises a number of bits.),
wherein…CC is configured through higher layer signaling (Khoshnevisan: [0028] – corresponds to receiving the configuration via RRC.); or,
determining the…CC scheduled by the DCI according to an indication of higher layer signaling (Interpreted as a dispositive/alternative limitation and herein noted as Option 3. However, Khoshnevisan at [0007] discloses the cross-carrier scheduling is determined via higher-layer signaling.).
Although Khoshnevisan discloses “The scheduling cell PDCCH also includes a Carrier Indicator Field (CIF) in the DCI that identifies the scheduled serving cell or component carriers (CC) on which resources are scheduled”, Khoshnevisan does not expressly disclose an N number of component carriers, and the signaling of a plurality of component carriers.
However, this feature of scheduling a plurality of component carriers cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Nagata. Nagata is similarly concerned with downlink control signaling particular to scheduling of component carriers (CCs; Nagata: [0056-0057]). Nagata discloses receiving, by a terminal, a downlink control information (DCI), wherein N component carriers (CCs) are scheduled by the DCI (Nagata: [0067-0068] – the presence of a carrier indication field (CIF) in a DCI represents a plurality of CCs.), N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (Nagata: [0067-0068] – in an example, a CIF of the DCI may be three bits representing at least five CCs. See also [0074-0076], and Figure 8 with [0085-0091].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method for carrier determination of Khoshnevisan in view of the carrier determination method of Nagata to signal a plurality of component carriers for the reasons of “adequately reporting the associations/relationships between downlink signals,…[to] minimize the decrease of the reliability of reception.” (Nagata: [0010-0011]).
Regarding Claim 14, Khoshnevisan discloses a carrier indication method (Khoshnevisan: [0028-0030], [0042] – Examiner interprets cross-carrier schedules serving cells to be synonymous with component carriers (CC).), comprising:
determining, by a base station, [a] component carrier (CC) to be scheduled (Khoshnevisan: Figure 5A with [0003], [0028], [0036], [0042], [0126] – wireless device receives DCI comprising an indication of component carriers.);
indicating, by the base station, the…CC scheduled by the terminal on a DCI (Khoshnevisan: Figure 5A, step 506 – base station signals DCI schedules carriers. See also [0138].);
wherein the base station indicates the terminal the…CC scheduled by the base station through the DCI as follows:
indicating the…CC scheduled by the DCI through a CIF field in the DCI (Interpreted as a dispositive/alternative limitation and noted herein as Option 1.) However, Khoshnevisan at [0007], [0028], [0039], [0128] discloses wireless device receives DCI which includes a carrier indication field (CIF) identifying a plurality of component carriers.), or,
indicating the…CC scheduled by the DCI through a bit field in the DCI used for indicating the…CC scheduled by the DCI (Interpreted as a dispositive/alternative limitation and noted herein as Option 2. However, Khoshnevisan at [0007], [0028], [0039], [0128] discloses wireless device receives DCI which includes a carrier indication field (CIF) identifying a plurality of component carriers, the CIF comprises a number of bits.), wherein N is configured through higher layer signaling (Khoshnevisan: [0028] – corresponds to receiving the configuration via RRC.); or,
indicating the…CC scheduled by the DCI through higher layer signaling (Interpreted as a dispositive/alternative limitation and herein noted as Option 3. However, Khoshnevisan at [0007] discloses the cross-carrier scheduling is determined via higher-layer signaling.).
Although Khoshnevisan discloses “The scheduling cell PDCCH also includes a Carrier Indicator Field (CIF) in the DCI that identifies the scheduled serving cell or component carriers (CC) on which resources are scheduled”, Khoshnevisan does not expressly disclose an N number of component carriers, and the signaling of a plurality of component carriers.
However, this feature of scheduling a plurality of component carriers cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Nagata. Nagata is similarly concerned with downlink control signaling particular to scheduling of component carriers (CCs; Nagata: [0056-0057]). Nagata discloses receiving, by a terminal, a downlink control information (DCI), wherein N component carriers (CCs) are scheduled by the DCI (Nagata: [0067-0068] – the presence of a carrier indication field (CIF) in a DCI represents a plurality of CCs.), N is a positive integer greater than or equal to 2 (Nagata: [0067-0068] – in an example, a CIF of the DCI may be three bits representing at least five CCs. See also [0074-0076], and Figure 8 with [0085-0091].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the method for carrier determination of Khoshnevisan in view of the carrier determination method of Nagata to signal a plurality of component carriers for the reasons of “adequately reporting the associations/relationships between downlink signals,…[to] minimize the decrease of the reliability of reception.” (Nagata: [0010-0011]).
Claim 27, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 1, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Khoshnevisan further discloses the user terminal comprising a processor and transceiver in at least Figure 8.
Claim 40, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 14, recite similar features as claim 14 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 14. Please see above rejection of claim 14. Khoshnevisan further discloses the base station comprising a processor and transceiver in at least Figure 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 3, 6, 12, 13, 16, 19, 25, 26, 29, 32, 38, 39, 42, 45, 51, and 52 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 February 4, 2026