DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 18 January 2024, having claims 7-11 (claims 1-6 were cancelled) and drawing figures 1-10.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. The current title “Terminal and Communication Method” broadly describes most inventions in the Telecommunications field. A new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
Claims 7-11 are 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in line 10. The word “certain” is a term of degree. The specification does not define a specific value to the word “certain” to reasonably convey to one or ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the claimed invention. It is suggested that the word “certain” be deleted from the claim or replaced with acceptable alternatives such as “predetermined” or “predefined.” Any amendment to the claim must be supported by the original specification.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in line 10. The word “certain” is a term of degree. The specification does not define a specific value to the word “certain” to reasonably convey to one or ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the claimed invention. It is suggested that the word “certain” be deleted from the claim or replaced with acceptable alternatives such as “predetermined” or “predefined.” Any amendment to the claim must be supported by the original specification.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in lines 12 and 23. The word “certain” is a term of degree. The specification does not define a specific value to the word “certain” to reasonably convey to one or ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the claimed invention. It is suggested that the word “certain” be deleted from the claim or replaced with acceptable alternatives such as “predetermined” or “predefined.” Any amendment to the claim must be supported by the original specification.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in line 10. The word “certain” is a term of degree. The specification does not define a specific value to the word “certain” to reasonably convey to one or ordinary skill in the art how to make or use the claimed invention. It is suggested that the word “certain” be deleted from the claim or replaced with acceptable alternatives such as “predetermined” or “predefined.” Any amendment to the claim must be supported by the original specification.
5. 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 7-11 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 7 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in line 10. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “certain” is a term of degree. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot objectively assess a value to the word “certain” from reading the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in line 10. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “certain” is a term of degree. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot objectively assess a value to the word “certain” from reading the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in lines 12 and 23. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “certain” is a term of degree. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot objectively assess a value to the word “certain” from reading the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a certain processing time” in line 10. The limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite. The word “certain” is a term of degree. One of ordinary skill in the art cannot objectively assess a value to the word “certain” from reading the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2023/0319822 A1).
For claims 7 and 11, Park discloses a terminal (Fig 1, UE 10 or Fig 22, device 100) comprising: a reception unit (Fig 22, communication unit 110) configured to receive, from a base station (Fig 1, eNB 20 or Fig 22, device 200), an indication for activating SPS (Semi-persistent scheduling) - PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) ([0300] the UE receives a DCI from the base station wherein the DCI indicates activation of the SPS PDSCH for a specific HARQ process);
a control unit (Fig 22, control unit 120) configured to determine whether HARQ (Hybrid automatic repeat request) feedback corresponding to the SPS-PDSCH is enabled or disabled for each HARQ process ([0298] the DCI indicates whether HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for the SPS PDSCH that is activated); and
a transmission unit (Fig 22, transceiver 114) configured to transmit HARQ feedback to the base station in a case where HARQ feedback is enabled ([0314] last 7 lines, the base station receives HARQ feedback from the UE).
For claims 7 and 11, Park does not expressly disclose the control unit does not assume that an SPS-PDSCH is to be received in a HARQ process until a time point at which a certain processing time elapses from a time point of an end of a last PDSCH reception in the HARQ process in which HARQ feedback is disabled. However, Park discloses that HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for a predetermined time period ([0298] and a timing indicator field included in the DCI indicates to the UE the time period between a PDSCH reception and a HARQ feedback (PDSCH-to-HARQ_FEEDBACK timing indicator) [0321]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to configure the UE to not assume PDSCH reception based on the timing indicator indicating the time interval between PDSCH reception and the last time point when the HARQ feedback was disabled.
