DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to applicant’s response filed under 37 C.F.R §1.111 in response to a non-final office action. Claim(s) 1 have been amended; Claims 2 have been canceled; No Claim(s) have been added. Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are subject to examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Arguments:
The applicant argues in substance that Yerramailli does not teach the limitations of claim 1, especially the limitations related to “second control information” and “selecting first control information or second control information”.
In regards to “second control information”, the applicant argues that the priority sequence that the UE should use to access each CC within the RRC signaling of Yerramalli is not control information, and therefore not “second control information”.
In regards to “selecting first control information or second control information”, the applicant argues that the first control information is not actively selected in Yerramalli, much less actively selecting the first control information or the second control information.
Therefore, the applicant argues that Yerramalli does not teach the limitations of claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding “second control information”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, “second control information” is interpreted in the claims as 1) included in RRC message, wherein RRC messages are inherently configuring/control signals and 2) intended for each of the plurality of component carriers. Yerramalli’s “priority sequence” is information included in RRC messages, and is intended for each of the plurality of component carriers (see Yerramalli para 70). The examiner recommends to further define control information by what it contains, such as an HARQ process configuration.
Regarding “selecting first control information or second control information”, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner interprets this selection step to mean at least one of a first control information or second control information is selected, wherein to be selected means to be applied or used. Actively selecting information is interpreted to mean actively using/applying information. In this case, Yerramalli’s UE uses the first control information to configure common HARQ processes (see Yerramalli para 75). The examiner recommends to further define the selecting step to be mutually exclusive (“selecting either first control information or second control information”) or how the control information is actively selected or, in other words, specifically used and applied.
Regarding all other arguments presented by the applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the examiner directs the applicant to those response above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a low of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “a processor that selects the…second control information”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of reading from data, they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim(s) 3-5 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claim(s) 1 as set forth above. Claims 3-5 do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of gathering and analyzing data. Therefore, the claims do not amount to more than the abstract idea itself. Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are not patent eligible.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a processor that selects the first control information…”. Further limitations of the claim do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of reading from data, they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, for example, the claimed step of configuring an automatic repeat request entity when selecting the first control information is an insignificant extra-solution activity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YERRAMALLI et al. (US 20150055589 A1) (see 892 10/02/2025), hereby referred to as YERRAMALLI.
Claim 1:
YERRAMALLI teaches a terminal comprising: a receiver that receives, from a network, a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message including first control information and second control information, the first control information being intended for a group including a plurality of component carriers, the second control information being intended for each of the plurality of component carriers (YERRAMALLI: para 70 (“In order for the UE to know which group of CCs share the common HARQ space…radio resource control (RRC) signaling that defines not only the group of CCs that share the common HARQ space but the priority sequence that the UE should use to access each CC to detect for the transmitted data.”) wherein RRC carries first control information/common HARQ of a group and second control information/priority of each component carrier); and a processor that selects the first control information or the second control information and configures an automatic repeat request entity to be associated with the group including the plurality of component carriers based on the RRC message when selecting the first control information (YERRAMILLA: para 75 (“The various sets of carriers sharing the common HARQ processes may be indicated in radio resource control (RRC) signaling…Thus, the UE will know which CCs share common HARQ processes and will know the order of CCs to access…”) wherein common HARQ is configured for a group of CCs using first control information indicating sets of carriers with the same HARQ process).
Claim 4:
YERRAMALLI teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the processor configures an automatic repeat request entity to be associated a component carrier belonging to the group (YERRAMALLI: para 75 (“The various sets of carriers sharing the common HARQ processes may be indicated in radio resource control (RRC) signaling…Thus, the UE will know which CCs share common HARQ processes and will know the order of CCs to access…”) wherein common HARQ is configured/associated to for each component carrier of a group of CCs).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YERRAMILLA in view of PARKVALI et al. (US 20170251461 A1) (see IDS 10/27/2022), hereby referred to as PARKVALI.
Claim 3:
YERRAMILLA teaches the terminal according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor schedules, with cross carrier scheduling applied, another component carrier on a basis of a reference component carrier belonging to the group.
PARKVALI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor schedules, with cross carrier scheduling applied, another component carrier on a basis of a reference component carrier belonging to the group (PARKVALI: FIG. 1 can be applied in a cross carrier scheduling; para 69 (“The radio node 212 may configure the wireless device 220 with a relation between the CC upon which the control information is transmitted and the indicated CC group…index offset that depends on the CC upon which the control information is transmitted…”) and para 71 (“The CC group may be at least partly indicated by selecting a CC upon which the control information is transmitted in dependence of the CC group to be indicated to the wireless device…”) wherein other component carriers are scheduled based on a reference CC belonging/associated with the group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YERRAMILLA with PARKVALI for the benefit of improving flexibility in communications and increase the bandwidth available (PARKVALI: para 15).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YERRAMILLA in view of PARVALI and in further view of ZHOU et al. (US 20200351039 A1), hereby referred to as ZHOU.
Claim 5:
YERRAMILLA teaches the terminal according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor assumes a bandwidth part applied to the group is the same as a bandwidth part applied to each of the component carriers, and assumes a transmission configuration indication are commonly applied to the group and each of the component carriers.
PARKVALI, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor wherein the processor assumes a bandwidth part applied to the group is the same as a bandwidth part applied to each of the component carriers (PARKVALI: para 61 (“…the resource assignment…is to be scaled to span the full bandwidth of the component carrier group or for some embodiments, to span the bandwidth of the one or more carrier(s)…of the component carrier group…”) wherein the bandwidth part/span of bandwidth is applied to the group and each of the component carriers in the group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YERRAMILLA with PARKVALI, the combination hereby referred to as YERRAMILLA-PARKVALI, for the benefit of improving flexibility in communications and increase the bandwidth available (PARKVALI: para 15).
However, YERRAMILLA-PARKVALI does not explicitly disclose the processor assumes that a transmission configuration indication applied to the group is the same as a transmission configuration indication applied to each of the component carriers.
ZHOU, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the processor assumes that a transmission configuration indication applied to the group is the same as a transmission configuration indication applied to each of the component carriers (ZHOU: para 6 (“…the UE may optionally apply a TCI state to subset of CCs…”) wherein a TCI can be configured for each of the CCs in a group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified YERRAMILLA-PARKVALI with ZHOU for the benefit of reducing signaling overhead (ZHOU: para 4).
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 ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416