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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 31 January 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “reception unit configured to receive” in claims 1, 4, and 5, “control unit configured to determine” in claims 1-3, and “transmission unit configured to transmit” in claim 1.
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 (figure 10 and ¶¶57-59) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,528,729. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-6 of the instant application are in the same scope as claims 1-4 of 11,528,729.
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 2 and 4-5 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "each slot format" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “allocation of data to which two or more subcarrier spacings are applied” in lines 3-4 and “receiving the data” in line 6. It is unclear whether two or more subcarrier spacings are applied to the data or two or more subcarrier spacings are applied to a slot in which the data is allocated. It is also unclear whether two or mor subcarrier spacings are applied to the same data or different data. It is also unclear whether the data is only DL data or UL and DL data. Claim 1 recites the terminal transmitting a signal in the slot and receiving a signal in the slot. Additionally, the specification describes the SCS switch accompanying a transmission direction switch. Therefore, it is unclear whether the terminal receives some of the data or all of the data. For examining purposes, the examiner will interpret the claim as best understood.
Claim 5 is rejected the same way as claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. US 2022/0045831 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lin”).
As to claim 1, Lin teaches a terminal (¶¶93-94; see figure 14) comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive signaling from a base station (¶¶83-84, 90, and 93-94; see figures 13-14: UE receives configuration from BS);
a control unit configured to determine a subcarrier spacing to be applied to each symbol included in a slot, based on the signaling (¶¶48, 83-84, and 93-94; see figures 1 and 13-14: determine, based on received configuration, SCS for each symbol); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit a signal in the slot, based on the determined subcarrier spacing (¶¶74, 90-91, and 93-94; see figures 11 and 13-14: transmit UL transmission in the slot according to the configured SCS), wherein
the reception unit receives a signal in the slot, based on the determined subcarrier spacing (¶¶74, 90-91, and 93-94; see figures 11 and 13-14: receive DL transmission in the slot according to the configured SCS).
As to claim 2, Lin teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the control unit determines the subcarrier spacing for each slot format indicating that each symbol included in the slot is one of a downlink symbol, an uplink symbol, or a flexible symbol (¶¶12, 26, 53, 60, and 93-95; see figures 5 and 13-14: SCS applied to slots having DL-UL configurations).
As to claim 3, Lin teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the control unit determines a period in which transmission and reception are not performed when switching the subcarrier spacing, based on a reference subcarrier spacing (¶¶52, 86-87, and 93-94; see figures 13-14: determine switching period according to a reference SCS based on which SCS is larger and which SCS is first).
As to claim 4, Lin teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the reception unit receives scheduling information (¶¶74, 83-84, 90, and 93-94; see figures 13-14: UE receives configuration/scheduling from BS), and,
in a case where the scheduling information indicates allocation of data to which two or more subcarrier spacings are applied, the control unit determines a preparation time from a time point of receiving the scheduling information to a time point of receiving the data, based on one of the subcarrier spacings applied to the data (¶¶68, 74, 87-91, and 93-94; see figures 13-14: configuration/scheduling indicates data transmissions with different SCS, determine gap and SCS switching time period from the point of receiving the PDCCH to receiving scheduled transmission based on one of the configured SCSs).
As to claim 5, Lin teaches the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein
the reception unit receives scheduling information (¶¶74, 83-84, 90, and 93-94; see figures 13-14: UE receives configuration/scheduling from BS), and
in a case where the scheduling information indicates allocation of data to which two or more subcarrier spacings are applied, the control unit does not expect reception of another scheduling information during a time from a time point of receiving the scheduling information to a time point of receiving the data (¶¶4, 57, 74, 83-84, 90, and 93-94; see figures 13-14: configuration/scheduling indicates data transmissions with different SCS, determine gap and SCS switching time period, the switching time period is a guard period where UE is not scheduled and does not receive additional scheduling).
As to claim 6, claim 6 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takeda et al., US 12,069,624 B2 – User Terminal and Radio Communication Method
Chen et al., US 2024/0214129 A1 – Method for Determining HARQ-ACK Transmission Resource, Terminal, and Storage Medium
Choi et al., US 2022/0353879 A1 – Method and Device for Transmitting/Receiving Signal in Wireless Communication System
Liu et al., WO 2020/228035 A1 – Time Division Duplexing Communication Method and Apparatus
Takeda et al., US 10,743,304 B2 – User Terminal, Radio Base Station, and Radio Communication Method
Harada et al., US 2018/0331816 A1 – User Terminal, Radio Base Station and Radio Communication Method
Harada et al., US 2018/0255572 A1 – User Terminal, Radio Base Station and Radio Communication Method
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469