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 .
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MATSUMOTO US 20170048908 in view of Ratasuk US 20070258540.
Regarding claims 1-4, 14, MATSUMOTO teaches a method of operating a transmitting radio node in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
transmitting first control signaling covering one or more first allocation units in a control transmission time interval (paragraph 7, "user terminal includes a controller configured to perform repetition of same control information using first and second control resources allocated continuously or discontinuously in a time direction, in a control region having a predetermined time length and a predetermined frequency bandwidth"), and
transmitting second control signaling covering one or more second allocation units in the control transmission time interval, the second control signaling being shifted relative to the first control signaling (paragraph 7, “user terminal includes a controller configured to perform repetition of same control information using first and second control resources allocated continuously or discontinuously in a time direction, in a control region having a predetermined time length and a predetermined frequency bandwidth").
MATSUMOTO is silent on the second control signaling being shifted relative to the first control signaling by at least one of:
being scrambled by a different scrambling function;
being subject to a different interleaving function; or
being subject to a different cyclic shift.
Ratasuk teaches transmitting a second signal being shifted relative to the first signal being subject to a different cyclic shift (Node B 140 may further apply a different cyclic shift to the signal applied to each antenna 714.sub.1-714.sub.P, thereby providing cyclic shift transmit diversity and further reducing the interference of the transmitted downlink signals with each other and providing improved reception at the UEs, [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of MATSUMOTO by the second control signaling being shifted relative to the first control signaling by being subject to a different cyclic shift, as suggested by Ratasuk. This modification would benefit the system by reducing the interference of the transmitted downlink signals.
Regarding claim 6, 17, the first control signaling and the second control signaling represent the one or both of a same information content and/or and payload (paragraph 7, repetition of same control information).
Regarding claims 7, 18, the first control signaling comprises first reference signaling, and the second control signaling comprises second reference signaling, wherein the second control signaling is shifted relative to the first control signaling at least such that the second reference signaling is shifted relative to the first reference signaling. (paragraph 7, first and second control resources allocated continuously in a time direction).
Regarding claims 9, 20, the first control signaling and the second control signaling are synchronised to each other (paragraph 7, first and second control resources allocated continuously in a time direction).
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 13, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirik US 20220210818 US 20170048908 in view of Ratasuk.
Regarding claims 1-4, Cirik teaches a method of operating a transmitting radio node in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
transmitting first control signaling covering one or more first allocation units in a control transmission time interval (paragraph 7, "user terminal includes a controller configured to perform repetition of same control information using first and second control resources allocated continuously or discontinuously in a time direction, in a control region having a predetermined time length and a predetermined frequency bandwidth"), and
transmitting second control signaling covering one or more second allocation units in the control transmission time interval, the second control signaling being shifted relative to the first control signaling (For example, in FIG. 24 and FIG. 25, the plurality of downlink control signal/channel transmission/repetition occasions comprise a first downlink control signal/channel transmission/repetition occasion (e.g., PDCCH transmission/repetition occasion 1) and a second downlink control signal/channel transmission/repetition occasion (e.g., PDCCH transmission/repetition occasion 2), [0334]).
Cirik is silent on the second control signaling being shifted relative to the first control signaling by at least one of:
being scrambled by a different scrambling function;
being subject to a different interleaving function; or
being subject to a different cyclic shift.
Ratasuk teaches transmitting a second signal being shifted relative to the first signal being subject to a different cyclic shift (Node B 140 may further apply a different cyclic shift to the signal applied to each antenna 714.sub.1-714.sub.P, thereby providing cyclic shift transmit diversity and further reducing the interference of the transmitted downlink signals with each other and providing improved reception at the UEs, [0052]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Cirik by the second control signaling being shifted relative to the first control signaling by being subject to a different cyclic shift, as suggested by Ratasuk. This modification would benefit the system by reducing the interference of the transmitted downlink signals.
Regarding claims 5, 16, one or both of the first control signaling and/or and the second control signaling is signaling on one or both of a physical control channel / PDCCH and/or and a physical broadcast channel. (PDCCH, [0334]).
Regarding claims 10, 21, the second control signaling overlaps one or both in time and/or and frequency domain with the first control signaling (In the spatial/code domain repetition scheme, the plurality of downlink control signal/channel transmission occasions may overlap in frequency, [0348]).
Regarding claim 13, the second control signaling has a different transmission source than the first control signaling (fig. 24, 25).
Claim(s) 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of MATSUMOTO and Ratasuk as applied to claims 1, 3 above, and further in view of Lee US 20200196052.
The combination is silent on one of both of the first control signaling and/or and the second control signaling are associated to first synchronisation signaling.
Lee teaches control signaling for the purpose of synchronization ([0090]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of the combination by one of both of the first control signaling and/or and the second control signaling are associated to first synchronisation signaling, as suggested by Lee. This modification would benefit the system by synchronizing the mobile with the base station.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights