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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Golparian (20100128565) in view of Hermann et al (US 20080137652 A1) hereinafter as Hermann further in view of Gholmieh et al (20090316575) hereinafter as Gholmieh.
Regarding claim(s) 1,8, Golparian discloses a wireless transmit/receive unit (See Fig(s) 1, See ¶ 29) , WTRU, comprising:
a processor; and a transceiver (See Fig(s) 8);
the processor and the transceiver configured to communicate on a primary carrier and a secondary carrier (See Fig(s) 5 carriers FI-F3, See ¶ 65, it is assumed that there are three carrier frequencies F1-F3);
the processor and the transceiver further configured to receive a medium access control (MAC) message indicating activation or deactivation of the secondary carrier (See Fig(s) 3, mac PDU, See ¶ 67 the frame-level time-division multiplexing alternately activates and deactivates a particular carrier frequency);
the processor and the transceiver configured to, on a condition the MAC message indicates activation of the secondary carrier, monitor the secondary carrier for control messages (See Fig(s) 1, See ¶ 67, the frame-level time-division multiplexing alternately activates and deactivates a particular carrier frequency, for a particular wireless concentrator (cell), See ¶ 79, The customized MAC layer also supports the distribution service in order to use appropriate information to deliver or accept a message to or from another member of the ESS);
the processor and the transceiver configured to, on a condition that the MAC message deactivation of the secondary carrier, cease monitoring the secondary carrier (again, See ¶ 67).
Golparian while discloses MAC messaging including activation/deactivation information however Golparian fails to disclose MAC message with PDU and LCH-ID.
Hermann disclose MAC message with PDU and LCH-ID (See ¶ abstract, 13, 82, In case of UMTS, the connection information (i.e. the logical channel identity) is contained in the MAC header of the MAC-hs PDU.)
Combining logical channels destined for the same mobile station reduces overhead while allowing the receiving entity to correctly interpret the payload, whether it's a user data, a control message, or padding.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hermann within Golparian, so as to combine logical channels destined for the same mobile station reducing overhead while allowing the receiving entity to correctly interpret the payload, whether it's a user data, a control message, or padding.
Further, Golparian fails to disclose - the processor and the transceiver configured to utilize a timer based on the activation of the secondary carrier, wherein upon expiration of the timer, the processor and the transceiver are configured to deactivate the secondary carrier.
Gholmieh discloses the processor and the transceiver configured to utilize a timer based on the activation of the secondary carrier, wherein upon expiration of the timer, the processor and the transceiver are configured to deactivate the secondary carrier (See Fig(s) 9 block 912, See ¶ 8, 77-78, , the Node B and the UE may each maintain an inactivity timer and may autonomously de-activate the secondary carrier after a particular inactivity time has elapsed).
Inactivity timer allows for reduced usage of overhead of resources and saving battery and therefore enhancing the system performance.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Gholmieh within Golparian, so as to reduce battery usage and enhance overall system performance.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 9, Gholmieh discloses processor and the transceiver configured to receive radio resource control signaling from a base station configuring the secondary carrier (See ¶ 43-44, RRC configuration may be sent by BS to UE for each carrier). Reasons for combining same as claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 3, 10, Gholmieh discloses wherein the MAC message includes a bit map, and wherein a bit in the bit map indicates whether at least one of a plurality of secondary carriers is activated or deactivated (See ¶ 63, See Fig(s) 8). Reasons for combining same as claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 4, 11, Gholmieh discloses wherein the timer has a duration of a plurality of transmission time intervals (See ¶ 26, See Fig(s) 2 frame formats). Reasons for combining same as claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 5, 12, Golparian discloses wherein the primary carrier and the secondary carrier are one of LTE or LTE-A carriers (See ¶ 65-66, multicarrier system).
Regarding claim(s) 6,13, Gholmieh discloses wherein the primary carrier and the secondary carrier are W-CDMA carriers (See ¶ 8). Reasons for combining same as claim 1.
Regarding claim(s) 7,14, Gholmieh discloses the processor and the transceiver configured to only transmit on a physical control channel using the primary carrier (See ¶ 8, Table 1). Reasons for combining same as claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 26, 20267 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Double Patenting (DP) rejection of Claim(s) 1-14, Examiner withdraws said rejection in light of current amended state of claims.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-14, Applicant contends inter alia “…Neither Golparian nor Herrmann teaches using the LCH-ID to flag "carrier activation/deactivation information,"…”.
First off, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Furthermore, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With that stated, Examiner reiterates Golparian discloses MAC messaging including activation/deactivation information See Fig(s) 1, See ¶ 67, the frame-level time-division multiplexing alternately activates and deactivates a particular carrier frequency, for a particular wireless concentrator (cell), See ¶ 79, The customized MAC layer also supports the distribution service in order to use appropriate information to deliver or accept a message to or from another member of the ESS).
Golparian fails to disclose MAC message with PDU and LCH-ID.
Hermann disclose MAC message with PDU and LCH-ID (See ¶ abstract, 13, 82, In case of UMTS, the connection information (i.e. the logical channel identity) is contained in the MAC header of the MAC-hs PDU.)
Combining logical channels destined for the same mobile station reduces overhead while allowing the receiving entity to correctly interpret the payload, whether it's a user data, a control message, or padding.
Applicant is advised a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention." MPEP §2141.02.VI, (Rev. 6, Sept. 2007) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984))
While Examiner believes all of Applicant’s contentions have been appropriately addressed in this Office Action, however, the arguments made above are not intended to be exhaustive, and therefore nothing in this Action should be construed as an intent to concede with any issue with regard to any claim, except as specifically stated in this Office Action.
Thus, based on the foregoing reasoning’s’ Examiner asserts the cited references either alone or in combination teach/suggest limitations of claims 1-14and therefore the rejection to said claims is sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RAJ JAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached 571-272-2123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAJ JAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411