For claim 9, Park discloses a base station (Fig 1, eNB 20 or Fig 22, device 200) comprising: a transmission unit (Fig 22, transceiver 114) configured to transmit, to a terminal (Fig 1, UE 10 or Fig 22, device 100), an indication for activating SPS (Semi-persistent scheduling)-PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) ([0300] the UE receives a DCI from the base station wherein the DCI indicates activation of the SPS PDSCH for a specific HARQ process);
a control unit (Fig 22, control unit 120) configured to configure whether HARQ (Hybrid automatic repeat request) feedback corresponding to the SPS-PDSCH is enabled or disabled for each HARQ process ([0298] the DCI indicates whether HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for the SPS PDSCH that is activated); and
a reception unit (Fig 22, communication unit 110) configured to receive HARQ feedback from the terminal in a case where HARQ feedback is enabled ([0314] last 7 lines, the base station receives HARQ feedback from the UE when HARQ feedback is enabled).
For claim 9, Park does not expressly disclose the control unit does not transmit an SPS-PDSCH in a HARQ process until a time point at which a certain processing time elapses from a time point of an end of a last PDSCH reception in the HARQ process in which HARQ feedback is disabled. However, Park discloses that HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for a predetermined time period ([0298] and a timing indicator field included in the DCI indicates to the UE the time period between a PDSCH reception and a HARQ feedback (PDSCH-to-HARQ_FEEDBACK timing indicator) [0321]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to configure the UE to not assume PDSCH reception based on the timing indicator indicating the time interval between PDSCH reception and the last time point when the HARQ feedback was disabled.
For claim 10, Park discloses a communication system comprising: a terminal (Fig 1, UE 10 or Fig 22, device 100); and a base station (Fig 1, eNB 20 or Fig 22, device 200), wherein the terminal (Fig 1, UE 10 or Fig 22, device 100) includes:
a reception unit (Fig 22, communication unit 110) configured to receive, from a base station (Fig 1, eNB 20 or Fig 22, device 200), an indication for activating SPS (Semi-persistent scheduling) - PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) ([0300] the UE receives a DCI from the base station wherein the DCI indicates activation of the SPS PDSCH for a specific HARQ process);
a control unit (Fig 22, control unit 120) configured to determine whether HARQ (Hybrid automatic repeat request) feedback corresponding to the SPS-PDSCH is enabled or disabled for each HARQ process ([0298] the DCI indicates whether HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for the SPS PDSCH that is activated);
a transmission unit (Fig 22, transceiver 114) configured to transmit HARQ feedback to the base station in a case where HARQ feedback is enabled ([0314] last 7 lines, the base station receives HARQ feedback from the UE when HARQ feedback is enabled).,
the base station (Fig 1, eNB 20 or Fig 22, device 200) includes: a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the terminal, an indication for activating the SPS-PDSCH ([0300] the UE receives a DCI from the base station wherein the DCI indicates activation of the SPS PDSCH for a specific HARQ process);
a control unit (Fig 22, control unit 120) configured to configure whether HARQ feedback corresponding to the SPS-PDSCH is enabled or disabled for each HARQ process ([0298] the DCI indicates whether HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for the SPS PDSCH that is activated); and
a reception unit (Fig 22, communication unit 110) configured to receive HARQ feedback from the terminal in a case where HARQ feedback is enabled ([0314] last 7 lines, the base station receives HARQ feedback from the UE when HARQ feedback is enabled).
For claim 10, Park does not expressly disclose the control unit does not assume that an SPS-PDSCH is to be received in a HARQ process until a time point at which a certain processing time elapses from a time point of an end of a last PDSCH reception in the HARQ process in which HARQ feedback is disabled, and wherein the control unit does not transmit an SPS-PDSCH in a HARQ process until a time point at which a certain processing time elapses from a time point of an end of a last PDSCH reception in the HARQ process in which HARQ feedback is disabled. However, Park discloses that HARQ feedback is enabled or disabled for a predetermined time period ([0298] and a timing indicator field included in the DCI indicates to the UE the time period between a PDSCH reception and a HARQ feedback (PDSCH-to-HARQ_FEEDBACK timing indicator) [0321]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to configure the UE to not assume PDSCH reception based on the timing indicator indicating the time interval between PDSCH reception and the last time point when the HARQ feedback was disabled.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471