DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-5 have been canceled; Claim(s) 6-11 have been added. Claim(s) 6-11 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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 § 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-11 are 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) 6, 10, and 11recite(s) “receives first information…and second information”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include additional elements beyond the abstract idea of receiving information, 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. For example, the claimed steps of “configuring” and “assuming” are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding Claim(s) 7-9 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected claim(s) 6 as set forth above. Claims 7-9 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) 6-11 are not patent eligible.
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) 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DINAN (US 20170013611 A1).
Claim 6:
TSENG teaches A terminal comprising: a receiver that receives first information configuring a plurality of first cells for multi- scheduling and second information configuring a plurality of second cells (DINAN: FIG. 8, para 127 (“The mapping of a serving cell to a TAG may be configured by serving eNB with RRC signaling…”), and para 293 (“A Timing Advance Group (TAG) may comprise a group of serving cells that may be configured by RRC and that, for the cells with an UL configured, may use the same timing reference cell and the same Timing Advance value. A Primary Timing Advance Group (pTAG) may comprise a Timing Advance Group containing the PCell. A Secondary Timing Advance Group (sTAG) may comprise a Timing Advance Group not containing the PCell.) wherein terminal receives relevant information to configure a first group of cells (pTAG) and a second group of cells (sTAG)); and a processor that assumes that the first cells are not included in the second information and the second cells are not included in the first information (DINAN: FIG. 8 wherein the configuration for cells in a pTAG does not includes the cells in an sTAG, and configuration for cells in a sTAG does not include the cells in a pTAG).
Claim 7:
DINAN teaches the terminal according to claim 6, wherein the processor assumes a scheduling cell for the plurality of first cells is a primary cell included in the plurality of first cells (DINAN: FIG. 8, para 127 (“The mapping of a serving cell to a TAG may be configured by serving eNB with RRC signaling…”), and para 293 (“A Timing Advance Group (TAG) may comprise a group of serving cells that may be configured by RRC and that, for the cells with an UL configured, may use the same timing reference cell and the same Timing Advance value. A Primary Timing Advance Group (pTAG) may comprise a Timing Advance Group containing the PCell. A Secondary Timing Advance Group (sTAG) may comprise a Timing Advance Group not containing the PCell.) wherein the first plurality of cells is the pTAG group with the primary cell/PCell).
Claim 8:
DINAN teaches the terminal according to claim 6, wherein the processor assumes a third cell applicable to the multi-scheduling and single scheduling is configured (DINAN: FIG. 8 and para 133 (“…may imply that the UE supports simultaneous PUCCH/PUSCH transmission on both PCell and SCell. When multiple PUCCH groups are configured, a PUCCH may be configured or not configured with simultaneous PUCCH/PUSCH transmission.”) wherein any cell is a third cell which can be multi-scheduled/simultaneous or single scheduled/not simultaneous).
Claim 9:
DINAN teaches the terminal according to claim 8, wherein the processor assumes a scheduling cell for the third cell is commonly used for the multi-scheduling and the single scheduling (DINAN: para 133 (“…may imply that the UE supports simultaneous PUCCH/PUSCH transmission on both PCell and SCell. When multiple PUCCH groups are configured, a PUCCH may be configured or not configured with simultaneous PUCCH/PUSCH transmission.”), para 138 (“…a flexible PUCCH configuration in which control signaling is sent on one, two or more PUCCHs may be possible. Beside the PCell, it may be possible to configure a selected number of Scells…”), and para 133 (“…the timing reference may be a PCell…”) wherein PUCCH can be single scheduled or multi-scheduled for a scheduling cell, such as PCell).
Claim 10:
DINAN teaches A radio communication system comprising: a terminal; and a base station (DINAN: FIG. 9). For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Claim 11:
DINAN teaches a radio communication method performed by a terminal (DINAN: FIG. 9). For further limitations, see rejection for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights