DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 9/23/2024. Claims 1-6 are pending
in the application.
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 Objections
3. Claims 1 and 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, in line 8, “number of BWPs” should be replaced by “number of bandwidth parts (BWPs)”.
Claim 3, in line 3, “an RBG size” should be replaced by “a resource block group (RBG) size”.
Claim 4, in line 7, “number of BWPs” should be replaced by “number of bandwidth parts (BWPs)”.
Claim 5, in line 7, “number of BWPs” should be replaced by “number of bandwidth parts (BWPs)”.
Claim 6, in line 3, “an RBG size” should be replaced by “a resource block group (RBG) size”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “communication unit” and “control unit” in claims 1-2, 4, and 6.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
"the control unit 140 includes a function of performing LBT, [paragraph 86]" and "the control unit 240 of the terminal 20 illustrated in Fig. 18 may be realized by control programs that are stored in the storage device 1002 and are executed by the processor 1001. [paragraph 99]”. The “control unit” refers to regular processor under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
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 § 112(b/f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph,
as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
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: “communication unit” in claims 1 and 4.
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 limitations “communication unit” in claim 1 and 4 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim (e.g., the claims only recite certain functions and fail to set forth any structures involved in the functions). Without structural limitation, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these claims would extend to all ways of performing the functions, those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-3, and 6 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
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 1-4 and 6 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In particular, as noted above, claim limitations “communication unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Further, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification describes the function of these modules, but does not provide the required structural support. Thus, in addition to being indefinite (because the scope of the claim is not clear as articulated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), the claim is similarly rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. That is, the original disclosure does not provide a written description of the structure of the limitations “communication unit”. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-3, and 6 depend from claim 1 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rastegardoost et al.
(US 2023/0189232 Al, hereinafter “Rastegardoost”).
Regarding claim 1, Rastegardoost discloses:
A terminal comprising (FIG. 15 illustrates an example of a wireless device in communication, Rastegardoost: Fig. 15, [0202]):
a communication unit configured to perform an uplink or downlink communication by using a frequency band in which aggregation is performed by carrier aggregation (the processing system may perform at least one of signal coding/processing, data processing, power control, input/output processing, and/or any other functionality that may enable the wireless device and the base station to operate in a wireless environment. the processing system may implement layer 3 and layer 2 OSI functionality to process the data for transmission. The PHYs may perform mapping of transport channels to physical channels and digital and analog signal processing functions for sending and receiving information over the air interface. FIG. l0A illustrates three carrier aggregation configurations with two component carriers. To provide for greater data rates, two or more carriers can be aggregated and simultaneously transmitted to/from the same UE using carrier aggregation (CA). The aggregated carriers in CA may be referred to as component carriers (CCs), Rastegardoost: Fig. 10A, [0013], [0070], [0127]-[0128], [0204], [209]); and
a control unit configured to, in a case where scheduling is performed in the aggregation performed frequency band according to a unit including a plurality of component carriers, perform frequency domain resource allocation in accordance with a number of BWPs included in the plurality of component carriers (The aggregated carriers in CA may be referred to as component carriers (CCs). the processing system may comprise one or more controllers and/or one or more processors. The downlink control signaling may comprise: a downlink scheduling assignment; an uplink scheduling grant indicating uplink radio resources, The UE may determine the resource allocation (e.g., for FDRA fields) based on the indexed PRBs of the BWP (e.g., available/effective/valid/active PRBs at each hop), Rastegardoost: [0127]-[0128], [0189], [0209], [0332]-[0333]).
Regarding claim 2, Rastegardoost teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Rastegardoost further discloses:
the control unit performs a different type of or a same type of the frequency domain resource allocation for each BWP in a case where a plurality of BWPs are included in the plurality of component carriers (The UE may determine the allocated resource blocks based on the frequency domain resource allocation (FDRA) field of the grant/assignment to the available/effective/valid/active PRB(s) of the BWP. Rastegardoost: [0332]-[0333]).
Regarding claim 4, Rastegardoost discloses:
A base station comprising (base station may be part of a mobile communication network, such as the mobile communication network, Rastegardoost: Fig. 15, [0202]):
a communication unit configured to perform a communication with a terminal by using a frequency band in which aggregation is performed by carrier aggregation (the processing system may perform at least one of signal coding/processing, data processing, power control, input/output processing, and/or any other functionality that may enable the wireless device and the base station to operate in a wireless environment. the processing system may implement layer 3 and layer 2 OSI functionality to process the data for transmission. The PHYs may perform mapping of transport channels to physical channels and digital and analog signal processing functions for sending and receiving information over the air interface. FIG. l0A illustrates three carrier aggregation configurations with two component carriers. To provide for greater data rates, two or more carriers can be aggregated and simultaneously transmitted to/from the same UE using carrier aggregation (CA). The aggregated carriers in CA may be referred to as component carriers (CCs), Rastegardoost: Fig. 10A, [0013], [0070], [0127]-[0128], [0204], [0209]); and
a control unit configured to, in a case where scheduling is performed in the aggregation performed frequency band according to a unit including a plurality of component carriers, expect that frequency domain resource allocation is performed in accordance with a number of BWPs included in the plurality of component carriers (The aggregated carriers in CA may be referred to as component carriers (CCs). the processing system may comprise one or more controllers and/or one or more processors. The downlink control signaling may comprise: a downlink scheduling assignment; an uplink scheduling grant indicating uplink radio resources, The UE may determine the resource allocation (e.g., for FDRA fields) based on the indexed PRBs of the BWP (e.g., available/effective/valid/active PRBs at each hop), Rastegardoost: [0127]-[0128], [0189], [0209], [0332]-[0333]).
Regarding claim 5, Rastegardoost discloses:
A communication method performed by a terminal, the communication method comprising (FIG. 15 illustrates an example of a wireless device in communication, Rastegardoost: Fig. 15, [0021]):
performing an uplink or downlink communication by using a frequency band in which aggregation is performed by carrier aggregation (The PHYs may perform mapping of transport channels to physical channels and digital and analog signal processing functions for sending and receiving information over the air interface. FIG. l0A illustrates three carrier aggregation configurations with two component carriers. To provide for greater data rates, two or more carriers can be aggregated and simultaneously transmitted to/from the same UE using carrier aggregation (CA). The aggregated carriers in CA may be referred to as component carriers (CCs), Rastegardoost: Fig. 10A, [0013], [0070], [0127]-[0128]); and
in a case where scheduling is performed in the aggregation performed frequency band according to a unit including a plurality of component carriers, performing frequency domain resource allocation in accordance with a number of BWPs included in the plurality of component carriers (The aggregated carriers in CA may be referred to as component carriers (CCs). The downlink control signaling may comprise: a downlink scheduling assignment; an uplink scheduling grant indicating uplink radio resources, The UE may determine the resource allocation (e.g., for FDRA fields) based on the indexed PRBs of the BWP (e.g., available/effective/valid/active PRBs at each hop), Rastegardoost: [0127]-[0128], [0189], [0332]-[0333]).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of
Lin (US 2022/0046642 Al, hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Rastegardoost teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1 and 2 above.
Rastegardoost does not explicitly disclose:
in a case where a BWP is included in the plurality of component carriers, the control unit expects that an RBG size is determined based on a size of the BWP.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches:
in a case where a BWP is included in the plurality of component carriers, the control unit expects that an RBG size is determined based on a size of the BWP (the resource block assignment information includes a bitmap indicating the Resource Block Groups (RBGs) that are allocated to the scheduled UE where a RBG is a set of consecutive virtual resource blocks defined by higher layer parameter rbg-Size configured by PDSCH-Config and the size of the bandwidth part as defined in Table 5.1.2.2.1-1. Table 5.1.2.2.1-1 of 3GPP TS 38.214 V16.2.0 is Reproduced as FIG. 10, Lin: Fig. 10, [0134]-[0139] ).
Therefore, 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 Rastegardoost in view of Lin in order to further modify where a BWP is included in the plurality of component carriers and the control unit expects that an RBG size is determined based on a size of the BWP from the teachings of Lin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because if a bandwidth part indicator field is configured in the scheduling DCI and the UE supports active BWP change via DCI, the RB indexing for downlink type 0 and type 1 resource allocation is determined within the UE's bandwidth part indicated by bandwidth part indicator field value in the DCI and the RBGs shall be indexed in the order of increasing frequency and starting at the lowest frequency of the bandwidth part (Lin: [0132], [0139]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
HWANG et al. (US 2020/0187181 Al); See [0028], [0075], [0095]-[0097].
OH et al. (US 2024/0236736 Al); See Fig. 9B, [0059], [0149]-[0154], [0256].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
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, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/MOHAMMED S CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights