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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 February 2026 with respect to the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection for claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections and rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued Jung in view of Takeda involves a single carrier embodiment and fails to teach and make obvious the claimed invention. However, Examiner disagrees.
Jung discloses several subcarriers for each frequency assignment sequence (paras. 45-46). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a frequency assignment (FA) is a group of subcarriers (specification of the instant application, figs. 5-9D and page 21, lines 16-18). Despite the description of an FA to be synonymous with a carrier or component carrier in the specification of the instant application (page 22, lines 9-10), the claims fail to require this definition such as reciting in claim 1, for example, the first FA and second FA are a first component carrier and a second component carrier, respectively (or, having language similar to claim 20).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., plural component carriers) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is 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 claim 20, the claim recites a first communication node for transmitting a signal that is mapped to a first cell and a second cell. The specification only describes a node (base station) as comprising one cell (page 13, lines 24-27). Examiner suggests reciting a second communication node to perform the “transmitting, by the second cell…” function.
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.
Claims 1, 7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0255522) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2015/0071200). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Jung discloses a method of a first communication system (fig. 1; note: a system and not a node as best understood in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112), comprising: generating a first frequency assignment (FA) sequence (fig. 4, any of items 410-430) and a second FA sequence (any of items 440-460) corresponding to a first FA and a second FA (fig. 5, respective subcarriers of subbands 510 and 520; note: 520 less subcarriers of 510; para. 45, fifth and sixth sentences; para. 46, eighth and ninth sentences; para. 48, third-from-last sentence; note: different frequencies, not overlapping), respectively, based on a first sequence (fig. 4, base sequence; paras. 45, especially the last three sentences; para. 60); mapping elements of a first FA signal and a second FA signal to first and second subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs (figs. 4-5; paras. 45-46; note: each SS is mapped to a respective set (group) of subcarriers), first base station (para. 28, first two sentences; para. 45, especially the first two sentences; note: cell ID; para. 47, last five sentences and para. 66) and a first symbol (item 530); and transmitting a first transmission signal including the first and second FA signals mapped to the first and second subcarrier groups (fig. 8 and para. 54, especially the fifth and sixth sentences; note: each SS transmitted in a bandwidth).
However, Jung fails to disclose the first FA signal and the second FA signal, which are respectively generated by modulating the first and second FA sequences. Takeda teaches modulating signals including synchronization signals (figs. 2 and 5) that are mapped to subcarriers of respective carriers (fig. 13, items 304-305; para. 82; note: modulation and subcarrier mapping; para. 61 and 99). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first FA signal and the second FA signal, which are respectively generated by modulating the first and second FA sequences in the invention of Jung. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, transmitting data as is known in the art (Takeda, figs. 2, 5 and 13; paras. 61, 82 and 99; note: FDMA/OFDM modulation; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Jung fails to disclose generating a third FA sequence and a fourth FA sequence corresponding to the first FA and the second FA, respectively, based on a second sequence; mapping elements of a third FA signal and a fourth FA signal, which are respectively generated by modulating the first and second FA sequences, to third and fourth subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs, a second base station, and a second symbol; and transmitting a second transmission signal including the third and fourth FA signals mapped to the third and fourth subcarrier groups, in essence a second base station performing in a different frequency a similar process as the first base station. Takeda teaches sequences (synchronization signals) transmitted on component carriers and subcarriers (figs. 2, 5 and 10, and paras. 26-27, 61, 68 and 99) in a carrier aggregation environment from base stations or remote radio heads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have generating a third FA sequence and a fourth FA sequence corresponding to the first FA and the second FA, respectively, based on a second sequence; mapping elements of a third FA signal and a fourth FA signal, which are respectively generated by modulating the first and second FA sequences, to third and fourth subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs, a second base station, and a second symbol; and transmitting a second transmission signal including the third and fourth FA signals mapped to the third and fourth subcarrier groups in the invention of Jung. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, performing carrier aggregation with more than one base station, each having similar transmission processes, as is known in the art (Takeda, figs. 2, 5 and 10; paras. 26-27, 61, 68 and 99; note: carrier aggregation involving sequences (synchronization signals); MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 7, Jung in view of Takeda teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the generating of the first FA sequence and the second FA sequence comprises: determining values of elements constituting a first element group (Jung, item 410) and a second element group (Jung, item 420) included in the first FA sequence (Jung, item 430), based on the first sequence (Jung, fig. 4, base sequence), wherein values of elements of one of the first and second element groups are determined based on a first modified sequence modified from the first sequence (Jung, fig. 4, cyclic shift of the base sequence; fig. 3 and para. 45).
Regarding claim 11, Jung in view of Takeda teaches and makes obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein a guard band is disposed between the first and second subcarrier groups and between the third and fourth subcarrier groups, respectively (Jung, para. 48, especially the last two sentences).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Takeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jitsukawa et al. (US 2013/0303179) and Abrudan et al. (WO 2018/196996).
Jung in view of Takeda teaches and makes obvious transmitters refraining from transmitting in certain spectrum (fig. 2) but fails to teach and make obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein null values are mapped to the subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs, the first base station, and the second symbol, and the subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs, the second base station, and the first symbol. However, Jitsukawa teaches muting a frequency region (symbol) by using a null symbol mapped to zero power (fig. 6 and para. 40) and Abrudan teaches adding nulls to inactive subcarriers (figs. 1 and 9, and page 18, lines 22-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have null values mapped to the subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs, the first base station, and the second symbol, and the subcarrier groups corresponding to the first and second FAs, the second base station, and the first symbol in the invention of Jung in view of Takeda. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, implementing inactive transmission areas as is known in the art (Jitsukawa, fig. 6 and para. 40; Abrudan, figs. 1 and 9, and page 18, lines 22-28; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Takeda as applied to claim 1 or 12 above, and further in view of Wei et al. (US 2020/0007293).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Jung in view of Takeda fails to teach and make obvious the method according to claim 1, wherein the first and second transmission signals are generated based on a transmission comb value of 1, and the method according to claim 12, wherein the first transmission signal is generated based on a transmission comb value of 2. However, Wei teaches this feature (fig. 4B and paras. 51-52 and 60; note: comb value of 1 for comb=2 or 4, and comb value of 2 for comb=4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second transmission signals are generated based on a transmission comb value of 1, and the first transmission signal is generated based on a transmission comb value of 2 in the invention of Jung in view of Takeda. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, transmitting information on a subset of subcarriers as is known in the art (Wei, fig. 4B and paras. 51-52 and 60; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6, 8-10, 13-16 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is overcome.
Claim 20 would be allowable if the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is overcome.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462