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 Amendment
Applicant's Amendment filed July 2, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended. Claims 1–15 remain pending. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Nayeb is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully 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.
Applicant argues that Nayeb's disclosure of sectorization [0032] and WTRU-level resource derivation [0099, 0112, 0167] does not teach an RRC configuring, for each sector, a start PRB index of PUCCH HARQ resources as a PCI-based modulo offset from a base start PRB, and that Park's offset teaching is expressly limited to a per-component-carrier framework rather than a per-sector, PCI-based framework. Examiner agrees that Nayeb and Park, taken together, do not disclose or render obvious a PCI-modulo-based sector offset rule of the type now claimed, but 3GPP TS 36.211 (Release 13, V13.1.0, 2016-03), which is already of record and was previously cited for standardized LTE bandwidth configurations, is teaching of computing a cell-specific frequency-domain resource offset as a modulo operation on the physical cell identity. This reference supplies the missing teaching identified by Applicant, as detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Amended Claim 1 recites that the starting-PRB offset is determined according to a modulo operation performed on the “Physical Cell Identity (PCI) or Sector Identity (SI)” of the sector. The original disclosure describes PCI and PCI-based modulo calculations, but does not identify Sector Identity (SI) as a distinct identifier, nor does it disclose using SI as an alternative modulo operand. The original disclosure therefore does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of the newly added alternative.
Claims 2–15 depend from Claim 1 and incorporate the unsupported alternative by reference, and are rejected for the same reason.
The rejection may be overcome by (1) canceling “or Sector Identity (SI)” from Claim 1, or (2) directing the Examiner’s attention to persuasive original, as-filed support for using a sector-identity value as the modulo operand.
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 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, line 9, the phrase “such that” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the language following the phrase—“different sectors are assigned different start PRB indices separated by K resource blocks in frequency”—constitutes a required limitation of the claimed RRC configuration or merely states an intended result. Consequently, the metes and bounds of Claim 1 cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Applicant is advised to use “wherein” instead of “such that”.
Claims 2–15 depend directly or indirectly from Claim 1 and incorporate the indefinite “such that” limitation. Because Claims 2–15 do not resolve the foregoing ambiguity, claims 2–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Amended Claim 1 already requires different sector starting-PRB indices to be separated by K resource blocks in frequency. Claim 9 recites that PUCCH HARQ resources are separated “in frequency or cyclic shift.” As currently drafted, the frequency alternative recited in Claim 9 is necessarily satisfied by the frequency-separation limitation already required by Claim 1, such that Claim 9, as a whole, does not require anything beyond what Claim 1 already requires.
Appropriate correction is required. The rejection may be overcome by amending Claim 9 to positively recite the cyclic-shift-based separation as an additional or alternative required limitation (rather than as an “or” alternative that can be satisfied solely by frequency separation already present in Claim 1), so that Claim 9 unambiguously adds a limitation not already required by Claim 1 in every instance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1–15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nayeb et al. (US 2020/0067680 A1), hereafter Nayeb, in view of Park et al. (US 2013/0148617 A1), hereafter Park, and further in view of (3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical channels and modulation), hereinafter 3GPP TS 36.211.
Regarding Claim 1:
Nayeb teaches “a Radio Access Network (RAN) system comprising: a radio unit (RU) coupled to a plurality of user equipment (UE), the RU having a plurality of sectors.” ([0032] “The base station 114a may be part of the RAN 104/113”; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors”; “the cell associated with the base station 114a may be divided into three sectors”; “the base station 114a may include three transceivers, i.e., one for each sector of the cell”).
