DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This is a Non-Final Office Action addressing U.S. Application No. 18/820,247. Based upon a review of the instant application, the actual filing date of the instant application is August 29, 2024. Since the instant application was filed after September 16, 2012, the statutory provisions of the America Invents Act ("AIA ") will govern this proceeding.
The instant application is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 11,431,460 (“the ‘460 Patent”). The ‘460 Patent matured from U.S. Patent Application 16/098,812, which was a National Stage Entry of PCT/KR2017/004702 filed May 2, 2017. The ‘460 Patent also claim foreign priority to the following:
(KR) 10-2016-0055676 filed May 4, 2016;
(KR) 10-2016-0058317 filed May 12, 2016;
(KR) 10-2017-0056011 filed May 2, 2017;
(KR) 10-2017-0056206 filed May 2, 2017.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which the ‘460 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Reissue Applications
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The declaration 1) does not specifically identify a claim the application seeks to broaden and 2) does not sufficiently identify the error that supports the reissue application. MPEP 1414(II) recites in part,
“For an application filed on or after September 16, 2012 that seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the patent, the reissue oath or declaration must also identify a claim that the application seeks to broaden in the identification of the error that is relied upon to support the reissue application. A general statement, e.g., that all claims are broadened, is not sufficient to satisfy this requirement. In specifically identifying the error as required by 37 CFR 1.175(a), it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify the claim being broadened and a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. The corresponding corrective action which has been taken to correct the original patent need not be identified in the oath/declaration. If the initial reissue oath/declaration "states at least one error" in the original patent, and, in addition, recites the specific corrective action taken in the reissue application, the oath/declaration would be considered acceptable, even though the corrective action statement is not required.
As to the first issue, the declaration refers to the claims generally and does not specifically identify a claim the application seeks to broaden. As to the second issue, the declaration states the corrective action (i.e. the addition of new claims directed toward a base station), however the declaration does not identify a word, or phrase in an original claim and how it renders the patent partly or wholly inoperative.
35 USC § 251 Rejections – Defective Declaration
Claims 1-14 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
35 USC § 251 Rejections – New Matter
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
Independent claims 7, 9, 11, and 13 recite in part, “wherein each of the PDCCH, PDSCH, and the PUCCH is configured with a short time slot”. The Examiner is unable to locate support for this limitation and there is no statement of support in the Applicant’s remarks, thus the Examiner finds the limitation to comprise new matter.
Independent claims 7, 9, 11, and 13 also recite in part, “wherein the PDCCH is configured with the UE-specific search space only without being configured with a common search space.” The Examiner is unable to locate support in the original specification for this limitation and there is no statement of support in the Applicant’s remarks, thus the Examiner finds the limitation to comprise new matter. The Examiner finds support for the PDCCH only being configured with a common search space or both a common search space and a UE-specific search space (see table 3, lines 16-20 of column 12, table 4, see lines 55-60 of column 12, line 61 of column 12 to line 38 of column 13, lines 58-61 of column 14, and lines 18-22 of column 15). However, the Examiner is unable to locate support for the PDCCH only being configured with the UE-specific search space.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 7, 9, 11, and 13 recite in part, “wherein each of the PDCCH, PDSCH, and the PUCCH is configured with a short time slot”. The Examiner is unable to locate support for this limitation and there is no statement of support in the Applicant’s remarks, thus the Examiner finds the limitation to comprise new matter.
Independent claims 7, 9, 11, and 13 also recite in part, “wherein the PDCCH is configured with the UE-specific search space only without being configured with a common search space.” The Examiner is unable to locate support in the original specification for this limitation and there is no statement of support in the Applicant’s remarks, thus the Examiner finds the limitation to comprise new matter. The Examiner finds support for the PDCCH only being configured with a common search space or both a common search space and a UE-specific search space (see table 3, lines 16-20 of column 12, table 4, see lines 55-60 of column 12, line 61 of column 12 to line 38 of column 13, lines 58-61 of column 14, and lines 18-22 of column 15). However, the Examiner is unable to locate support for the PDCCH only being configured with the UE-specific search space.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are free from prior art rejections however stand rejected under § 251 for being based on a defective reissue declaration.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a UE and a method for a UE comprising receiving and decoding a sPDCCH, receiving a sPDSCH based on the sPDCCH, transmitting a sPUCCH for the sPDSCH to the base station, wherein each of the sPDCCH, the sPDSCH, and the PUCCH are configured with a sTTI, and wherein the PDCCH is configured with the aggregation level of the UE-specific search space only without being configured with a common search space, as required by independent claims 1 and 5, and the base station and method performing the corresponding functions as recited in claim 5.
U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0286960 to Li et al. discloses a UE performing blind decoding to decode a PDCCH, wherein in some embodiments the PDCCH only has a common search space or only have UE-specific search space, and the UE only needs to monitor one type of search space, however Li does not teach or suggest details regarding a short time interval or sPDCCH.
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0305129 to Lee et al. teaches UE which when it receives an indication of one or more sPDCCH search spaces, the UE monitors only monitoring the common search space and skipping the UE-specific search space.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0286960 to Li et al; and
U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0305129 to Lee et al. are cited for the reasons mentioned above and are provided as background information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERON J SORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
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 Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. 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.
Signed:
/ERON J SORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees: /JOSEPH R POKRZYWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992