NON-FINAL REJECTION
This Office action is responsive to the application filed February 15, 2023.
The instant 18/110,356 application is a reissue application of U.S. Pat. 10,925,079 B2 to Park et al. (“the ‘079 Patent”), which issued February 16, 2021 from U.S. Pat. App. Ser. No. 16/340,460, filed April 9, 2019 as a 371 Application of PCT/KR2017/011968, filed October 27, 2017.
The ‘079 Patent claims priority to foreign applications KR10-2016-0141451 (filed October 27, 2016), KR10-2017-0037553 (filed March 24, 2017), KR10/2017-0079911 (filed June 23, 2017), KR10-2017-0130023 (filed October 11, 2017), and KR10-2017-0139885 (filed October 26, 2017).
Claims 1-12 were originally pending in this application. By way of a preliminary amendment filed with the application, claim 13 is added. Thus claims 1-13 are pending.
This action is Non-Final.
Reissue
The Examiner has determined that there are no other continuations, reissues, reexaminations, inter partes reviews, or other AIA trials or appeals currently pending with respect to the ‘079 Patent. A litigation search has determined there to be no pending litigation as to the ‘079 Patent.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b) to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,925,079 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, 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 material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application. 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.
Because the instant ‘079 Patent is deemed not to contain claims having an effective date prior to March 16, 2013, the America Invents Act First Inventor to File (“AIA -FITF”) provisions apply, rather than the pre-AIA provisions. See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note) and 35 U.S.C. § 100 (pre-AIA ). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of any statutory basis for a 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under § 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under § 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under § 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 8, “a controller configured to schedule the UL signal and the DL data channel based on the scheduling information”;
In this case, the controller is performing a function of a computing means, that is, a general-purpose computer.
Under the three-pronged approach above, it is thus determined by the Examiner that 1) the claims use a term used as a substitute for “means” for performing the claimed function; 2) the term is modified by the functional language; and 3) the term is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
Specifically as to prong 3) above, in this particular case the limitations recite “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here the function is one that may be performed by a general-purpose processor and § 112(f) applies as further described below.
For a computer-implemented § 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. In Aristocrat Techs. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1336-37, 86 USPQ2d 1235, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this instance, the structure corresponding to a § 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. ("Aristocrat was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy § 112(f). It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a ‘special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’" (quoting WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349, 51 USPQ2d at 1391.)) An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 5th edition, 2002. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or "in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir.1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945.
Thus the Examiner looks to the disclosure to construe the claim limitations to cover the corresponding structure described therein and equivalents thereof.
As to element 1 above, looking to the specification, the controller is disclosed in 23:15-17 as performing this function and FIG 5 step 510 shows this being performed in an algorithmic manner. This is the algorithm that, along with the general processor, comprises the structure in the claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under § 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under § 112(f).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5, 6, 7, and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 13, respectively, of U.S. Patent 10,506,630. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to instant claim 1, it and reference claim 1 are compared below:
Reference patent claim 1:
1. A method for scheduling a downlink data channel (PDSCH) or an uplink data channel (PUSCH) by a user equipment, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel; and
scheduling at least one of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) and the uplink data channel (PUKED based on the timing relationship setting information, wherein the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or the uplink data channel (PUSCH) is scheduled by a downlink control channel (PDCCH),
wherein a numerology used for reception of the downlink control channel (PDCCH) is different from a numerology used for reception of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or transmission of the uplink data channel (PUSCH), and wherein the timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel includes timing gap information; and
for a slot index n of the downlink control channel, a subcarrier spacing value A kHz of the carrier on which the downlink control channel is received, a subcarrier spacing value B kHz, of a carrier of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel, and the value k of the timing gap information, the slot index of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Instant ‘079 application claim 1:
1. A method of a user equipment for scheduling an uplink (UL) signal or a downlink (DL) data channel, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, scheduling information on the UL signal and the DL data channel through a DL control channel; and
scheduling the UL signal and the DL data channel based on the scheduling information,
wherein the UL signal includes an UL data channel or an UL control channel,
wherein the scheduling information includes timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel and timing relationship configuration information between the DL data channel and the UL control channel for the DL data channel,
wherein a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL control channel is different from a numerology of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, or a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL data channel is different from a numerology of the UL control channel for the DL data channel, and
wherein the timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel includes timing gap information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, and when a slot index of the DL control channel is n, a value of a subcarrier spacing of the carrier for receiving the DL control channel is A kHz, a value of a subcarrier spacing of a carrier of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is B kHz, and a value of the timing gap information is k, a slot index of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Here, the reference claim discloses the instant claim under examination, while further adding that the DL data channel is a PDSCH, the UL data channel is a PUSCH, the DL control channel is a PDCCH, etc. Thus the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim as the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. Instant claims 2-5 correspond to reference claims 2, 3, and 6.
As to instant claim 6, it and reference claim 7 are compared below:
Reference patent claim 7:
7. A method for scheduling a downlink data channel (PDSCH) or an uplink data channel (PUSCH) by a base station, the method comprising:
configuring timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel; and
transmitting the timing relationship setting information to a user equipment,
wherein the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or the uplink data channel (PUSCH) is scheduled by a downlink control channel (PDCCH),
wherein a numerology used for transmission of the downlink control channel (PDCCH) is different from a numerology used for transmission of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or a numerology used for reception of the uplink data channel (PUSCH), and
wherein the timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel includes timing gap information; and
for a slot index n of the downlink control channel, a subcarrier spacing value A kHz of the carrier on which the downlink control channel is received, a subcarrier spacing value B kHz, of a carrier of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel, and the value k of the timing gap information, the slot index of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Instant ‘079 application claim 6:
6. (original) A method of a base station for scheduling an uplink (UL) signal or a downlink (DL) data channel, the method comprising:
configuring scheduling information for scheduling the UL signal and the DL data channel;
and transmitting, to a user equipment, the scheduling information on the UL signal and the DL data channel through a DL control channel,
wherein the UL signal includes an UL data channel or an UL control channel,
wherein the scheduling information includes timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel and timing relationship configuration information between the DL data channel and the UL control channel for the DL data channel,
wherein a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL control channel is different from a numerology of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, or a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL data channel is different from a numerology of the UL control channel for the DL data channel, and
wherein the timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel includes timing gap information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, and when a slot index of the DL control channel is n, a value of a subcarrier spacing of the carrier for receiving the DL control channel is A kHz, a value of a subcarrier spacing of a carrier of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is B kHz, and a value of the timing gap information is k, a slot index of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Here, the reference claim discloses the instant claim under examination, while further adding that the DL data channel is a PDSCH, the UL data channel is a PUSCH, the DL control channel is a PDCCH, etc. Thus the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim as the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. Instant claim 7 corresponds to reference claim 8.
As to instant claim 13, it and reference claim 13 are compared below:
Reference patent claim 13:
13. A user equipment for scheduling a downlink data channel (PDSCH) or an uplink data channel (PUSCH), the user equipment comprising:
a receiver configured to receive, from a base station, timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel; and
a controller configured to schedule one of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) and the uplink data channel (PUSCH) based on the timing relationship setting information,
wherein the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or the uplink data channel (PUSCH) is scheduled by a downlink control channel (PDCCH),
wherein a numerology used for reception of the downlink control channel (PDCCH) is different from a numerology used for reception of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or a numerology used for transmission of the uplink data channel (PUSCH), and
wherein the timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel includes timing gap information; and
for a slot index n of the downlink control channel, a subcarrier spacing value A kHz of the carrier on which the downlink control channel is received, a subcarrier spacing value B kHz, of a carrier of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel, and the value k of the timing gap information, the slot index of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Instant ‘079 application claim 13:
13. A method of a user equipment, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, first information on a downlink (DL) data channel through a downlink (DL) control channel;
receiving, from the base station, DL data through the DL data channel based on the first information; and
wherein the first information includes timing information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel,
and
wherein the timing information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel includes timing gap information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel, and
when a slot index of the DL control channel is n, a value of a subcarrier spacing of the DL control channel is A kHz, a value of a subcarrier spacing of the DL data channel is B kHz, and a value of the timing gap information is k, a slot index of the DL data channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Here, the reference claim discloses the instant claim under examination, while further adding that the DL data channel is a PDSCH, the UL data channel is a PUSCH, the DL control channel is a PDCCH, etc. Thus the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim as the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus.
Claims 8-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,506,630 in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2019/0090218A1 to Noh et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
As to instant claim 8, it and reference claim 1 are compared below:
Reference patent claim 1:
1. A method for scheduling a downlink data channel (PDSCH) or an uplink data channel (PUSCH) by a user equipment, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel; and
scheduling at least one of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) and the uplink data channel (PUKED based on the timing relationship setting information, wherein the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or the uplink data channel (PUSCH) is scheduled by a downlink control channel (PDCCH),
wherein a numerology used for reception of the downlink control channel (PDCCH) is different from a numerology used for reception of the downlink data channel (PDSCH) or transmission of the uplink data channel (PUSCH), and wherein the timing relationship setting information on at least one of i) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and a downlink data channel and ii) a timing relationship between a downlink control channel and an uplink data channel includes timing gap information; and
for a slot index n of the downlink control channel, a subcarrier spacing value A kHz of the carrier on which the downlink control channel is received, a subcarrier spacing value B kHz, of a carrier of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel, and the value k of the timing gap information, the slot index of the downlink data channel or the uplink data channel for the downlink control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Instant ‘079 application claim 8:
8. A user equipment for scheduling an uplink (UL) signal or a downlink (DL) data channel, the user equipment comprising:
a receiver configured to receive, from a base station, scheduling information on the UL signal and the DL data channel through a DL control channel; and
a controller configured to schedule the UL signal and the DL data channel based on the scheduling information,
wherein the UL signal includes an UL data channel or an UL control channel,
wherein the scheduling information includes timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel and timing relationship configuration information between the DL data channel and the UL control channel for the DL data channel,
wherein a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL control channel is different from a numerology of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, or a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL data channel is different from a numerology of the UL control channel for the DL data channel, and
wherein the timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel includes timing gap information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, and when a slot index of the DL control channel is n, a value of a subcarrier spacing of the carrier for receiving the DL control channel is A kHz, a value of a subcarrier spacing of a carrier of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is B kHz, and a value of the timing gap information is k, a slot index of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
Here, the reference claim discloses the instant claim under examination, while further adding that the DL data channel is a PDSCH, the UL data channel is a PUSCH, the DL control channel is a PDCCH, etc. Thus the claim under examination is not patentably distinct from the reference claim as the claim under examination is anticipated by the reference claim. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052, 29 USPQ2d 2010, 2015-16 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This type of nonstatutory double patenting situation arises when the claim being examined is, for example, generic to a species or sub-genus claimed in a conflicting patent or application, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim falls within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. As to claim 8 reciting a UE, the reference claim recites a method performed in a UE, but does not disclose a controller. However, Noh discloses a UE comprising a controller for receiving scheduling information in accordance with different numerologies. Noh at ¶¶13 and 358-360. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a controller as suggested by Noh in the reference claim, as it would merely have been an instance of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2143 I. A., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Instant claims 9-12 correspond to reference claims 2, 3, and 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if Patent Owner files a terminal disclaimer in accordance with the rejection under double patenting above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 discloses a method of a user equipment for scheduling an uplink (UL) signal or a downlink (DL) data channel, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, scheduling information on the UL signal and the DL data channel through a DL control channel; and scheduling the UL signal and the DL data channel based on the scheduling information, wherein the UL signal includes an UL data channel or an UL control channel, wherein the scheduling information includes timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel and timing relationship configuration information between the DL data channel and the UL control channel for the DL data channel, wherein a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL control channel is different from a numerology of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, or a numerology of a carrier for receiving the DL data channel is different from a numerology of the UL control channel for the DL data channel, and wherein further the timing relationship configuration information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel includes timing gap information between the DL control channel and the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel, and when a slot index of the DL control channel is n, a value of a subcarrier spacing of the carrier for receiving the DL control channel is A kHz, a value of a subcarrier spacing of a carrier of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is B kHz, and a value of the timing gap information is k, a slot index of the DL data channel or the UL data channel for the DL control channel is determined as
n
∙
B
A
+
k
While the prior art of record discloses scheduling an UL and DL signal in accordance with differing numerologies, it does not disclose the specific timing relationship configuration information given the slot index, subcarrier spacings, and timing gap as claimed here.
Claims 6, 8, and 13 contain allowable subject matter for similar reasons as claim 1 above. Claims 2-5, 7, and 9-12 are deemed as containing allowable subject matter as being dependent on claims 1, 6, and 8 above, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees: /JOSEPH R POKRZYWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992