“a radio resource controller (RRC) in a control unit (CU) server controlling physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resources for the plurality of sectors; and a media access control (MAC) scheduler for each of the plurality of sectors allocating resources for PUCCH hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmissions.” ([0032] “radio network controller (RNC)”); a gNB configured to perform radio-resource management and uplink scheduling ([0074] “Each of the gNBs 180a, 180b, 180c may be associated with a particular cell . . . and may be configured to handle radio resource management decisions . . . [and] scheduling of users in the UL and/or DL”); and network configuration of PUCCH resources used to transmit HARQ ACK/NACK ([0099] “The WTRU may derive the resources . . . over which it may transmit ACK/NACK and/or SR from a received PUCCH parameter”; “The PUCCH parameter may be received from a higher layer (e.g., from a network entity)”; “This resource index may indicate at least one of . . . a PUCCH region across the bandwidth or the cyclic shifts that may be allocated to the WTRU for UL signaling”). Nayeb additionally discloses that PUCCH resources or resource groups may be assigned through higher-layer configuration or DCI ([0167] “A WTRU may determine the PUCCH resource or resource groups through higher layer configuration and/or DCI”; “The size of each resource group could be 1, 2 or 4 resources which may be a function of the HARQ-ACK payload”).
Nayeb does not explicitly teach “allocating resources for PUCCH hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmissions in an orthogonal manner, which are separated in time, frequency or cyclic shift to minimize the inter-carrier interference across the plurality of sectors,” or “wherein the RRC configures, for each sector of the RU, a start Physical Resource Block (PRB) index of PUCCH HARQ resources based on Physical Cell Identity (PCI) of that sector, the start PRB index being configured as an offset from a base start PRB according to a modulo operation on the Physical Cell Identity (PCI) or Sector Identity (SI) of that sector such that different sectors are assigned different start PRB indices separated by K resource blocks in frequency.”
Park teaches “allocating resources for PUCCH hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmissions in an orthogonal manner, which are separated in time, frequency or cyclic shift to minimize the inter-carrier interference.” ([0013] “The PUCCH is configured based on a resource index, and the resource index may be determined based on an offset value set to be different for each component carrier”). further discloses allocating nonoverlapping PUCCH resource-index ranges ([0127] “when DL CCs are different, (n_{\mathrm{PUCCH}}^{(1)}) of different ranges is allocated, so there is no resource collision”) and determining the corresponding frequency and orthogonal resources from those resource indices ([0131] “the MS determines a resource block, a cyclic shift, and an orthogonal sequence based on the corresponding resource indices”). Park explains that using component-carrier-specific offsets resolves collisions between uplink-control-channel resource indices and enhances transmission reliability ([0022] “a collision of resource indexes of uplink control channels can be solved by setting an offset value . . . specific to each component carrier”; “reliability of transmission of control information can be enhanced”).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park. The motivation would be to reduce interference and improve the reliability of uplink control-information transmission (Park [0022]).
Nayeb and Park do not explicitly teach based on Physical Cell Identity (PCI) of that sector” and “according to a modulo operation on the Physical Cell Identity (PCI) . . . of that sector.
TS 36.211 teaches “based on Physical Cell Identity (PCI) of that sector” and “according to a modulo operation on the Physical Cell Identity (PCI) . . . of that sector.” TS 36.211 discloses that the variables (v) and (v_{\text{shift}}) define the frequency-domain position of different reference signals (section 6.10.1.2: “The variables (v) and (v_{\text{shift}}) define the position in the frequency domain for the different reference signals”), wherein the cell-specific frequency shift is determined by a modulo operation on the physical cell identity (section 6.10.1.2: “The cell-specific frequency shift is given by (v_{\text{shift}} = N_{\mathrm{ID}}^{\mathrm{cell}} \bmod 6)”). Thus, TS 36.211 teaches deriving a cell-specific frequency-domain offset based on a modulo operation on the physical cell identity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nayeb’s sectorized PUCCH HARQ resource-allocation system according to Park’s nonoverlapping, offset-based PUCCH resource allocation and TS 36.211’s PCI-modulo frequency-shift technique so that the respective sectors use PCI-dependent, separated frequency resources because doing so would have predictably reduced PUCCH resource collisions and interference (TS 36.211, §6.10.1.2).
Regarding Claim 2: Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 teach the RAN system of claim 1.
Nayeb and Park do not explicitly teach wherein the allocation of resources comprises configuring a cyclic shift index with an offset for each sector based on physical cell identity (PCI).
