CTNF 18/700,155 CTNF 85644 DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-6 have been examined and are pending. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Information Disclosure Statement 4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/10/2024 has been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Specification 06-11 AIA 5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: TERMINAL, BASE STATION AND COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR DYNAMIC CARRIER SWITCHING-ENABLED FEEDBACK . 06-31 AIA 6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 7. 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. 07-30-05 8. 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. 07-30-06 9. 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 limitation(s) is/are: reception unit, control unit, and transmission unit in claim 1, transmission unit, control unit, and reception unit in claim 5 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 10. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 11. 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA 12. Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0291594 A1 to Zhang et al., hereinafter “Zhang” . Regarding Claim 1 , Zhang discloses a terminal (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157] – network device may be a terminal device.) comprising: a reception unit (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157-0158], element 1540) configured to receive downlink control information activating semi-persistent scheduling and downlink data according to the activated semi-persistent scheduling from a base station (Zhang: [0041], [0061-0062] – UE receives DCI from the network including dynamic carrier switching indication for SPS scheduling (SPS HARQ ACK or dynamic scheduling, DG HARQ-ACK); see also [0078-0083] describing the DCI carrying information for downlink data based on scheduling in a physical downlink shared channel, PDSCH.); a control unit (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157-0158], element 1510) configured to determine a cell for feedback for the downlink data in a case where dynamic carrier switching is enabled (Zhang: [0041-0044], [0052-0054] – “ In some embodiments, the PUCCH carrier switching may be performed based on dynamic indication. That is, when a set of cells are configured for PUCCH transmission for UE, UE determines a cell from the set of cells for PUCCH transmission for HARQ-ACK by the indication of the scheduling DCI associated with the HARQ-ACK …”); and a transmission unit (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157-0158], element 1540) configured to use the determined cell to transmit feedback information corresponding to the downlink data to the base station (Zhang: [0041-0044], [0052-0054] – “ In some embodiments, the PUCCH carrier switching may be performed based on dynamic indication. That is, when a set of cells are configured for PUCCH transmission for UE, UE determines a cell from the set of cells for PUCCH transmission for HARQ-ACK by the indication of the scheduling DCI associated with the HARQ-ACK …”). Regarding Claim 2 , Zhang discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit determines the cell for feedback for the downlink data, based on the downlink control information activating the semi-persistent scheduling (Zhang: [0041-0042], [0061-0062] - UE receives DCI from the network including dynamic carrier switching indication for SPS scheduling (SPS HARQ ACK or dynamic scheduling, DG HARQ-ACK); see also [0078-0083] describing the DCI carrying information for downlink data based on scheduling in a physical downlink shared channel, PDSCH.). Regarding Claim 3 , Zhang discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 2, wherein the control unit multiplexes multiple pieces of feedback information included in different cells, and the transmission unit uses the cell to transmit the multiplexed pieces of feedback information to the base station (The examiner notes that the claims are not limited by “uses[ing] the cell to transmit” as this limitation is simply expressing the intended use of a positively recited limitation (the use of a cell for transmitting multiplexed feedback information). See Minton v. Nat' IAss' n of Securities Dealers, Inc. , 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614,1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The examiner suggests positively reciting these limitations to ensure the limitations are given patentable weight. However, in an effort to reduce pendency and perform compact prosecution as best practice, Examiner cites [0086-0089] of Zhang, wherein multiple pieces (bits) of HARQ-ACK feedback for multiple cells are multiplexed for transmission to the network (base station). See also [0108].). Regarding Claim 4 , Zhang discloses the terminal as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit determines the cell for feedback for the downlink data to be a default cell that is specified in advance (Zhang: [0062] – “ For example, if pucchCarrierIndication is configured as dynamic, PUCCH carrier for SPS HARQ-ACK follows the default configuration, e.g., Pcell. ”). Regarding Claim 5 , Zhang discloses a base station (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157] – network device.) comprising: a transmission unit (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157-0158], element 1540) configured to transmit downlink control information activating semi-persistent scheduling and downlink data according to the activated semi-persistent scheduling to a terminal (Zhang: [0041], [0061-0062] – network device transmits DCI to a UE including dynamic carrier switching indication for SPS scheduling (SPS HARQ ACK or dynamic scheduling, DG HARQ-ACK); see also [0078-0083] describing the DCI carrying information for downlink data based on scheduling in a physical downlink shared channel, PDSCH.); a control unit (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157-0158], element 1510) configured to determine a cell for feedback corresponding to the downlink data in a case where dynamic carrier switching is enabled (Zhang: [0041-0044], [0052-0054] – “ In some embodiments, the PUCCH carrier switching may be performed based on dynamic indication. That is, when a set of cells are configured for PUCCH transmission for UE, UE determines a cell from the set of cells for PUCCH transmission for HARQ-ACK by the indication of the scheduling DCI associated with the HARQ-ACK …”); and a reception unit (Zhang: Figure 15 with [0157-0158], element 1540) configured to use the determined cell to receive feedback information corresponding to the downlink data from the terminal (Zhang: [0041-0044], [0052-0054] – “ In some embodiments, the PUCCH carrier switching may be performed based on dynamic indication. That is, when a set of cells are configured for PUCCH transmission for UE, UE determines a cell from the set of cells for PUCCH transmission for HARQ-ACK by the indication of the scheduling DCI associated with the HARQ-ACK …”). Claim 6, directed to a method embodiment of claim 1, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Conclusion 13. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. 14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT). 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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. BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV Primary Examiner Art Unit 2474 /BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 March 3, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/700,155 Page 2 Art Unit: 2474
Prosecution Insights