DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/8/2023, 8/28/2023, 9/26/2023 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claims 21-23, 25, and 45-47 recite “means for sending signaling,” “means for receiving an uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for determining a guard period,” “means for determining an additional TTI,” “means for receiving an additional uplink message,” “means for receiving the uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for receiving signaling,” “means for transmitting an uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for identifying a guard period,” “means for identifying an additional TTI,” “means for transmitting an additional uplink message,” and “means for transmitting the uplink acknowledgement message.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21-27 and 45-50 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 21-23, 25, and 45-47, the claim limitations “means for sending signaling,” “means for receiving an uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for determining a guard period,” “means for determining an additional TTI,” “means for receiving an additional uplink message,” “means for receiving the uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for receiving signaling,” “means for transmitting an uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for identifying a guard period,” “means for identifying an additional TTI,” “means for transmitting an additional uplink message,” and “means for transmitting the uplink acknowledgement message.” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraphs [0009], [0013], [0017], [0021], [0025], and [0167] all discuss various “means plus function” language, but such portions of the specification do not describe any structure for such “means plus function” limitations. The Examiner would also like to note that the “means plus function” language in such paragraphs also appear to be different from all of the “means plus function” limitations recited in claims 21-23, 25, and 45-47 (i.e., “means for sending signaling,” “means for receiving an uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for determining a guard period,” “means for determining an additional TTI,” “means for receiving an additional uplink message,” “means for receiving the uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for receiving signaling,” “means for transmitting an uplink acknowledgement message,” “means for identifying a guard period,” “means for identifying an additional TTI,” “means for transmitting an additional uplink message,” and “means for transmitting the uplink acknowledgement message”). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.Regarding claims 22-27 and 46-50, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-50 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 21, the claims recite “sending signaling for identification of a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier, the second TTI comprising a portion of a plurality of uplink symbols in a first TTI of a first duration in a first component carrier in a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration, wherein the second duration is less than the first duration and the second TTI is different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI.” However, Applicant’s specification does not appear to discuss such TTIs within the context of different component carriers or even component carriers at all. Component carriers only appear to be discussed in four locations in Applicant’s specification. Paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification discusses the potential use of enhanced component carriers (eCCs), but does not discuss the use of such component carriers within the context of different TTIs as is claimed in detail. The Examiner would also like to note that “enhanced component carriers” are narrower than the claimed “component carriers.” Paragraph [0104] also briefly discusses using enhanced component carriers (eCCs), which has the same problems as paragraph [0050] above. Paragraph [0155] simply states that “[t]he term "cell" is a 3GPP term that can be used to describe a base station, a carrier or component carrier associated with a base station, or a coverage area (e.g., sector, etc..) of a carrier or base station, depending on context,” which also does not provide support for the use of component carriers within the context of different TTIs as is claimed in detail. Paragraph [0157] states “[a]n eNB may support one or multiple (e.g., two, three, four, and the like) cells (e.g., component carriers),” which also does not provide support for the use of component carriers within the context of different TTIs as is claimed in detail. Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 thus contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 28, 34, 40, and 45, the claims recite “receiving signaling for identification of a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier, the second TTI comprising a portion of a plurality of uplink symbols in a first TTI of a first duration in a first component carrier in a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration, wherein the second duration is less than the first duration and the second TTI is different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI.” However, Applicant’s specification does not appear to discuss such TTIs within the context of different component carriers or even component carriers at all. Component carriers only appear to be discussed in four locations in Applicant’s specification. Paragraph [0050] of Applicant’s specification discusses the potential use of enhanced component carriers (eCCs), but does not discuss the use of such component carriers within the context of different TTIs as is claimed in detail. The Examiner would also like to note that “enhanced component carriers” are narrower than the claimed “component carriers.” Paragraph [0104] also briefly discusses using enhanced component carriers (eCCs), which has the same problems as paragraph [0050] above. Paragraph [0155] simply states that “[t]he term "cell" is a 3GPP term that can be used to describe a base station, a carrier or component carrier associated with a base station, or a coverage area (e.g., sector, etc..) of a carrier or base station, depending on context,” which also does not provide support for the use of component carriers within the context of different TTIs as is claimed in detail. Paragraph [0157] states “[a]n eNB may support one or multiple (e.g., two, three, four, and the like) cells (e.g., component carriers),” which also does not provide support for the use of component carriers within the context of different TTIs as is claimed in detail. Claims 28, 34, 40, and 45 thus contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, 22-27, 29-33, 35-39, 41-44, and 46-50, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-21, 23-28, 30-34, 36-40, 42-45, and 47-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2017/0223702, provided by Applicant, Yin hereinafter, full support from cited portions derived from provisional application 62/288,150) in view of Dai et al. (US 2013/0039233, provided by Applicant, Dai hereinafter). Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, and 21, Yin teaches a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Instructions 1407b and/or data 1493b loaded into the processor 1403 may also include instructions 1407a and/or data 1493a from memory 1405 that were loaded for execution or processing by the processor 1403; Yin; Fig. 14; [0035], [0182]-[0184]), and an apparatus for wireless communication (Base station (BS) and/or eNB; Yin; Fig. 14; [0035], [0182]-[0184]), comprising: at least one processor (The UE may be comprised of a processor 1403; Yin; Fig. 14; [0035], [0182]-[0184]); and memory coupled with the at least one processor (The UE may be comprised of a memory 1405 coupled with processor 1403; Yin; Fig. 14; [0035], [0182]-[0184]), the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus (Instructions 1407b and/or data 1493b loaded into the processor 1403 may also include instructions 1407a and/or data 1493a from memory 1405 that were loaded for execution or processing by the processor 1403. The Examiner would also like to note that the combination of the processor and memory in Yin may also be reasonably interpreted as all of the claimed “means plus function” language (e.g., “means for sending signaling” and the “means for receiving an uplink acknowledgement message” recited in claim 21); Yin; Fig. 14; [0035], [0182]-[0184]) to: send signaling for identification of a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier (A transmission time interval (TTI) may be a subframe with a length of 1 ms, and a special subframe in TDD may include a downlink pilot time slot (DwPTS) for DL, a gap period (GP) and an uplink pilot time slot (UpPTS) for UL transmissions. Such a special subframe can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 5 (e.g., special subframe 531a). At least the UpPTS may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier. The transmision of at least such a special subframe (as well as potentially information prior to such a special subframe such as at least subframe zero) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as including sending signaling for identification of a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]), the second TTI comprising a portion of a plurality of uplink symbols in a first TTI of a first duration in a first component carrier in a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration (At least the special subframe 531a (which includes UpPTS 529a) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a first TTI, and thus the second TTI (e.g., the UpPTS) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising a portion of a plurality of uplink symbols in a first TTI of a first duration (e.g., the special subframe) in a first component carrier in a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]), wherein the second duration is less than the first duration (The duration of the UpPTS (e.g., the second duration) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being less than the duration of the special subframe (e.g., the first duration); Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]); and receive an uplink acknowledgement message from a user equipment (UE), responsive to a downlink message, during the second TTI (UpPTS may be reserved for uplink transmission. Uplink message transmission may also include Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) transmission, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an uplink acknowledgement message that is received responsive to a downlink message. The BS may thus be reasonably interpreted as receiving an uplink acknowledgement message, responsive to a downlink message, during the second TTI; Yin; Figs. 5 and 9-12B; Table 8; [0024], [0044], [0062], [0139]-[0142], [0189]). However, Yin does not specifically disclose the second TTI is different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI. Dai teaches the second TTI is different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI (As can be seen for instance in at least Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13, the UpPTS may comprise at least two parts. One of such parts may be used to send a sounding reference signal (SRS) and the part not used for SRS may be used to transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH). The use of the UpPTS portion not used for the SRS to transmit a PRACH (i.e., an uplink message) may be reasonably interpreted as the second TTI being different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI; Dai; Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13; [0022], [0031], [0072], [0083], [0105] (see also paragraphs [0095]-[0096], [0100]-[0101], [0105]-[0106] describing Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13 in general)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings as in Dai regarding uplink pilot time slot transmission with the teachings as in Yin regarding uplink pilot time slot transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by guaranteeing backward compatibility, increasing the number of available SRS resources, and increasing the number of users that can be accommodated (Dai; [0114]). Regarding claims 3, 10, 17, and 23, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 respectively. Yin further teaches the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the uplink acknowledgement message during a time period that comprises the second TTI and a portion of an uplink TTI of the first duration in the TDD configuration (UpPTS may be reserved for uplink transmission. Uplink message transmission may also include Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) transmission, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an uplink acknowledgement message that is transmitted responsive to a downlink message. The BS may thus be reasonably interpreted as receiving an uplink acknowledgement message, responsive to a downlink message, during the second TTI. Because the special subframe is being interpreted as potentially being the first TTI (and the UpPTS is part of the special subframe), such an uplink acknowledgement message may also be broadly reasonably interpreted as being received during a time period that comprises a portion of an uplink TTI of the first duration in the TDD configuration. The Examiner would also like to note that the combination of the processor and memory in Yin may also be reasonably interpreted as all of the “means plus function” limitations in claim 23; Yin; Figs. 5 and 9-12B; Table 8; [0024], [0044], [0062], [0139]-[0142], [0189]). Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, and 24, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 respectively. Yin further teaches the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI is included in a special subframe or slot (The UpPTS (e.g., the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI) may be in a special subframe or slot; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]). Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, and 25, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 respectively. Dai further teaches the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: receive a SRS, from a second UE different from the UE, on the SRS portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI (As can be seen for instance in at least Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13, the UpPTS may comprise at least two parts. One of such parts may be used to send a sounding reference signal (SRS) and the part not used for SRS may be used to transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH). As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, SRS may be received from multiple UEs (e.g., from a second UE different from the UE). The BS may thus be broadly reasonably interpreted as receiving a SRS, from a second UE different from the UE, on the SRS portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI; Dai; Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13; [0009], [0022], [0031], [0072], [0083], [0105] (see also paragraphs [0095]-[0096], [0100]-[0101], [0105]-[0106] describing Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13 in general)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings as in Dai regarding uplink pilot time slot transmission with the teachings as in Yin regarding uplink pilot time slot transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by guaranteeing backward compatibility, increasing the number of available SRS resources, and increasing the number of users that can be accommodated (Dai; [0114]). Regarding claims 6, 13, and 22, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 21 respectively. Yin further teaches the first TTI comprises one or more slots, each slot comprising two or more symbols of the plurality of uplink symbols (As can be seen in at least Fig. 5 and its corresponding description, subframes (e.g., special subframe 531a) may be comprised of one or more slots, and each slot may comprise two or more symbols of the plurality of uplink symbols; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0040], [0062], [0066], [0139]-[0142]). Regarding claims 7, 14, 20, and 22, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 respectively. Yin further teaches a delay between the downlink message and the uplink acknowledgement message is based on at least one of: a capability of the UE, a modulation and coding scheme (MS), or a timing advance (TA) (A delay between a downlink message and an uplink acknowledgement message transmitted in response may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being based at least on a capability of the UE and/or a modulation and coding scheme; Yin; Figs. 5 and 9-12B; Table 8; [0024], [0044], [0062], [0103], [0107], [0114], [0118], [0139]-[0142], [0189]). Regarding claims 28, 34, 40, and 45, Yin teaches a method, a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Instructions 1307b and/or data 1309b loaded into the processor 1303 may also include instructions 1307a and/or data 1309a from memory 1305 that were loaded for execution or processing by the processor 1303; Yin; Fig. 13; [0179]-[0181]), and an apparatus for wireless communication (User equipment; Yin; Fig. 13; [0179]-[0181]), comprising: at least one processor (The UE may be comprised of a processor 1303; Yin; Fig. 13; [0179]-[0181]); and memory coupled with the at least one processor (The UE may be comprised of a memory 1305 coupled with processor 1303; Yin; Fig. 13; [0179]-[0181]), the memory storing instructions executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus (Instructions 1307b and/or data 1309b loaded into the processor 1303 may also include instructions 1307a and/or data 1309a from memory 1305 that were loaded for execution or processing by the processor 1303. The Examiner would also like to note that the combination of the processor and memory in Yin may also be reasonably interpreted as all of the claimed “means plus function” language (e.g., “means for receiving signaling” and the “means for transmitting an uplink acknowledgement message” recited in claim 45) to: receive signaling for identification of a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier (A transmission time interval (TTI) may be a subframe with a length of 1 ms, and a special subframe in TDD may include a downlink pilot time slot (DwPTS) for DL, a gap period (GP) and an uplink pilot time slot (UpPTS) for UL transmissions. Such a special subframe can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 5 (e.g., special subframe 531a). At least the UpPTS may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier. The reception of at least such a special subframe (as well as potentially information prior to such a special subframe such as at least subframe zero) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as including receiving signaling for identification of a second transmission time interval (TTI) of a second duration in a second component carrier; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]), the second TTI comprising a portion of a plurality of uplink symbols in a first TTI of a first duration in a first component carrier in a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration (At least the special subframe 531a (which includes UpPTS 529a) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as a first TTI, and thus the second TTI (e.g., the UpPTS) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as comprising a portion of a plurality of uplink symbols in a first TTI of a first duration (e.g., the special subframe) in a first component carrier in a time division duplexing (TDD) configuration; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]), wherein the second duration is less than the first duration (The duration of the UpPTS (e.g., the second duration) may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being less than the duration of the special subframe (e.g., the first duration); Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]); and transmit an uplink acknowledgement message, responsive to a downlink message, during the second TTI (UpPTS may be reserved for uplink transmission. Uplink message transmission may also include Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) transmission, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an uplink acknowledgement message that is transmitted responsive to a downlink message. The UE may thus be reasonably interpreted as transmitting an uplink acknowledgement message, responsive to a downlink message, during the second TTI; Yin; Figs. 5 and 9-12B; Table 8; [0024], [0044], [0062], [0139]-[0142], [0189]). However, Yin does not specifically disclose the second TTI is different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI. Dai teaches the second TTI is different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI (As can be seen for instance in at least Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13, the UpPTS may comprise at least two parts. One of such parts may be used to send a sounding reference signal (SRS) and the part not used for SRS may be used to transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH). The use of the UpPTS portion not used for the SRS to transmit a PRACH (i.e., an uplink message) may be reasonably interpreted as the second TTI being different from a sounding reference signal (SRS) portion of the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI; Dai; Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13; [0022], [0031], [0072], [0083], [0105] (see also paragraphs [0095]-[0096], [0100]-[0101], [0105]-[0106] describing Figs. 6-7, 9-10, and 12-13 in general)). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings as in Dai regarding uplink pilot time slot transmission with the teachings as in Yin regarding uplink pilot time slot transmission. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by guaranteeing backward compatibility, increasing the number of available SRS resources, and increasing the number of users that can be accommodated (Dai; [0114]). Regarding claims 30, 36, 42, and 47, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 28, 34, 40, and 45 respectively. Yin further teaches the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit the uplink acknowledgement message during a time period that comprises the second TTI and a portion of an uplink TTI of the first duration in the TDD configuration (UpPTS may be reserved for uplink transmission. Uplink message transmission may also include Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) transmission, which may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an uplink acknowledgement message that is transmitted responsive to a downlink message. The UE may thus be reasonably interpreted as transmitting an uplink acknowledgement message, responsive to a downlink message, during the second TTI. Because the special subframe is being interpreted as potentially being the first TTI (and the UpPTS is part of the special subframe), such an uplink acknowledgement message may also be broadly reasonably interpreted as being transmitted during a time period that comprises a portion of an uplink TTI of the first duration in the TDD configuration. The Examiner would also like to note that the combination of the processor and memory in Yin may also be reasonably interpreted as all of the “means plus function” limitations in claim 46; Yin; Figs. 5 and 9-12B; Table 8; [0024], [0044], [0062], [0139]-[0142], [0189]). Regarding claims 31, 37, 43, and 48, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 28, 34, 40, and 45 respectively. Yin further teaches the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI is included in a special subframe or slot (The UpPTS (e.g., the plurality of uplink symbols in the first TTI) may be in a special subframe or slot; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0062], [0139]-[0142]). Regarding claims 32, 38, and 49, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 28, 34, and 45 respectively. Yin further teaches the first TTI comprises one or more slots, each slot comprising two or more symbols of the plurality of uplink symbols (As can be seen in at least Fig. 5 and its corresponding description, subframes (e.g., special subframe 531a) may be comprised of one or more slots, and each slot may comprise two or more symbols of the plurality of uplink symbols; Yin; Fig. 5; Table 8; [0040], [0062], [0066], [0139]-[0142]). Regarding claims 33, 39, 44, and 50, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 28, 34, 43, and 45 respectively. Yin further teaches a delay between the downlink message and the uplink acknowledgement message is based on at least one of: a capability of a user equipment (UE), a modulation and coding scheme (MS), or a timing advance (TA) (A delay between a downlink message and an uplink acknowledgement message transmitted in response may be broadly reasonably interpreted as being based at least on a capability of the UE and/or a modulation and coding scheme; Yin; Figs. 5 and 9-12B; Table 8; [0024], [0044], [0062], [0103], [0107], [0114], [0118], [0139]-[0142], [0189]).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16, 22, 29, 35, 41, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yin et al. (US 2017/0223702, provided by Applicant, Yin hereinafter, full support from cited portions derived from provisional application 62/288,150) and Dai et al. (US 2013/0039233, provided by Applicant, Dai hereinafter) in view of Yang et al. (WO 2013/055337, provided by Applicant, Yang hereinafter).
Regarding claims 2, 9, 16, and 22, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 respectively. Yin further teaches the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: determine a guard period during the first TTI of the first duration in the first component carrier (A transmission time interval (TTI) may be a subframe with a length of 1 ms, and a special subframe in TDD may include a downlink pilot time slot (DwPTS) for DL, a gap period (GP) and an uplink pilot time slot (UpPTS) for UL transmissions. Such a special subframe can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 5 (e.g., special subframe 531a). The transmission of such a special subframe may be broadly reasonably interpreted as including determining the gap period (i.e., guard period) of a special TTI. The Examiner would also like to note that the combination of the processor and memory in Yin may also be reasonably interpreted as all of the “means plus function” limitations in claim 22; Yin; Fig. 5; Tables 8-9; [0062], [0139]-[0142]); and the guard period having at least the second duration (The downlink pilot time slot (DwPTS), gap period (GP), and uplink pilot time slot (UpPTS) may have different relative durations adding up to 30720*Ts. As can be seen for instance in Table 9, a configuration may exist (e.g., special subframe config 7) wherein the DwPTS is 21952*Ts long and the UpPTS is 4384*Ts long. Such lengths leave a duration of 30720 – 21952 – 4384 = 4384*Ts for the guard period. The guard period may thus be reasonably interpreted as having the second duration of the UpPTS; Yin; Fig. 5; Tables 8-9; [0062], [0139]-[0142]). However, Yin does not specifically disclose identifying an additional TTI during the guard period; and transmitting an additional uplink message during the additional TTI. Although Dai teaches transmission of a sounding reference signal (SRS) during a guard period and thus transmitting an additional uplink message during an additional TTI in a guard period (Dai; Figs. 5, 8, and 11; [0094], [0099], [0104]), Dai does not appear to explicitly combine such a transmission in a guard period with the embodiments that were used to reject the independent claims wherein the SRS is transmitted in a portion of the UpPTS. Yang teaches determining an additional TTI during the guard period (Guard periods may be used for uplink communications when the guard period is not used to protect between a transition between uplink and downlink communications. Under such a situation, a guard period used for such purpose may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an additional TTI that is determined; Yang; Figs. 4-5; [0030]); and receiving an additional uplink message during the additional TTI (Guard periods may be used for uplink communications when the guard period is not used to protect between a transition between uplink and downlink communications. As is discussed in the example in paragraph [0030] as well as elsewhere in the specification, such a transmission during a guard period may be in addition to other uplink transmissions. The BS may thus be reasonably interpreted as receiving an additional uplink message during the additional TTI (i.e., the guard period); Yang; Figs. 2 and 4-5; [0030]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings as in Yang regarding transmission during guard periods with the similar frame structure including guard periods as in Yin and Dai. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase throughput and prevent wasting resources that may otherwise be used for communications (Yang; [0029]-[0030]). Regarding claims 29, 35, 41, and 46, Yin and Dai teach the limitations of claims 28, 34, 40, and 45 respectively. Yin further teaches the instructions are further executable by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to: identify a guard period during the first TTI of the first duration in the first component carrier (A transmission time interval (TTI) may be a subframe with a length of 1 ms, and a special subframe in TDD may include a downlink pilot time slot (DwPTS) for DL, a gap period (GP) and an uplink pilot time slot (UpPTS) for UL transmissions. Such a special subframe can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 5 (e.g., special subframe 531a). The receipt of such a special subframe may be broadly reasonably interpreted as including the identification of the gap period (i.e., guard period) of a special TTI. The Examiner would also like to note that the combination of the processor and memory in Yin may also be reasonably interpreted as all of the “means plus function” limitations in claim 46; Yin; Fig. 5; Tables 8-9; [0062], [0139]-[0142]); and the guard period having at least the second duration (The downlink pilot time slot (DwPTS), gap period (GP), and uplink pilot time slot (UpPTS) may have different relative durations adding up to 30720*Ts. As can be seen for instance in Table 9, a configuration may exist (e.g., special subframe config 7) wherein the DwPTS is 21952*Ts long and the UpPTS is 4384*Ts long. Such lengths leave a duration of 30720 – 21952 – 4384 = 4384*Ts for the guard period. The guard period may thus be reasonably interpreted as having the second duration of the UpPTS; Yin; Fig. 5; Tables 8-9; [0062], [0139]-[0142]). However, Yin does not specifically disclose identifying an additional TTI during the guard period; and transmitting an additional uplink message during the additional TTI. Although Dai teaches transmission of a sounding reference signal (SRS) during a guard period and thus transmitting an additional uplink message during an additional TTI in a guard period (Dai; Figs. 5, 8, and 11; [0094], [0099], [0104]), Dai does not appear to explicitly combine such a transmission in a guard period with the embodiments that were used to reject the independent claims wherein the SRS is transmitted in a portion of the UpPTS. Yang teaches identifying an additional TTI during the guard period (Guard periods may be used for uplink communications when the guard period is not used to protect between a transition between uplink and downlink communications. Under such a situation, a guard period used for such purpose may be broadly reasonably interpreted as an additional TTI that is identified; Yang; Figs. 4-5; [0030]); and transmitting an additional uplink message during the additional TTI (Guard periods may be used for uplink communications when the guard period is not used to protect between a transition between uplink and downlink communications. As is discussed in the example in paragraph [0030] as well as elsewhere in the specification, such a transmission during a guard period may be in addition to other uplink transmissions. The UE may thus be reasonably interpreted as transmitting an additional uplink message during the additional TTI (i.e., the guard period); Yang; Figs. 2 and 4-5; [0030]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the teachings as in Yang regarding transmission during guard periods with the similar frame structure including guard periods as in Yin and Dai. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase throughput and prevent wasting resources that may otherwise be used for communications (Yang; [0029]-[0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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 on 5712722832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474