TS 36.211 teaches wherein the allocation of resources comprises configuring a cyclic shift index with an offset for each sector based on physical cell identity (PCI) (§6.10.1.2, Equation 12, “v_shift = N_ID^cell mod 6,” thereby teaching that a shift value used to differentiate transmission resources between neighboring cells is computed directly from the physical cell identity via a modulo operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nayeb and Park’s PUCCH resource allocation to compute a cyclic shift offset for each sector using TS 36.211’s PCI-modulo technique because Nayeb already identifies cyclic shift as a resource dimension usable to achieve orthogonality ([0112], [0167]), and applying the standardized PCI-modulo mechanism to that dimension would predictably extend the same proven collision-avoidance benefit to cyclic-shift-domain resources (TS 36.211, §6.10.1.2).
Regarding Claim 3 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Nayeb further teaches wherein said RU comprises a plurality of RUs each RU having a plurality of sectors, said RRC controls PUCCH resources for all of the plurality of sectors, and the resources for PUCCH HARQ transmissions in an orthogonal manner across the plurality of sectors (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”; paragraph [0167]; “PUCCH HARQ resources are allocated… by utilizing orthogonal cyclic shifts…”, thereby teaching sectorized control and orthogonal allocation of PUCCH HARQ resources).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose coordinated orthogonal allocation of PUCCH HARQ resources across the plurality of sectors using distinct resource assignments across transmission entities.
Park teaches the allocation of PUCCH resources across multiple transmission entities using indexed mapping (see paragraph [0045]–[0046]; “multiple transmission entities”; paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0117]; HARQ resource allocation, thereby teaching assignment of distinct resource indices resulting in non-overlapping (orthogonal) configurations across entities).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park to allocate PUCCH HARQ resources in an orthogonal manner across the plurality of sectors in a sectorized system, as distributing resources across entities using distinct indices represents a predictable design choice within a finite set of available configurations to reduce interference and improve resource efficiency.
Regarding Claim 4 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 disclose the limitations of Claim 3.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein when the plurality of sectors comprises three sectors, said RRC configures different PUCCH resources separated by frequency and cyclic shift to the three sectors (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors… [and] may be divided into three sectors”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching configuration of PUCCH resources across multiple sectors, including three sectors, with separation in cyclic shift to minimize interference).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose configuring different PUCCH resources for each sector separated in both frequency and cyclic shift.
Park teaches the indexed allocation of PUCCH resources defining both frequency-domain (RB) and cyclic shift separation, (see paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0123]; “indicate resource indices for PUCCH”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”, thereby teaching assignment of distinct resource locations across both frequency-domain (RB) and cyclic shift domains for different transmission entities).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park to configure different PUCCH resources for each sector separated in both frequency and cyclic shift, as combining Nayeb’s sectorized interference-reduction with Park’s indexed RB and cyclic shift allocation represents a predictable design choice within a finite set of available configurations to achieve orthogonal allocation and reduce inter-sector interference.
Regarding Claim 5 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 4.
Nayeb further teaches the three sectors comprise first, second and third sectors (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors… [and] may be divided into three sectors”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching a sectorized system including three sectors with coordinated PUCCH resource allocation).
Nayeb and Park do not explicitly teach 10 MHz system.
3GPP TS 36.211 discloses standardized LTE system bandwidth configurations including 10 MHz (see Section 6.2; Table 6.2.1-1, defining transmission bandwidth configurations including 10 MHz corresponding to 50 resource blocks), thereby teaching operation of uplink control resources within a 10 MHz system.
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 to operate in a 10 MHz system, as implementing Nayeb’s sectorized PUCCH resource allocation within a standardized bandwidth selected from a finite set of predefined LTE system bandwidth configurations represents a predictable design choice to ensure compatibility and predictable system performance.
Regarding Claim 6 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 disclose the limitations of Claim 5
Nayeb further teaches that wherein configurations of PUCCH HARQ F0 resources, starts at index 11 for the first sector; starts at index 15 for the second sector; and starts at index 19 for the third sector (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching configuration of PUCCH HARQ resources across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU) with separation to reduce interference).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose assigning sector-specific starting indices for PUCCH HARQ F0 resources.
Park teaches disclose assigning sector-specific starting indices for PUCCH HARQ F0 resources. (see paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0123]; “indicate resource indices for PUCCH”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”, thereby teaching assignment of distinct resource indices to different transmission entities to define non-overlapping PUCCH resource locations).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 to assign sector-specific starting indices (e.g., 13, 15, 17) for PUCCH HARQ F0 resources across sectors of the RU, as applying indexed or parameter-based selection of starting resource positions across sectors of the RU represents a predictable design choice to achieve non-overlapping, orthogonal allocation and reduce inter-sector interference.
Regarding Claim 7 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 4
Nayeb further teaches that the system comprises first, second, and third sectors (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors… [and] may be divided into three sectors”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching a sectorized system including three sectors with coordinated PUCCH resource allocation).
Nayeb and Park do not disclose operation in a 5 MHz system.
3GPP TS 36.211 discloses standardized LTE system bandwidth configurations including 5 MHz (see, e.g., Section 5.3.2; Table of transmission bandwidth configurations, defining bandwidths of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 MHz corresponding to resource block allocations), thereby teaching operation of uplink control resources within a 5 MHz system.
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 to operate in a 5 MHz system, as implementing Nayeb’s sectorized PUCCH resource allocation within a standardized bandwidth selected from a finite set of predefined LTE system bandwidth configurations represents a predictable design choice to ensure compatibility and predictable system performance.
Regarding Claim 8 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 disclose the limitations of Claim 7
Nayeb further teaches that wherein configurations of PUCCH HARQ resources are provided across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU) (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors… [and] may be divided into three sectors”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching configuration of PUCCH HARQ resources across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU) with separation to reduce interference).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose assigning sector-specific starting indices for PUCCH HARQ F0 resources.
Park teaches disclose assigning sector-specific starting indices for PUCCH HARQ F0 resources. (see paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0123]; “indicate resource indices for PUCCH”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”, thereby teaching assignment of distinct resource indices to different transmission entities to define non-overlapping PUCCH resource locations).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 to assign sector-specific starting indices (e.g., 13, 15, 17) for PUCCH HARQ F0 resources across sectors of the RU, as applying indexed or parameter-based selection of starting resource positions across sectors of the RU represents a predictable design choice to achieve non-overlapping, orthogonal allocation and reduce inter-sector interference.
Regarding claim 9 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein the RRC configures different PUCCH HARQ resources separated in frequency or cyclic shift to each sector in a RU (see paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling… this resource index may indicate…”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”; paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”, thereby teaching configuring different PUCCH HARQ resources across sectors). Accordingly, Nayeb teaches configuring different PUCCH HARQ resources across the plurality of sectors in a sectorized system to avoid inter-sector interference.
Regarding claim 10 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein said RRC does not configure PUCCH HARQ resources on the same frequency or cyclic shift for adjacent sectors to avoid causing interference in uplink HARQ detection (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”; paragraph [0096]; “uplink control resources are allocated”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”; Figs. 2–3, thereby teaching separation of PUCCH resources such that identical frequency or cyclic shift resources are not assigned to adjacent sectors to avoid inter-sector interference). Accordingly, Nayeb teaches that PUCCH HARQ resources are not configured on the same frequency or cyclic shift for adjacent sectors in a sectorized system to avoid interference in uplink HARQ detection.
Regarding Claim 11 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein PUCCH resources are configured via higher-layer signaling across sectors (see [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”; [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching configuration of PUCCH HARQ resources across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose configuring offsets for HARQ RBs based on PCI and available PUCCH resources.
Park teaches configuring offsets for HARQ RBs based on PCI and available PUCCH resources (see paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”, thereby teaching relative positioning of resources (i.e., offsets) within a resource pool based on indexed parameters).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park to configure offsets for HARQ RBs based on PCI and available PUCCH resources across sectors of the RU, as selecting parameter-based offsets from a finite set of resource positions represents a predictable design choice to distinguish allocations and reduce inter-sector interference.
Regarding Claim 12 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 1.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein configuring frequency positions of PUCCH HARQ resources using a PCI-based mathematical relationship including a modulo operation (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced…”, thereby teaching configuration of PUCCH HARQ resources across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU)).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose configuring resource positions using a PCI-based mathematical relationship including a modulo operation.
Park teaches indexed mapping of PUCCH resources and mapping such indices into resource positions using deterministic mathematical relationships including modulo-based operations (see paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0123]; “indicate resource indices for PUCCH”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”; thereby teaching mapping within a finite resource set using deterministic mathematical relationships including modulo-based operations).
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park to configure resource positions using a PCI-based mathematical relationship including a modulo operation, as applying indexed mapping within standardized LTE resource structures using a known identifier such as PCI represents a predictable design choice to achieve distributed, non-overlapping, and orthogonal allocation across sectors.
Regarding claim 13 - Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein said MAC Scheduler in each of the plurality of sectors assigns PUCCH HARQ resources through a resource indicator field in downlink control information (DCI) to transmit acknowledgement status for physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), (see paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling… this resource index may indicate…”; paragraph [0112]; “ACK/NACK… on PUCCH”; Figs. 2–3; paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”, thereby teaching determination of PUCCH HARQ resources based on DCI, which necessarily corresponds to assignment of such resources by a MAC scheduler through resource indication in DCI across sectors). Accordingly, Nayeb teaches assignment of PUCCH HARQ resources based on DCI across the plurality of sectors.
Regarding Claim 14 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 1
Nayeb further teaches that wherein reserving a symbol within a slot for PUCCH HARQ transmission, wherein the symbol is not used for PUSCH in any RU and is shared among adjacent RUs (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors…”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching allocation of PUCCH HARQ resources across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose reserving a symbol exclusive for PUCCH HARQ transmission that is not used for PUSCH and shared among adjacent RUs.
Park teaches reserving a symbol exclusive for PUCCH HARQ transmission that is not used for PUSCH and shared among adjacent RUs. (See paragraph [0045]–[0046]; “multiple transmission entities”; paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0123]; “indicate resource indices for PUCCH”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”, thereby teaching coordinated allocation and partitioning of uplink resources across multiple transmission entities.
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park to reserve a symbol within a slot for PUCCH HARQ transmission across adjacent RUs, not used for PUSCH, as partitioning time-domain resource between control and data transmissions across multiple transmission entities represents a predictable design choice to ensure orthogonality and reduce interference.
Regarding Claim 15 – Nayeb and Park and 3GPP TS 36.211 discloses the limitations of Claim 14.
Nayeb further teaches that wherein the plurality of RUs comprises Cell 0, Cell 1, and Cell 2, and wherein Cell 0 uses a symbol in slot 0, Cell 1 uses a symbol in slot 1, and Cell 2 uses a symbol in slot 2 (see paragraph [0032]; “The cell may further be divided into cell sectors… [and] may be divided into three sectors”; paragraph [0099]; “PUCCH resources… [are] configured via higher-layer signaling”; paragraph [0112]; “cyclic shift sequences… [are] spaced… to minimize potential interference”, thereby teaching allocation of PUCCH HARQ resources across multiple sectors of a radio unit (RU) with interference-reducing separation).
Nayeb does not explicitly disclose assigning a reserved PUCCH HARQ symbol to specific time-domain slots on a per-cell basis (e.g., Cell 0 → slot 0, Cell 1 → slot 1, Cell 2 → slot 2).
Park teaches assigning a reserved PUCCH HARQ symbol to specific time-domain slots on a per-cell basis (e.g., Cell 0 → slot 0, Cell 1 → slot 1, Cell 2 → slot 2) (see paragraph [0045]–[0046]; “multiple transmission entities”; paragraph [0102]–[0103]; “resource index… mapping… to PUCCH resources”; paragraph [0123]; “indicate resource indices for PUCCH”; paragraph [0142]; “RB and CS [are] based on respective resource indices”, thereby teaching distributing PUCCH resource allocations across multiple transmission entities using indexed mapping over available resource locations, including time-domain positions.
It would have been obvious to modify Nayeb in view of Park to assign a reserved PUCCH HARQ symbol across specific time-domain slots for different cells (e.g., Cell 0, Cell 1, Cell 2), as distributing control resource allocations across available time-domain positions for different transmission entities represents a predictable design choice to achieve non-overlapping transmissions, maintain orthogonality, and reduce inter-cell interference.
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 HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights