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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-11 are amended.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 4/15/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 7-11 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 8 and 10 have overcome the objections to claims 8 and 10 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/20/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 8 and 10 have overcome the 112(b) Rejections to claims 8 and 10 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/20/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 7 render the 112(f) claim interpretation noted in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/20/2026 moot and have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 7, 9, and 11 (pages 7-9) in a reply filed 4/15/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, and 11 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity of the limitations.
7. (Proposed Amendment) A terminal comprising:
a processor that performs semi-static control information cell switching based on a switching pattern of a cell for transmitting a semi-static control information; and
a transmitter that transmits the semi-static 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 based on a timing indicated to the terminal.
In claim 9, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity of the limitations.
9. (Proposed Amendment) A wireless communication method, comprising:
performing semi-static control information cell switching based on a switching pattern of a cell for transmitting a semi-static control information
transmitting the semi-static control information in the cell to a base station,
wherein the control information cell switching is disabled when any secondary cell (SCell) is deactivated based on a timing indicated to a terminal.
In claim 11, it is suggested to amend to read as follows for clarity of the limitations.
11. (Proposed Amendment) A system including a terminal and a base station, wherein:
the terminal performs semi-static control information cell switching based on a switching pattern of a cell for transmitting a semi-static control information, and transmits the semi-static control information in the cell to the base station; and
the base station receives the semi-static control information from the terminal in the cell,
wherein the semi-static control information cell switching is disabled when any secondary cell (SCell) is deactivated based on a timing indicated to the terminal.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Zhou et al. (WO 2021/091966 A1, hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 7:
Chein teaches a terminal (see, Chien: Fig. 3, UE 10) comprising:
a processor (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. [0046], “FIG. 11 illustrates a schematic view showing an example where a UE is configured with a time pattern for semi-static PUCCH cell/carrier switching as well as a function of SPS HARQ-ACK deferral.”, supports are found in pages 1, 2, 12, and 18 of 63/168,278.) for transmitting control information (e.g., UCI on a PUCCH) (see, Chien: Fig. 3; para. [0077], “The UE 10 determines a slot/sub-slot location n for transmitting uplink control information (UCI) on a PUCCH 114a associated with the PDSCH 112a, where n is a natural number slot/sub-slot index (S5).”; 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).”, supports are found in pages 17-18 of 63/168,278.); and
a transmitter (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., UCI on PUCCH) in the cell to a base station (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).”, supports are found in pages 17-18 of 63/168,278.), wherein the semi-static control information cell switching is disabled based on a timing indicated to the terminal (see, Chien: para. [0325], “For a UE capable of performing PUCCH cell/carrier switching based on a dynamic indication in DCI, activation or deactivation of PUCCH cell/carrier switching between PUCCH cells/carriers within a PUCCH cell/carrier group can rely on one of the following schemes.”; para. [0326], “Scheme 1: An enabler for performing PUCCH cell/carrier switching is configured in a configuration transmitted through an RRC signaling from the gNB to the UE, and the function of PUCCH cell/carrier switching can be enabled or disabled based on the configuration.”; para. [0328], “Scheme 2: If PUCCH cell/carrier switching to a PUCCH cell/carrier … is deactivated, a field of PUCCH cell/carrier indication in DCI can instruct UE to switch back to a PCell/PSCell/PUCCH-SCell.”; para. [0334], “Scheme 4: A timer-based PUCCH cell/carrier switching in response to a timer can be configured by the gNB, where the PUCCH cell/carrier switches back to PCell/PSCell/PUCCH-SCell when the timer is expired.”, supports are found in pages 8-9 of 63/168,278.).
Chien does not explicitly teach wherein any secondary cell (SCell) is deactivated based on a timing indicated to the terminal.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches wherein any secondary cell (SCell) is deactivated based on a timing indicated to the terminal (see, Zhou: para. [0125], “Configured SCells may be deactivated in response to an expiration of an SCell deactivation timer (e.g., one SCell deactivation timer per 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 Zhou in order for the gNB to instruct the terminal (i.e., UE) to disable the PUCCH cell/carrier switching based on an expiration of a timer such as an SCell deactivation timer (see, Zhou: para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 8:
As discussed above, Chien in view of Zhou teaches all limitations in claim 7.
Chien further teaches wherein the switching pattern is notified by a higher layer parameter (see, Chien: para. [0326], “Scheme 1: An enabler for performing PUCCH cell/carrier switching is configured in a configuration transmitted through an RRC signaling from the gNB to the UE, and the function of PUCCH cell/carrier switching can be enabled or disabled based on the configuration.”, supports are found in pages 2 and 9 of 63/168,278.), and the semi-static 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights