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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 1, in the limitation “determining a first subframe; and/or determining a second subframe according to the first subframe”, since determining the second subframe from the first subframe requires the first subframe and with an “or” it seems to suggest the determining a first subframe is optional.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. 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 nonobviousness.
6. 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
7. Claims 1-4, 8-9, 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee (WO 2018/064583 A1-IDS), in view of Kim et al. (US 9,479,407), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Chatterjee discloses: (1) For UE is configured to support up to two HARQ procedures in NB-IOT (see 0029), a second transmission of NPUSCH 130-fig.1 from the UE may carry ACK/NACK feedback for a first transmission of NPDSCH from the eNB within a 12 ms gap between the start of the NPUSCH and the end of the associated NPDSCH, see 0026, 0029, 0034; (2) There may be an indication of A/N feedback of 2 TBs using a single NPUSCH Format 2 transmission with channel selection or resource selection in a first option, within which a time offset value of the NPUSCH Format 2 resource may be indicated with respect to 12ms after the end of the second NPDSCH, see 0048. In other words, the UE is controlled to determine a first subframe; and/or determining a second subframe from the first subframe.
Chatterjee, however, fails to teach performing a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring according to the first subframe and/or the second subframe.
Kim teaches the UE may acquire the control information by monitoring an ePDCCH 3300-fig.33 in the first subframe and acquire the control information by monitoring a PDCCH 3350-fig.33 in the second subframe, see col. 31, lines 6-60.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Kim
into the system of Chatterjee. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the UE to effectively monitor the HARQ information in the ePDCCH region and cell-specific reference signal (CRS) in the PDCCH region, for improving the power consumption and latency performance of NB-IoT UEs in good coverage.
Regarding claim 2, Chatterjee teaches transmission of NPDSCH as a first transmission ending in the first subframe, see 0029, 0071.
Regarding claim 3, in Chatterjee, the first transmission comprises a NPDSCH,
wherein the NPDSCH transmission is scheduled by a downlink control information (DCD) format, wherein the DCI format comprises a DCI format N1 and/or a DCI format N2, see 0179, 0182-0183.
Regarding claim 4, in Chatterjee, the UE transmits the second transmission,
wherein the second transmission comprises a narrowband physical uplink shared channel (NPUSCH) transmission, wherein the NPUSCH transmission comprises an acknowledgement (ACK)/non-acknowledgement (NACK) information corresponding to the reception of the first transmission, see 0029.
Regarding claim 8, please see the rejection of claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is for a wireless communication method by a UE and a base station, and it should be noted that a wireless communication method by the base station and the UE can be performed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 9, please see the rejection of claim 3. The rejection of claim 3 regarding the first transmission comprises a NPDSCH by the base station, scheduled by a DCI format, and the DCI format comprises DCI format N1 and/or DCI format N2, and it should be noted that the first transmission receives by the UE can be performed in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 12, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Chatterjee-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The UE device 1000-fig.10 includes a memory and a processor and a transceiver, see 0013.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected under Chatterjee-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected under Chatterjee-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected under Chatterjee-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected under Chatterjee-Kim for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8. The base station device 1000-fig.10 includes a memory and a processor and a transceiver, see 0013.
Allowable subject matter
8. Claims 5-7, 10-11, 16 and 18-20 would be allowable if claims 1, 8, 12 and 17 rewritten or amended to overcome the objections, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cheng et al. (US 2022/0232503) is cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465