1-9DETAILED 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 .
This action is in response to the application filed on 24 September 2024.
Claims 1-9 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 September 2024, 15 December 2025, and 11 February 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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 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” and “control unit” in claims 1, 5 and 6. The specification discloses hardware structures of the base station 10 and the terminal 20. Each of the above-described base station 10 and the terminal 20 may be physically a computer device including a processor 1001, a storage device 1002, an auxiliary storage device 1003, a communication device 1004, an input device 1005, an output device 1006, a bus 1007, etc., Paragraph 98.
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
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda et al. (US Publication 2021/0314993).
With respect to claims 1 and 6, Takeda teaches A terminal (terminal, figure 2) comprising:
a communication unit configured to perform an uplink or downlink communication by using a frequency band in which aggregation is performed by carrier aggregation; (A UE 115 may be configured with multiple downlink component carriers and one or more uplink component carriers according to a carrier aggregation configuration, Paragraph 49) 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 a search space for monitoring a downlink control signal is to be configured in the plurality of component carriers. (a component carrier may be configured with a single DCI format or PDCCH that may simultaneously schedule data transmissions on multiple component carriers, Paragraph 38)
With respect to claims 3 and 7, Takeda teaches wherein the control unit expects that a configuration of the search space in the plurality of component carriers is to be configured by CORESET. (The configuration of component carriers, and corresponding search spaces may be indicated to a UE. A CORESET and/or search space configuration, including the configuration of one or more component carriers 420, and multi-component carrier scheduling, may be indicated to the UE, Paragraph 95)
With respect to claims 4, 8 and 9, Takeda teaches wherein the control unit expects that there is no limit to a type of or aggregation level of the search space in the plurality of component carriers. (For scheduling component carrier 420-b (e.g., PCell), two search spaces 425 may be configured. The first search space 425 may be a common search space with a search space ID of zero (e.g., search space ID #0) for example. The DCI format associated with the first search space 425 may not include a CIF (e.g., DCI 0_0/1_0 (no CIF)). For component carrier 420-b, a UE specific search space may be configured that may have a search space ID of one (e.g., search space ID #1). The DCI format associated with this second search space 425 may or may not include CIFs (e.g., DCI 0_0/1_0 (no CIF), 0_1/1_1 (with CIF), and/or 0_2/1_2 (with CIF)). Component carrier 420-a may be configured with a search space 425 that may be given a search space ID of one (e.g., search space ID #1) so this search space 425 of component carrier 420-a may be linked with the search space 425 of component carrier 420-b that was given a search space ID of one, Paragraph 96)
With respect to claim 5, Takeda teaches A base station (base station, figure 2) comprising:
a communication unit configured to perform a communication with a terminal by using a frequency band in which aggregation is performed by carrier aggregation; (A UE 115 may be configured with multiple downlink component carriers and one or more uplink component carriers according to a carrier aggregation configuration, Paragraph 49) 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, configure a search space for monitoring a downlink control signal in the plurality of component carriers (a component carrier may be configured with a single DCI format or PDCCH that may simultaneously schedule data transmissions on multiple component carriers, Paragraph 38)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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(a) 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
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US Publication 2021/0314993) in view of Lee et al. (US Publication 2024/0236988).
With respect to claim 2, Takeda doesn’t teach wherein the control unit expects that an upper limit of a number of search spaces in the plurality of component carriers is to be configured.
Lee teaches wherein the control unit expects that an upper limit of a number of search spaces in the plurality of component carriers is to be configured. (The UE may be configured with a maximum of 10 search space (SS) sets per BWP. The UE may monitor PDCCH candidates included in SS sets, paragraph 146)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement system of Takeda with the control unit expects that an upper limit of a number of search spaces in the plurality of component carriers is to be configured as taught by Lee. The motivation for combining Takeda and Lee is to be able to reducing unnecessary power consumption of the UE through the PDCCH monitoring adaptation operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takeda et al. (US Publication 2023/0083414) discloses receive control signaling indicating a joint feedback codebook configuration for jointly reporting feedback for a first CC, a second CC, and a virtual CC that may be mapped to a third CC and a fourth CC. The UE may then receive downlink control information (DCI) scheduling a first downlink transmission via the first CC and a second downlink transmission on the second CC, or both downlink transmissions may be scheduled via the virtual CC. The UE may transmit a joint feedback message for the first CC, the second CC, and the virtual CC based on the joint codebook configuration.
Frenne et al. (US publication 2022/0256573) discloses a wireless device for enabling transmission feedback includes: receiving a first Transport Block (TB) and a second TB; and determining the first TB and the second TB based on a Control Resource Set (CORESET) group identifier of a CORESET over which a corresponding Downlink Control Information (DCI) scheduling the TB is received. In this way, the New Radio (NR) Rel-15 procedure for type 1 HARQ codebook construction might be reused with the same or minimum increase of HARQ feedback overhead with semi-static HARQ-ACK codebook.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAHI AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3652. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khalid Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3370. 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.
/ABDULLAHI AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights