DETAILED OFFICE 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 .
This action is responsive to the communication received December 20th, 2023. Claims 1-19 have been entered and presented for examination.
Priority
Application 18/391,254 is a Continuation of PCT/JP2022/016831 03/31/2022 and claims benefit of the Japanese Application 2021-103549 06/22/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on June 20th, 2025 and December 20th, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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 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: determining unit 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 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12-14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Novlan et al. (US 2019/0349079).
Regarding claims 1, 8, 12, 19, Novlan et al. discloses a base station apparatus (see Figure 1 [gNB 102]) comprising:
determining unit configured to determine whether to change an operation of a time-division duplex (TDD) pattern indicating a configuration of uplink communication and downlink communication used when communicating with an user equipment connecting to the base station using TDD (paragraphs 0005, 0045 [TDD; IAB parent and IAB node to perform dynamic frame structure coordination (DFSC) suggesting determination; also in response to a request, the target node may send a rejection indication of the resource request, or may send an updated DFSC (e.g., block 660) with a subset of available resources from the set of requested resources ]);
notifying unit configured to make a notification of information, in a case where the operation is determined to be changed by the determining unit, before changing a first TDD pattern being used for the operation to a second TDD pattern planned to be changed, for determining the second TDD pattern to a relay apparatus that relays communication of the base station apparatus and communicates with second user equipment using TDD (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0005, 0042 [TDD; IAB parent and IAB node to perform dynamic frame structure coordination (DFSC). For example, as represented in FIG. 5, via DFSC, e.g., a message (labeled 550), the parent node indicates to the IAB UE component that a set of resources are available or released, overriding the semi-statically coordinated and configured downlink/uplink resource pattern. The IAB UE can then uses a frame structure coordination (FSC) control plane (IAB-C) message to indicate the dynamic update of the frame structure to enable the IAB DU to utilize those resources]);
and changing unit configured to change the operation of the TDD pattern to the second TDD pattern after the information for determining the second TDD pattern is notified by the notifying unit (see Figures 5-7 and paragraphs 0048-0056 [Indication of the location or starting position of downlink and uplink symbols within a slot; Number of consecutive slots with available resources]).
Regarding claims 2, 13, Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 12 and further discloses wherein the notifying unit further makes a notification of timing information enabling determination of a timing at which the operation is to be changed together with the information for determining the second TDD pattern (see Figures 5-7 and paragraphs 0048-0056 [Indication of the location or starting position of downlink and uplink symbols within a slot; Number of consecutive slots with available resources]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, 14, Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 8, 12, and further discloses wherein the notifying unit makes the notification of the information for determining the second TDD pattern to the relay apparatus using a Backhaul Adaptation Protocol (BAP) message (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0005, 0042 [TDD; IAB parent and IAB node to perform dynamic frame structure coordination (DFSC). For example, as represented in FIG. 5, via DFSC, e.g., a message (labeled 550), the parent node indicates to the IAB UE component that a set of resources are available or released, overriding the semi-statically coordinated and configured downlink/uplink resource pattern. The IAB UE can then uses a frame structure coordination (FSC) control plane (IAB-C) message to indicate the dynamic update of the frame structure to enable the IAB DU to utilize those resources]).
Regarding claims 6, 17, Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 12 and further discloses wherein the notifying unit makes the notification of the information for determining the second TDD pattern using Integrated Access and Backhaul (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 0005, 0042 [TDD; IAB parent and IAB node to perform dynamic frame structure coordination (DFSC). For example, as represented in FIG. 5, via DFSC, e.g., a message (labeled 550), the parent node indicates to the IAB UE component that a set of resources are available or released, overriding the semi-statically coordinated and configured downlink/uplink resource pattern. The IAB UE can then uses a frame structure coordination (FSC) control plane (IAB-C) message to indicate the dynamic update of the frame structure to enable the IAB DU to utilize those resources]).
Regarding claim 9, Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 8 and further discloses wherein: the notification received by the receiving unit further includes timing information enabling determination of a timing at which operation is to be changed (see Figures 5-7 and paragraphs 0048-0056 [Indication of the location or starting position of downlink and uplink symbols within a slot; Number of consecutive slots with available resources]), and the changing unit changes the operation of the TDD pattern in the relay apparatus so that an operation of the second TDD pattern is started by the relay apparatus upon the timing at which the base station apparatus changes the operation of the TDD pattern (see Figures 5-7 and paragraphs 0048-0056 [Indication of the location or starting position of downlink and uplink symbols within a slot; Number of consecutive slots with available resources; MPEP 2111.04 ]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 15, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novlan et al. (US 2019/0349079) in view of R3-191532.
Regarding claims 4, 11, 15, Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 8, 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the changing unit changes the operation of the TDD pattern to the second TDD pattern after the notifying unit notifies the information for determining the second TDD pattern to the relay apparatus and the base station apparatus has received response information to the notification from the relay apparatus.
However, R3-191532 discloses wherein the changing unit changes the operation of the TDD pattern to the second TDD pattern after the notifying unit notifies the information for determining the second TDD pattern to the relay apparatus and the base station apparatus has received response information to the notification from the relay apparatus (see Figure 4 [DL/UL configuration of an IAB node should be transmitted to neighbor IAB nodes to mitigate CLI between IAB nodes; configuration update and configuration update acknowledgment]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the gNB could receive an acknowledgment for the DFSC message. The motivation is to acknowledge receipt.
Regarding claims 7, 18 Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 6, 17, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in a case where a plurality of relay apparatuses are controlled by the base station apparatus, the notifying unit makes the notification of the information for determining the second TDD pattern to the plurality of relay apparatuses.
However, R3-191532 discloses wherein in a case where a plurality of relay apparatuses are controlled by the base station apparatus, the notifying unit makes the notification of the information for determining the second TDD pattern to the plurality of relay apparatuses (see Figure 4 [DL/UL configuration of an IAB node should be transmitted to neighbor IAB nodes to mitigate CLI between IAB nodes; configuration update and configuration update acknowledgment]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the gNB could receive an acknowledgment for the DFSC message. The motivation is to acknowledge receipt.
Claim(s) 5, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novlan et al. (US 2019/0349079) in view of Samdanis et al. (US 2019/0174498).
Regarding claims 5, 16, Novlan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining unit determines whether to change the operation of the TDD pattern based at least on the slice information designating a network slice obtained from a user equipment.
However, Samdanis et al. discloses wherein the determining unit determines whether to change the operation of the TDD pattern based at least on the slice information designating a network slice obtained from a user equipment (paragraph 0042 [Once the shared base station 5 has been configured to support a particular tenant (and any associated mobile telephone 3) via the corresponding network slice, the base station 5 schedules the traffic/subcarrier(s) associated with that tenant/mobile telephone based on the TDD configuration pattern applicable for that network slice. Specifically, the base station 5 is configured to use a cell specific dynamic UL/DL reconfiguration or a TDD eIMTA scheme for adapting the UL/DL frame configuration of that network slice to match the UL/DL traffic demands within the base station's 5 cell. Beneficially, therefore, the base station 5 is able to apply appropriate QoS and congestion control to each traffic type and for each tenant (in its associated network slice) independently from the configuration (UL/DL frames, QoS, congestion control, etc.) applicable to other tenants/services (in other network slices) in the same cell.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the TDD configuration pattern could be sent to the UE in order to access the slice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465