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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9, 17, 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 17, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486) in view of Ho (US-20100172313).
As to claim 1, 9, 17, 25: Park teaches a method comprising: receiving by a wireless device: a first transmit power control (TPC) index indicating a first position, in downlink control information (DCI), of a first TPC command for a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) of a primary cell ([0015] The RRC message may include a first Transmit Power Control (TPC) index associated with a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission on the PCell and a second TPC index associated with a PUCCH transmission on a secondary serving cell (SCell); [0017] the value of the first TPC command being mapped in the DCI format based on the first TPC index and the value of the second TPC command being mapped in the DCI format based on the second TPC index), and a second TPC index indicating a second position, in the DCI, of a second TPC command for a second PUSCH of a secondary cell ([0056, 58] The UE receiving the upper-layer message uses the TPC-Index field as a TPC index to a TPC command for the PUCCH(PCell) and the TPC-Index_r13 field as a TPC index to a TPC command for the PUCCH(SCell)), … ; receiving the DCI, wherein the DCI comprises a plurality of TPC commands, and wherein the DCI comprises the second TPC command at the second position in the DCI ([0056, 58] The UE receiving the upper-layer message uses the TPC-Index field as a TPC index to a TPC command for the PUCCH(PCell) and the TPC-Index_r13 field as a TPC index to a TPC command for the PUCCH(SCell)).
Park may not explicitly teach configured for semi-persistent scheduling … and applying the second TPC command to semi-persistently scheduled uplink transmissions on the second PUSCH of the secondary cell. However, Ho teaches configured for semi-persistent scheduling (fig.7, [0085, 88]) … and applying the second TPC command to semi-persistently scheduled uplink transmissions on the second PUSCH of the secondary cell (fig.7, [0085, 88] For uplink semi-persistent scheduling release, the TPC field, the cyclic shift DM-RS field and the MCS field of the PDCCH message may be set to all ones).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SPS, taught by Ho, into the communication system, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce signaling overhead . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Ho and Park in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 10, 18, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486), Ho (US-20100172313) in view of Suzuki (US-20140293946).
As to claim 2, 10, 18, 26: Park teaches the method of claim 1, 9, 17, 25.
Park may not explicitly teach further comprising receiving a message indicating whether the wireless device is expected to monitor a common search space for the first DCI. However, Suzuki teaches further comprising receiving a message indicating whether the wireless device is expected to monitor a common search space for the DCI ([0144, 145, 156, 159]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement indication to monitor CSS, taught by Suzuki, into PDSCH / PDCCH, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to obtain the transmitted data. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Park and Suzuki in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486), Ho (US-20100172313) in view of Daibo (EP-2501173-A1).
As to claim 3, 11, 19, 27: Park teaches the method of claim 1, … , and wherein the two bits represent minus one decibel (dB), zero dB, plus one dB, or three dB ([0070], table 4).
Park may not explicitly teach wherein the second TPC command comprises two bits. However, Daibo teaches wherein the second TPC command comprises two bits ([0011, 12] In this case, the sizes of DCI format 3 and 3A are consistent with that of DCI format 0. In this case, in DCI format 3, two continuous bits are used for indicating the transmit power control (TPC) commands of PUCCH and PUSCH, a high layer signaling (tpc-Index) designates the starting position of the TPC command of a certain user, while in DCI format 3A, 1 bit is used for indicating the transmit power control (TPC) commands of PUCCH and PUSCH, and a high layer signaling (tpc-Index) designates the starting position of the TPC command of a certain user)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement DCI format 3, taught by Daibo, into the power control system, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable group power control . In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Park and Daibo in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 28, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486) in view of Ho (US-20100172313).
As to claim 4, 12, 20, 28: Park teaches wherein the second TPC command comprises a single bit representing minus one decibel (dB) or plus one dB ([0070], table 4).
As to claim 7, 15, 23, 31: Park teaches the method of claim 1, 9, 17, 25, further comprising receiving, by the wireless device, a TPC physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) RNTI; and receiving second DCI comprising: a third TPC command for a first PUCCH of the primary cell, and a fourth TPC command for a second PUCCH of the secondary cell ([0015, 17, 64]), wherein the second DCI is scrambled with the TPC PUCCH RNTI (([0062, 77-79, 117-119])).
As to claim 8, 16, 24, 32: Park teaches the method of claim 1, 9, 17, 25,
further comprising: receiving, by the wireless device, a TPC PUSCH radio network temporary identifier (RNTI), wherein at least a portion of the DCI is scrambled with the TPC PUSCH RNTI ([0062, 77-79, 117-119]).
Claim(s) 5, 13, 21, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486), Ho (US-20100172313) in view of Lohr (US-20110223924).
As to claim 5, 13, 21, 29: Park teaches the method of claim 1, 9, 17, 25, wherein the applying the second TPC command comprises sending, … of the second PUSCH of the secondary cell ([0039, 41, 48, 56, 58]).
Park may not explicitly teach using semi-persistently scheduled periodic resources. However, Lohr teaches using semi-persistently scheduled periodic resources ([0026, 27, 41, 79, 83, 147, 150] The PDCCH including the resource allocation is granting physical channel resources to the user equipment, same will periodically use for transmissions/reception of data via PUSCH/PDSCH that is scheduled on a semi-persistent basis) … one or more transport blocks (abstract, [0115, 170, 187]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SPS, taught by Lohr, into the communication system, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lohr and Park in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 14, 22, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486), Ho (US-20100172313) in view of Lohr (US-20110223924), Bala (US-20100098012).
As to claim 6, 14, 22, 30: Park teaches the method of claim 1, 9, 17, 25.
Park may not explicitly teach further comprising receiving, by the wireless device, periodic resource allocation configuration parameters configuring a periodic resource allocation for transmission, via the second PUSCH of the secondary cell, of the one or more transport blocks. However, Bala teaches further comprising receiving, by the wireless device, periodic resource allocation configuration parameters configuring a periodic resource allocation for transmission, via the second PUSCH of the secondary cell ([0101-106] periodic PUSCH resources), of the one or more transport blocks (TB taught by Aiba).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement periodic resources, taught by Bala, into the PUSCH resources, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to periodically make use of the PUSCH/PUCCH and other channels. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Park and Bala in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Park may not explicitly teach wherein the periodic resource allocation comprises semi-persistent scheduling. However, Lohr teaches wherein the periodic resource allocation comprises semi-persistent scheduling ([0026, 27, 41, 79, 83, 147, 150] The PDCCH including the resource allocation is granting physical channel resources to the user equipment, same will periodically use for transmissions/reception of data via PUSCH/PDSCH that is scheduled on a semi-persistent basis).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SPS, taught by Lohr, into the communication system, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and reduce power consumption. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Lohr and Park in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US-20160227486), Ho (US-20100172313) in view of Yamada (US-20120281576).
As to claim 33: Park teaches the method of claim 1.
Park may not explicitly teach wherein the receiving the DCI comprises decoding, by the wireless device and using the TPC PUSCH RNTI, the DCI. However, Yamada teaches wherein the receiving the DCI comprises decoding, by the wireless device and using the TPC PUSCH RNTI, the DCI ([0014] A mobile station apparatus set so as to decode a PDCCH having a CRC scrambled by a TPC-PUCCH-RNTI, or a TPC-PUSCH-RNTI decodes DCI Formats (3A and 3) in the common search space)..
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement decoding DCI, taught by Yamada, into the DCI, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and obtain control information. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Yamada and Park in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights