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 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 limitations are: “receiving section” and “control section” in claims 1-4, and “transmitting section” and “control section” in claim 6.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For examination purposes the claim limitation “receiving section” in claims 1-4 is construed as receiving circuit (see ¶ [0285] of the present application), the claim limitation “control section” in claims 1-4 is construed as control circuit (see ¶ [0283] of the present application), the claim limitation “transmitting section” in claim 6 is construed as transmitting circuit (see ¶ [0266] of the present application), and the claim limitation “control section” in claim 6 is construed as control circuit (see ¶ [0264] of the present application).
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda et al. (WO 2020/194760 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda teaches “[a] terminal comprising: a receiving section that receives at least one of configuration information of a pattern of resources unavailable for a DL in certain time resources and indication information related to the pattern of the resources” (see ¶¶ [0028], [0030], [0031], [0040]; base station transmits signaling notifying UL/DL resource allocation pattern to the user apparatus (i.e., terminal), and the user apparatus performs puncturing or excluded rate matching based on the received UL/DL resource allocation pattern; the puncturing or excluded rate matching of the indicated DL resources allocation pattern makes the corresponding DL resources unavailable; thus, the received UL/DL resource allocation pattern is configuration information of a pattern of resources unavailable for a DL in certain time resources and indication information related to the pattern of the resources); and
Takeda further teaches “a control section that performs control to perform DL reception in resources other than the resources unavailable for the DL, and performs control not to perform the DL reception in the resources unavailable for the DL, based on at least one of the configuration information and the indication information” (see ¶ [0042] and FIG. 17; the puncturing or excluded rate matching of DL resources results in the configured DL resources and the user apparatus (terminal) communicates with the base station based on the configured DL resources (i.e., perform DL reception in resources other than the resources unavailable for the DL and performs control not to perform the DL reception in the resources unavailable for the DL); since the configured DL resources are based on the received UL/DL resource allocation pattern (i.e., at least one of the configuration information and the indication information), the terminal is performing DL reception in resources other than the resources unavailable for the DL and performs control not to perform the DL reception in the resources unavailable for the DL based on at least one of the configuration information and the indication information).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda teaches the terminal of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the certain time resources are resources in which the DL and an uplink may be configured in an overlapping manner in terms of time” (see ¶ [0031] and FIG. 13; punctured slot #2 to slot #4, DL in LTE (i.e., the certain time resources are resources in which the DL) overlap UL in NR (i.e., uplink resource) in TDD (i.e., in terms of time); thus, the certain time resources are resources in which the DL and an uplink may be configured in an overlapping manner in terms of time).
Regarding claim 4, Takeda teaches the terminal of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the configuration information is separately configured for each DL channel or DL signal” (see ¶ [0031] and FIG. 13; TDD UL/DL allocation pattern includes NR DL resource allocation pattern (i.e., one DL channel or signal) that is different from the LTE DL resource allocation (i.e., another DL channel or signal) as shown in FIG. 13; thus, the configuration information is separately configured for each DL channel or DL signal).
Regarding claim 5, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 6, Takeda teaches “[a] base station comprising: a transmitting section that transmits at least one of configuration information of a pattern of resources unavailable for a DL in certain time resources and indication information related to the pattern of the resources” (see ¶¶ [0028], [0030], [0031], [0040]; base station transmits signaling notifying UL/DL resource allocation pattern to the user apparatus (i.e., terminal), and the user apparatus performs puncturing or excluded rate matching based on the UL/DL resource allocation pattern; the puncturing or excluded rate matching of the indicated DL resources allocation pattern makes the corresponding DL resources unavailable; thus, the transmitted UL/DL resource allocation pattern is configuration information of a pattern of resources unavailable for a DL in certain time resources and indication information related to the pattern of the resources); and
Takeda teaches “a control section that performs indication to perform DL reception in resources other than the resources unavailable for the DL, and performs indication not to perform the DL reception in the resources unavailable for the DL, using at least one of the configuration information and the indication information” (see ¶ [0042] and FIG. 17; the puncturing or excluded rate matching of DL resources results in the configured DL resources and the user apparatus (terminal) communicates with the base station based on the configured DL resources (i.e., perform DL reception in resources other than the resources unavailable for the DL and performs control not to perform the DL reception in the resources unavailable for the DL); since the configured DL resources are based on the received UL/DL resource allocation pattern (i.e., at least one of the configuration information and the indication information), the base station and terminal are performing DL reception in resources other than the resources unavailable for the DL and performs control not to perform the DL reception in the resources unavailable for the DL based on at least one of the configuration information and the indication information).
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 nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Hosseini et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0321444 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda teaches the terminal of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach “wherein number of bits of a parameter included in the configuration information is equal to number of bits of the parameter included in the configuration information related to a rate match pattern of a DL shared channel” of claim 3. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
For example, Hosseini teaches “wherein number of bits of a parameter included in the configuration information is equal to number of bits of the parameter included in the configuration information related to a rate match pattern of a DL shared channel” (see ¶¶ [0042] and [0043]; rate matching indicator may be zero, one, or two bits (i.e., number of bits of a parameter included in the configuration information) according to the higher layer parameters rateMatchPatternGroup1 and rateMatchPatternGroup2; and a bitmap pair included in one or both of the first and second rate matching pattern groups, the dynamic indication of resource availability for the PDSCH may apply to a set of slots where the parameter rateMatchPatternToAddModList is present among the slots (i.e., the parameter included in the configuration information related to a rate match pattern) for the scheduled PDSCH (i.e., a DL shared channel); thus, number of bits of a parameter included in the configuration information is equal to number of bits of the parameter included in the configuration information related to a rate match pattern of a DL shared channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Takeda to incorporate the teaching so Hosseini to include number of bits of a parameter in the configuration information related to a rate match pattern of a DL shared channel. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance reliability according to telecommunication standards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475