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 .
Claims 1-3 have been examined.
Examiner’s Comments
The Examiner notes MPEP 2111.04 II. Contingent Limitations:
“The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.”
The Examiner notes that independent claims 1 and 2 are each directed at an apparatus which requires structure for performing the functions should the condition occur. Independent claim 3 is directed to a method and has contingent limitations that includes steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEI et al. (US 2021/0195653) in view of Xiong et al. (US 2021/0251016) in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0178287).
- In reference to claim 3
LEI et al. teaches communication method used in a terminal apparatus (e.g. UE 106; par. 0064), the communication method comprising the steps of:
receiving a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) including a random access response grant (e.g. receive random access response i.e. message 2 on PDSCH; par. 0107); and
transmitting a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) (e.g. message 3 transmitted using PUSCH; par. 0107),
in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by the Downlink Control Information (DCI) with a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) scrambled by a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI), a frequency hopping interval corresponding to the frequency hopping is one slot, (contingent limitation not required by the claim because the precedent (i.e. the PUSCH is scheduled by DCI with a Cyclic Redundancy Check CRC scrambled by a TC-RNTI) is not met)
and in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by the DCI with a CRC scrambled by at least one of a Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI), a Configured Scheduling Radio Network Temporary Identifier (CS-RNTI), and a Modulation Coding Scheme Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (MCS-C-RNTI), the number of slots for the frequency hopping interval is determined by a certain higher layer parameter (contingent limitation not required by the claim because the precedent (i.e. the PUSCH is scheduled by the DCI with a CRC scrambled by at least one of a C-RNTI, a CS-RNTI, and a MCS-C-RNTI) is not met)
LEI et al. does not teach wherein frequency hopping for the PUSCH is performed based at least on the DCI or the random access response grant and in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by the random access response grant, the frequency hopping interval is one slot.
Xiong et al. teaches wherein frequency hopping for a PUSCH is performed based on the random access response grant and in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by the random access response grant, a frequency hopping interval corresponding to the frequency hopping is one slot (e.g. frequency hopping for PUSCH is performed based on random access response wherein frequency hopping interval corresponding to the frequency hopping is N slots; par. 0072-0076).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEI et al. to include frequency hopping for the PUSCH is performed based at least on the DCI or the random access response grant, in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by the random access response grant, the frequency hopping interval is one slot as suggested by Xiong et al. because it would allow a base station to schedule a frequency hopping interval for the PUSCH in each time slot via the random access response and the UE/terminal apparatus to transmit based upon scheduled frequency hopping in each time slot in order to facilitate communications between the base station and the UE/terminal apparatus.
The combination of LEI et al. and Xiong et al. does not teach receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) to which Downlink Control Information (DCI) is mapped.
Kim et al. receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) to which Downlink Control Information (DCI) is mapped (par. 0361-0363).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of LEI et al. and Xiong et al. to include receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) to which Downlink Control Information (DCI) is mapped as suggested by KIM et al. because it would allow the terminal apparatus to receive control information from a base station over the Physical Downlink Control Channel to be utilized by the UE for communicating with the base station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim 3 has been considered but is moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 BRIAN S ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-3095. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 5pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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.
BRIAN S. ROBERTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2466
/BRIAN S ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights