DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #1
Claims 1-3,5,6,8-12,14, and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,4-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,111,211 (referred to as P211). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claims 1 and 2 of P211. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P211.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 7 of P211.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 5 of P211.
Re claim 6: Claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P211.
Re claim 8: Claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 8 of P211.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P211.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the access node.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,111,211 (referred to as P211) in view of Zhuang (US 20100120442).
Re claim 4:
P211 does not explicitly disclose wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and wherein the fixed point is at or after the endpoint of the largest possible access node PDCCH region. Zhuang discloses wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and wherein the fixed point is at or after the endpoint of the largest possible access node PDCCH region (Fig.6 ref. 602).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Claims 7,15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10,111,211 (referred to as P211) in view of Seo (US App. 20110250897).
Re claim 7:
P211 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe (Fig.17 ref. PDSCH 2 (to RS) starts at the fourth OFDM symbol).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #2
Claims 1-3,5,9-12,14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,674,490 (referred to as P490). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claims 1-4 of P490. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: Claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 5 of P490.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P490.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P490.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P490.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the access node.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Claims 4,6,13, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. No. 10,674,490 (referred to as P490) in view of Zhuang (US 20100120442).
Re claim 4:
P490 does not explicitly disclose wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and wherein the fixed point is at or after the endpoint of the largest possible access node PDCCH region. Zhuang discloses wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and wherein the fixed point is at or after the endpoint of the largest possible access node PDCCH region (Fig.6 ref. 602).
Re claim 6:
P490 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay. Zhuang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay (Para.[0024] The explicit signaling of possible locations enables the base station to adjust the set of possible locations if needed and Fig.6 and Para.[0037] switch gap).
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Claims 7,8,15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. No. 10,674,490 (referred to as P490) in view of Seo (US App. 20110250897).
Re claim 7:
P490 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe (Fig.17 ref. PDSCH 2 (to RS) starts at the fourth OFDM symbol).
Re claim 8:
P490 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration (Fig.16 ref. PDCCH to Ma UE and PDCCH to Re UE).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #3
Claims 1-5,5,9-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,627,561 (referred to as P561). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claims 1-3 of P561. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: P561 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is pre-configured or preset, and wherein the relay node receives no signaling for the information on the fixed point from the access point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that information can be pre-defined and thus require no signaling because predefined information can be known a priori.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P561.
Re claim 4: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 5 of P561.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P561.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P561.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the access node.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. No. 11,627,561 (referred to as P561) in view of Zhuang (US 20100120442).
Re claim 6:
P561 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay. Zhuang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay (Para.[0024] The explicit signaling of possible locations enables the base station to adjust the set of possible locations if needed and Fig.6 and Para.[0037] switch gap).
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Claims 7,8,15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. No. 11,627,561 (referred to as P561) in view of Seo (US App. 20110250897).
Re claim 7:
P561 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe (Fig.17 ref. PDSCH 2 (to RS) starts at the fourth OFDM symbol).
Re claim 8:
P561 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration (Fig.16 ref. PDCCH to Ma UE and PDCCH to Re UE).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION #4
Claims 1-5,5,9-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,473 (referred to as P473). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Re claim 1: Claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claims 1-3 of P473. It is well settled that broadening the scope of claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the narrower issued claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982) and In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Re claim 2: P561 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is pre-configured or preset, and wherein the relay node receives no signaling for the information on the fixed point from the access point. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that information can be pre-defined and thus require no signaling because predefined information can be known a priori.
Re claim 3: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 4 of P473.
Re claim 4: Claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 5 of P473.
Re claim 5: Claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 6 of P473.
Re claim 9: Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 of P473.
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the access node.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. No. 12,022,473 (referred to as P473) in view of Zhuang (US 20100120442).
Re claim 6:
P473 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay. Zhuang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay (Para.[0024] The explicit signaling of possible locations enables the base station to adjust the set of possible locations if needed and Fig.6 and Para.[0037] switch gap).
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Claims 7,8,15, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. No. 12,022,473 (referred to as P473) in view of Seo (US App. 20110250897).
Re claim 7:
P473 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe (Fig.17 ref. PDSCH 2 (to RS) starts at the fourth OFDM symbol).
Re claim 8:
P473 does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration. Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration (Fig.16 ref. PDCCH to Ma UE and PDCCH to Re UE).
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
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 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 negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seo (US App. 20110250897) in view of Zhuang (US 20100120442).
Re claim 1:
Seo discloses transmitting, by the relay node, control data to a user equipment in the network over a relay node physical downlink control channel in a subframe (Para.[0124] the RS transmits control information of control channels (i.e. PDCCH) to a relay UE and Fig. 29).
wherein the relay node is configured to have information on a fixed point in a subframe for the access node to begin to transmit data to the relay node over an access node physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (Para.[0095] A location of the P-PDSCH and a radio resource to be used may be pre-defined between the BS and the RS. The P-PDSCH may be designed to have a fixed location and Abstract transmitting a first signal to the relay station through the transmission period in a subframe and Fig. 14).
beginning, by the relay node, to receive data over the access node PDSCH at or before the fixed point in the subframe (Para.[0095] A location of the P-PDSCH and a radio resource to be used may be pre-defined between the BS and the RS. The P-PDSCH may be designed to have a fixed location and Abstract transmitting a first signal to the relay station through the transmission period in a subframe); and
Seo does not explicitly disclose receiving, by the relay node, the information on the fixed point via higher layer signaling, wherein the higher layer signaling comprises using at least one: a broadcast control channel; radio resource control (RRC) signaling; or a media access control (MAC) control element.
Zhuang discloses receiving, by the relay node, the information on the fixed point via higher layer signaling, wherein the higher layer signaling comprises using at least one: a broadcast control channel; radio resource control (RRC) signaling; or a media access control (MAC) control element (Para.[0025] the base station can send a configuration message via high layers to inform an RN of the possible sizes of the floating control region. The configuration message can be sent during initial system setup or as a dedicated RRC message).
Seo and Zhuang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Seo to include higher layer signaling as taught by Zhuang in order to explicitly show well-known type of signaling for sending configuration information and to facilitate RN communication.
Re claim 2:
Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is pre-configured or preset, and wherein the relay node receives no signaling for the information on the fixed point from the access point (Para.[0095] A location of the P-PDSCH and a radio resource to be used may be pre-defined between the BS and the RS. The P-PDSCH may be designed to have a fixed location).
Seo does not explicitly disclose wherein the relay node receives no signaling for the information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that pre-defined information can require no signaling because predefined information can be known a priori.
Re claim 3:
Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the access node PDCCH region has a fixed size, and wherein the fixed point is at the endpoint of the access node PDCCH region (Fig.18 ref. PDCCH and PDSCH where the PDCCH region is fixed at two symbols).
Re claim 4:
As discussed above, Seo in view of Zhuang meets all the limitations of the parent claim.
Seo discloses wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and (Para.[0106] various modifications can be made in the PDSCH when the PDCCH transmitted by the BS and the guard time of the RS have a different number of OFDM symbols).
Seo does not explicitly wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and wherein the fixed point is at or after the endpoint of the largest possible access node PDCCH region.
Zhuang discloses wherein the access node PDCCH region has a variable size, and wherein the fixed point is at or after the endpoint of the largest possible access node PDCCH region (Fig.6 ref. 602).
Seo and Zhuang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Seo to include a fixed point at or after the largest PDCCH region as taught by Zhuang in order to efficiently share resources (Zhuang Para.[0017]).
Re claim 5:
Seo discloses the method of claim 4, receiving, by the relay node, dummy data during a portion of the subframe between the endpoint of an actual access node PDCCH region and the fixed point (Fig.16 ref Guard time).
Re claim 6:
As discussed above, Seo meets all the limitations of the parent claims.
Seo does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay.
Zhuang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data at a point in time that is earlier than the fixed point by an amount of time corresponding to a relay switching delay (Para.[0024] The explicit signaling of possible locations enables the base station to adjust the set of possible locations if needed and Fig.6 and Para.[0037] switch gap).
Seo and Zhuang are analogous because they both pertain to data communications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Seo to include beginning to receive data at a time earlier than the fixed point as taught by Zhuang in order to improve transmission efficiency (Zhuang Para.[0017]).
Re claim 7:
Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the fixed point is at a fourth or fifth OFDM symbol of the subframe (Fig.17 ref. PDSCH 2 (to RS) starts at the fourth OFDM symbol).
Re claim 8:
Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the access node is configured to transmit the control information during a first duration in the subframe, and wherein transmitting, by the relay node, the control data comprises transmitting, by the relay node, the control data during a second duration in the subframe, the second duration overlapping at least partially with the first duration (Fig.16 ref. PDCCH to Ma UE and PDCCH to Re UE).
Re claim 9:
Seo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein beginning to receive the data comprises beginning to receive the data after transmitting the control data (Fig.16 ref. PDCCH to Re UE and ref. To RS).
Re claim 10: Claim 10 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the access node.
Re claim 11: Claim 11 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 12: Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 13: Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Re claim 14: Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Re claim 15: Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Re claim 16: Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1.
Re claim 17: Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 2.
Re claim 18: Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Re claim 19: Claim 19 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Re claim 20: Claim 20 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park (US 20110194412) shows PDCCH, relay PDCCH, and fixed and variable sized zones.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD SAJID ADHAMI whose telephone number is (571)272-8615. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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 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.
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights