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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/027612 filed on 7/26/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 1/23/2024, 5/6/2025 and 7/15/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been 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 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.
Claim 7 recites “control section” (line 2) and “transmission section” (line 4).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the limitations, “control section” (line 2) and “transmission section” (line 4) in claim 7, it appears that the following are corresponding structures described in the specification: see, device 605 shown in Fig. 11; paragraphs [0188-0198].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-11 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claims 7 and 9, it is suggested to amend to read “… the control information in the cell to a base station, wherein the semi-static control information cell switching is disabled when any secondary cell (SCell) is deactivated.” (in lines 2-3 of claim 7 and in lines 4-5 of claim 7) for clarity.
In claim 10, it is suggested to amend to read “…, and transmits the control information in the cell to the base station; …” (in lines 3-4) and “…, wherein the semi-static control information cell switching is disabled when any secondary cell (SCell) is deactivated.” (in line 6) for clarity.
In claims 8 and 10, it is suggested to amend to read “…, and the semi-static control information cell switching is disabled when the switching pattern is not set.” (in line 3) for clarity.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 10:
The term “an upper layer” in claims 8 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “upper layer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not provide a clear or objective standard for determining what constitutes “upper layer”. Without a precise definition or specific criteria set forth in the specification, it becomes difficult for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand the intended meaning or the boundaries of the term. Consequently, the claims fail to convey a clear and definite scope, leaving the term “upper layer” open to subjective interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (US 2024/0381366 A1, hereinafter Chien), claiming benefit to and fully-supported by US provisional applications 63/168,278 filed on Mar. 31, 2021, in view of Xu et al. (US 2017/0290015 A1, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 7:
Chein teaches a terminal (see, Chien: Fig. 3, UE 10) comprising:
a control section (see, Chien: Fig. 1, UE 10a and 10b, Processor 11a and 11b, support is found in Fig. 6 of 63/168,278.) that performs semi-static control information cell switching based on a switching pattern of a cell (see, Chien: para. [0238], “Case 5: HARQ-ACK for dynamic scheduled or semi-static scheduled PDSCH, wherein the PUCCH cell/carrier switching is configured to be based on a semi-static PUCCH cell/carrier switching pattern.”, supports are found in pages 1, 2, 12, and 18 of 63/168,278.) for transmitting control information (e.g., PUCCH) (see, Chien: Fig. 3 and para. [0078], “The UE 10 determines to transmit the PUCCH 114a on a determined cell/carrier at the slot/sub-slot location n based on one or more conditions in the PUCCH-related configuration information 111, wherein the determined cell/carrier comprises a first type cell/carrier or at least one second type cell/carrier (S6).”, support is found in page 17 of 63/168,278.); and
a transmission section (see, Chien: Fig. 1, UE 10a and 10b, Transceiver 13a and 13b, support is found in Fig. 6 of 63/168,278) that transmits the control information (e.g., PUCCH) in the cell (see, Chien: Fig. 3 and para. [0079], “The UE 10 transmits the PUCCH 114a on the determined cell/carrier at the slot/sub-slot location n (S7). The gNB 20 receives the PUCCH 114a (S8).”, support is found in page 17 of 63/168,278.).
Chien does not explicitly teach wherein the control information cell switching is disabled when any SCell is deactivated.
In the same field of endeavor, Xu teaches wherein the control information cell switching is disabled when any SCell is deactivated (see, Xu: para. [0135], “Optionally the set of cells for serving the UE which only supports transmission over a single carrier in the uplink includes two cells, i.e., a PCell and an SCell, in both of which there are uplink transmission resources and downlink transmission resources configured, and the UE is capable of switching the uplink transmission primary carrier; if the uplink transmission carrier of the SCell is selected as the uplink transmission primary carrier, then there may be a radio link failure of the UE over the SCell; if the UE detects the radio link failure over the SCell, then the UE will select automatically the uplink transmission carrier of the PCell as the uplink transmission primary carrier, and transmit a D-SR or a CBRA; the UE transmits a radio link failure indicator in a PCell uplink grant (UL grant) allocated by the base station for the UE; and the base station configures the UE to release the uplink transmission resource of the SCell, or reconfigures the UE with an uplink transmission resource of the SCell.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Chien in combination of the teachings of Xu in order for the terminal (i.e., UE) to select the PCell as the uplink transmission primary carrier if the terminal detects RLF over the SCell or the SCell is released (see, Xu: para. [0135]).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Chien in view of Xu teaches all limitations in claim 7.
Chien further teaches wherein the switching pattern is notified by an upper layer parameter (para. [0164], “The gNB provides one of the row indexes by via RRC configuration or DCI to indicate which PUCCH cell/carrier switching pattern should be applied for following slots/sub-slots scheduled for PUCCH transmission.”, support is found in page 12 of 63/168,278.), and the control information cell switching is disabled when the switching pattern is not set (see, Chien: para. [0105], “the UE can be configured to activate/deactivate PUCCH cell/carrier switching based on one or more of UE capability and an indication from the gNB, which are detailed in the following.”; para. [0108], “Activate/deactivate PUCCH cell/carrier switching based on an indication from the gNB:”; para. [0109], “The gNB can indicate to the UE whether PUCCH cell/carrier switching is activated or not using a new or existing indication via an RRC signal, medium access control (MAC) signal, or DCI.”, supports are found in pages 8 and 9 of 63/168,278.).
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites a wireless communication method performed by the terminal of claim 7, and contains no additional limitations. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is directed towards a wireless communication method according to claim 9 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 8. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards a system (see, Chien: Fig. 3, support is found in Fig. 6 of 63/168,278) including a terminal (see, Chien: Fig. 3, UE 10, support is found in Fig. 6 of 63/168,278) and a base station (see, Chien: Fig. 3, gNB 20, support is found in Fig. 6 of 63/168,278), wherein: the terminal performs the features of claim 7; and the base station performs the features of claim 7 from the perspective of the base station. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471