Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests replacing “if the physical broadcast channel is not decoded within the pre-defined time window” in claim 5 (line 4) with - - in response to the physical broadcast channel not decoded within the pre-defined time window - -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 11-12, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247 (US 2020/0107247, “Ioffe ‘247”), in view of 3GPP ‘387 (ZTE, Sanechips, "Discussion on spectrum less than 5MHz in Rel-18", 3GPP TSG RAN Meeting #93-e, RP-212387, Agenda item: 9.0.2, September 13-17, 2021, 4 pages, “3GPP ‘387”).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Ioffe ‘247 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1A, para 37, 41, and 45; user equipment (UE) communicates with a radio access network (RAN) via access nodes) comprising
at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (FIG. 2, para 90-92 and 109; UE includes a processor coupled with a memory; the processor executes instructions stored in the memory), to cause the apparatus to:
receive an indication indicating at least one resource block pattern for a physical broadcast channel (FIG. 7, para 135-136, 189, and 199-200; there are multiple PBCH symbols in PRBs for communicating PBCH in a downlink frame; locations of the PBCH symbols in the PRBs of the downlink frame are indicated via signaling decoded by the UE; multiple PBCH symbols in the PRB for communicating the PBCH read on a resource block pattern for a physical broadcast channel),
wherein the at least one resource block pattern indicates at least one resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel (FIG. 7, para 135-136, 189, and 199-200; the signaling indicates the location of PBCH symbols in the PBCH PRB; thus, the PBCH PRB pattern indicates the PBCH PRB); and
detect the physical broadcast channel based at least partly on the at least one resource block pattern (FIG. 7, para 135-136, 189, and 199-200; UE detects the PBCH symbols based on the indicated locations of PBCH symbols in the PRBs).
Although Ioffe ‘247 discloses receive an indication indicating at least one resource block pattern for a physical broadcast channel, Ioffe ‘247 does not specifically disclose at least one resource block pattern of a set of pre-defined resource block patterns for a physical broadcast channel. Further, although Ioffe ‘247 discloses wherein the at least one resource block pattern indicates at least one resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel, Ioffe ‘247 does not specifically disclose at least one non-punctured resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel, and at least one punctured resource block that is not used for the transmission of the physical broadcast channel.
3GPP ‘387 teaches at least one resource block pattern of a set of pre-defined resource block patterns for a physical broadcast channel (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; PBCH is punctured to fit into an available narrow bandwidth, where a number of PBCH RBs are punctured so that the remaining PBCH RBs fit into the available bandwidth; there are multiple such PBCH RB patterns),
at least one non-punctured resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; a PBCH RB pattern includes the remaining, non-punctured PBCH RBs that are used for transmission), and
at least one punctured resource block that is not used for the transmission of the physical broadcast channel (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; a PBCH RB pattern includes the punctured RBs that are not used as PBCH RBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Ioffe ‘247’s apparatus that detects PBCH based on a resource block pattern, to include 3GPP ‘387’s PBCH RB pattern that includes punctured RBs. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure practical coverage (3GPP ‘387, Introduction).
Regarding claim 2, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, 3GPP ‘387 discloses wherein the physical broadcast channel is detected on the at least one non-punctured resource block (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; PBCH is punctured to fit into an available narrow bandwidth, where a number of PBCH RBs are punctured so that the remaining PBCH RBs fit into the available bandwidth; the base station transmits the PBCH RBs in the available bandwidth, and the UE performs beam sweeping across the transmitted PBCH RBs to receive the PBCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247 and 3GPP ‘387, to further include 3GPP ‘387’s PBCH that is punctured to fit into an available narrow bandwidth. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure practical coverage (3GPP ‘387, Introduction).
Regarding claim 11, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Ioffe ‘247 teaches wherein the apparatus comprises, or is comprised in, a terminal device (FIG. 2, para 90-92 and 109; device 200 that includes the processor and memory is included in a UE; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
Regarding claim 12, Ioffe ‘247 discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1A, para 37, 41, and 45; communication node in a RAN communicates with a UE) comprising
at least one processor, and at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor (FIG. 2, para 90-92; RAN node includes a processor coupled with a memory; the processor executes instructions stored in the memory), to cause the apparatus to:
transmit, to a terminal device, an indication indicating at least one resource block pattern for a physical broadcast channel (FIG. 7, para 135-136, 189, and 199-200; there are multiple PBCH symbols in PRB for communicating PBCH in a downlink frame; locations of the PBCH symbols in the PRBs of the downlink frame are indicating via signaling decoded by the UE; multiple PBCH symbols in the PRB for communicating the PBCH read on a resource block pattern for a physical broadcast channel),
wherein the at least one resource block pattern indicates at least one resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel (FIG. 7, para 135-136, 189, and 199-200; the signaling indicates the location of PBCH symbols in the PBCH PRB; thus, the PBCH PRB pattern indicates the PBCH PRB).
Although Ioffe ‘247 discloses transmit, to a terminal device, an indication indicating at least one resource block pattern for a physical broadcast channel, Ioffe ‘247 does not specifically disclose at least one resource block pattern of a set of pre-defined resource block patterns for a physical broadcast channel. Further, although Ioffe ‘247 discloses wherein the at least one resource block pattern indicates at least one resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel, Ioffe ‘247 does not specifically disclose at least one non-punctured resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel, and at least one punctured resource block that is not used for the transmission of the physical broadcast channel.
3GPP ‘387 teaches at least one resource block pattern of a set of pre-defined resource block patterns for a physical broadcast channel (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; PBCH is punctured to fit into an available narrow bandwidth, where a number of PBCH RBs are punctured so that the remaining PBCH RBs fit into the available bandwidth; there are multiple such PBCH RB patterns),
at least one non-punctured resource block used for transmission of the physical broadcast channel (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; a PBCH RB pattern includes the remaining, non-punctured PBCH RBs that are used for transmission), and
at least one punctured resource block that is not used for the transmission of the physical broadcast channel (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; a PBCH RB pattern includes the punctured RBs that are not used as PBCH RBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Ioffe ‘247’s apparatus that transmits indication of a PBCH resource block pattern, to include 3GPP ‘387’s PBCH RB pattern that includes punctured RBs. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure practical coverage (3GPP ‘387, Introduction).
Regarding claim 19, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 12, as outlined above.
Further, Ioffe ‘247 teaches wherein the apparatus comprises, or is comprised in, a network element of a wireless communication network (FIG. 2, para 90-92; RAN node includes a processor coupled with a memory; thus, RAN node is the device that includes the processor and the memory; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art).
5. Claims 3-4, 6, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247, in view of 3GPP ‘387, and further in view of Yasukawa ‘703 (US 2013/0070703, “Yasukawa ‘703”).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 12, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, Ioffe ‘247 teaches wherein the first resource block pattern is valid for a pre-defined time window (FIG. 7, para 49, 135-136, 189, and 199-200; there are multiple PBCH symbols in the PBCH PRB in the downlink time-domain frame; thus, the PBCH PRB pattern is valid in the time-domain frame).
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 does not specifically disclose wherein the indication indicates at least a first resource block pattern and a second resource block pattern of the set of pre-defined resource block patterns.
Yasukawa ‘703 teaches wherein the indication indicates at least a first resource block pattern and a second resource block pattern of the set of pre-defined resource block patterns (claim 4; first uplink assignment information includes resource block allocation information formed with a starting resource block of a carrier and a length of the carrier; second uplink assignment information includes a resource block arrangement pattern that is configured by puncturing a predetermined number of resource block groups from the system band, in a predetermined pattern; thus, uplink assignment information indicates two resource block patterns).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247 and 3GPP ‘387, to include Yasukawa ‘703’s uplink assignment information that indicates two resource block patterns. The motivation for doing so would have been to address a problem of a DCI format defined for reporting uplink assignment information in LTE having an insufficient number of bits (Yasukawa ‘703, para 8-10).
Regarding claim 4, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 3, as outlined above.
Further, Ioffe ‘247 teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
detect the physical broadcast channel within the pre-defined time window based at least partly on the first resource block pattern (FIG. 7, para 49, 135-136, 189, and 199-200; UE detects the PBCH symbols based on the indicated locations of PBCH symbols in the PRBs, in the time-domain frame); and
decode the physical broadcast channel within the pre-defined time window (FIG. 7, para 135-136; UE decodes the PBCH in TTI windows).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 3 and 13, respectively, as outlined above.
Further, 3GPP ‘387 teaches wherein the first resource block pattern comprises more non-punctured resource blocks than the second resource block pattern (Figure 1, Introduction, Section 2; as seen in Figure 1, the resource block pattern of case 3 has more non-punctured resource blocks than the resource block pattern of case 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247, 3GPP ‘387, and Yasukawa ‘703, to further include 3GPP ‘387’s PBCN RB pattern that includes more non-punctured resource blocks than the second RB pattern. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure practical coverage (3GPP ‘387, Introduction).
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247, in view of 3GPP ‘387, further in view of Yasukawa ‘703, and further in view of Kim ‘833 (US 2021/0320833, “Kim ‘833”).
Regarding claim 5, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 3, as outlined above.
Further, Ioffe ‘247 teaches wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
detect the physical broadcast channel based at least partly on the second resource block pattern (FIG. 7, para 135-136, 189, and 199-200; UE detects the PBCH symbols based on the indicated locations of PBCH symbols in the PRBs); and
decode the physical broadcast channel (FIG. 7, para 135-136; UE decodes the PBCH in TTI windows).
Although Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 discloses detect the physical broadcast channel based at least partly on the second resource block pattern, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 does not specifically disclose detect the physical broadcast channel, if the physical broadcast channel is not decoded within the pre-defined time window.
Kim ‘833 teaches detect the physical broadcast channel, if the physical broadcast channel is not decoded within the pre-defined time window (para 754; UE fails to decode PBCH during a L2 window, and detects the PBCH during a subsequent L2 window).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247, 3GPP ‘387, and Yasukawa ‘703, to include Kim ‘833’s UE that fails to decode PBCH during a L2 window, and detects the PBCH during a subsequent L2 window. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving a radio resource management report based on a synchronization signal block transmitted and received in an unlicensed band (Kim ‘833, para 5-7).
7. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247, in view of 3GPP ‘387, further in view of Yasukawa ‘703, further in view of Vrzic ‘987 (US 2013/0183987, “Vrzic ‘987”), and further in view of Barbieri ‘421 (US 2015/0098421, “Barbieri ‘421”).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 3 and 13, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 and Yasukawa ‘703 does not specifically disclose wherein the first resource block pattern is cell-specific.
Vrzic ‘987 teaches wherein the first resource block pattern is cell-specific (para 33 and 120; cell-specific resource block hopping pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247, 3GPP ‘387, and Yasukawa ‘703, to include Vrzic ‘987’s cell-specific resource block hopping pattern. The motivation for doing so would have been to enhance the capacity of a PDCCH and limit a number of blind decodes required by an advanced UE (Vrzic ‘987, para 40).
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387, Yasukawa ‘703, and Vrzic ‘987 does not specifically disclose the second resource block pattern is common for multiple cells.
Barbieri ‘421 teaches the second resource block pattern is common for multiple cells (para 68; same PRB pattern configured for the serving cell and the interfering cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247, 3GPP ‘387, Yasukawa ‘703, and Vrzic ‘987, to include Barbieri ‘421’s same PRB pattern that configured for the serving cell and the interfering cell. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide further improvements in LTE technology as the demand for mobile broadband access continues to increase (Barbieri ‘421, para 6).
8. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247, in view of 3GPP ‘387, and further in view of Dinan ‘653 (US 2016/0308653, “Dinan ‘653”).
Regarding claim 8, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 1, as outlined above.
Further, Ioffe ‘247 teaches wherein the physical broadcast channel is detected in one of the one or more cells based at least partly on the at least one resource block pattern (FIG. 7, para 37, 135-136, 189, and 199-200; UE in a cellular network detects PBCH symbols based on indicated locations of the PBCH symbols in the PRBs).
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 does not specifically disclose wherein the indication further indicates a list of one or more cells, for which the at least one resource block pattern is valid.
Dinan ‘653 teaches wherein the indication further indicates a list of one or more cells, for which the at least one resource block pattern is valid (para 108 and 175; resource block assignment for a cell group includes indication of the cell groups).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247 and 3GPP ‘387, to include Dinan ‘653’s resource block assignment for a cell group that includes indication of the cell groups. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide flexibility and capacity improvements (Dinan ‘653, para 128).
Regarding claim 16, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 12, as outlined above.
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 does not specifically disclose wherein the indication further indicates a list of one or more cells, for which the at least one resource block pattern is valid.
Dinan ‘653 teaches wherein the indication further indicates a list of one or more cells, for which the at least one resource block pattern is valid (para 108 and 175; resource block assignment for a cell group includes indication of the cell groups).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247 and 3GPP ‘387, to include Dinan ‘653’s resource block assignment for a cell group that includes indication of the cell groups. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide flexibility and capacity improvements (Dinan ‘653, para 128).
9. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247, in view of 3GPP ‘387, and further in view of Yi ‘529 (US 2016/0006529, “Yi ‘529”).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 12, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 does not specifically disclose wherein the indication further indicates that the at least one resource block pattern is valid for all cells on a frequency layer indicated by the indication.
Yi ‘529 teaches wherein the indication further indicates that the at least one resource block pattern is valid for all cells on a frequency layer indicated by the indication (para 85; indication of low-power RBs for a neighboring group of cells in frequency f2/f3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247 and 3GPP ‘387, to include Yi ‘529’s indication of low-power RBs for a neighboring group of cells in frequency f2/f3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a method and apparatus for performing interference coordination among inter-cells in a wireless communication system (Yi ‘529, para 7).
10. Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ioffe ‘247, in view of 3GPP ‘387, and further in view of Khawer ‘975 (US 2017/0353975, “Khawer ‘975”).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1 and 12, respectively, as outlined above.
However, Ioffe ‘247 in combination with 3GPP ‘387 does not specifically disclose wherein the indication further indicates a channel bandwidth associated with the at least one resource block pattern.
Khawer ‘975 teaches wherein the indication further indicates a channel bandwidth associated with the at least one resource block pattern (para 17; channel bandwidth is indicated in terms of resource block).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined apparatus of Ioffe ‘247 and 3GPP ‘387, to include Khawer ‘975’s channel bandwidth indicated in terms of resource block. The motivation for doing so would have been to address an increase in error rates in receiving nodes resulting from interference between nodes (Khawer ‘975, para 12).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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 on (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 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.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights