DETAILED 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 .
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: a communication unit and a control unit in claims 1 and 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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Pub No.: 2022/0232590).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. discloses a terminal (see UE 1202 in fig. 12) comprising:
a communication unit (see transceiver 1222 in fig. 12) that performs uplink or downlink communication in a frequency band aggregated by carrier aggregation (Huang et al. see para. 0037; …The base stations 102/UEs 104 may use spectrum up to Y MHz (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20, 100, 400, etc. MHz) bandwidth per carrier allocated in a carrier aggregation of up to a total of Yx MHz (x component carriers) used for transmission in each direction). The UE includes a transceiver for performing UL and DL transmission in frequency aggregated by carrier aggregation; and
a control unit (see communication manager 1232 in fig. 12) that multiplexes, in a case where scheduling is performed in units including a plurality of component carriers (read as CCs 1-3 in fig. 5) in the aggregated frequency band, an uplink control signal (read as the PUCCH 512 in fig. 5) on a physical channel when an overlap in a time domain occurs between a plurality of uplink signals (read as PUCCH 512 and PUSCHs 516, 532 in fig. 5) including the uplink control signal in the units including the plurality of component carriers (Huang et al. see fig. 5, a set of CC1-CC3, PUCCHs and PUSCH; abstract; para. 0006, 0076, 0077, 0131; For group 2, the UE may determine that the PUCCH.sub.1 512 overlaps in time with the PUSCH.sub.1 516 and the PUSCH.sub.5 532 and determine that the PUSCH.sub.5 532 has a higher order over the PUSCH.sub.1 516. The UE may multiplex the PUCCH.sub.1 512 with the PUSCH.sub.5 532.). The UE multiplexes the PUCCH 512 with PUSCH 532, in a case wherein a plurality of channels (e.g., PUCCH, PUSCH) being scheduled for transmission on a plurality of CCs 1-3 in carrier aggregation configuration, when an overlapping in time occurs between PUCCH 512 with PUSCHs 516 and 532 in the units including the units of CC1 and CC3.
Claim 6 is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Huang et al. discloses a base station comprising:
a communication unit (see transceiver 1322 in fig. 13) that performs communication with a terminal in a frequency band aggregated by carrier aggregation (Huang et al. see para. 0037; …The base stations 102/UEs 104 may use spectrum up to Y MHz (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20, 100, 400, etc. MHz) bandwidth per carrier allocated in a carrier aggregation of up to a total of Yx MHz (x component carriers) used for transmission in each direction). The BS includes a transceiver for performing UL and DL transmission in frequency aggregated by carrier aggregation; and
a control unit (see communication manager 1332 in fig. 13) that assumes that, in a case where scheduling is performed in units including a plurality of component carriers (read as CCs 1-3 in fig. 5) in the aggregated frequency band, an uplink control signal (read as the PUCCH 512 in fig. 5) is multiplexed on a physical channel when an overlap in a time domain occurs between a plurality of uplink signals (read as PUCCH 512 and PUSCHs 516, 532 in fig. 5) including the uplink control signal in the units including the plurality of component carriers (Huang et al. see fig. 5, a set of CC1-CC3, PUCCHs and PUSCH; abstract; para. 0006, 0076, 0077, 0135; For group 2, the UE may determine that the PUCCH.sub.1 512 overlaps in time with the PUSCH.sub.1 516 and the PUSCH.sub.5 532 and determine that the PUSCH.sub.5 532 has a higher order over the PUSCH.sub.1 516. The UE may multiplex the PUCCH.sub.1 512 with the PUSCH.sub.5 532.). The UE multiplexes the PUCCH 512 with PUSCH 532, in a case wherein a plurality of channels (e.g., PUCCH, PUSCH) being scheduled for transmission on a plurality of CCs 1-3 in carrier aggregation configuration, when an overlapping in time occurs between PUCCH 512 with PUSCHs 516 and 532 in the units including CC1 and CC3. The BS receives/assumes the multiplexed PUCCH 512 and PUSCH 532.
Regarding claim 2, Huang et al. discloses the feature wherein the control unit multiplexes the uplink control signal on the physical channel when the overlap in the time domain occurs between the plurality of uplink signals including the uplink control signal between the units including the plurality of component carriers (Huang et al. see fig. 5, a set of CC1-CC3, PUCCHs and PUSCH; abstract; para. 0006, 0076, 0077, 0131; For group 2, the UE may determine that the PUCCH.sub.1 512 overlaps in time with the PUSCH.sub.1 516 and the PUSCH.sub.5 532 and determine that the PUSCH.sub.5 532 has a higher order over the PUSCH.sub.1 516. The UE may multiplex the PUCCH.sub.1 512 with the PUSCH.sub.5 532.). The UE multiplexes the PUCCH 512 with PUSCH 532, when an overlapping in time occurs between PUCCH 512 with PUSCHs 516 and 532 in the units between the units of CC1 and CC3.
Regarding claim 4, Huang et al. discloses the feature wherein when the overlap in the time domain occurs between the uplink control signal and a plurality of uplink physical channels, the control unit determines the uplink physical channel on which the uplink control signal is to be multiplexed based on a priority (Huang et al. see fig. 5, a set of CC1-CC3, PUCCHs and PUSCH; abstract; para. 0006, 0076; Within the list, the UE may select a PUSCH based on a certain order (or prioritization). That is, the UE may determine which of the PUSCH overlapping with the PUCCH has the highest order and determine to multiplex the PUCCH with the PUSCH having the highest order, …In another aspect, the PUSCH on the CC with the smallest CC index may have the highest priority.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note
The Applicant is welcome to request a telephonic interview if the Applicant has any questions or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of the application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang et al. (Pub No.: 2024/0349266) discloses a solution for supporting repetitions for a plurality of downlink data transmission scheduled by signal downlink control information is proposed. A terminal device receives downlink control information (DCI) scheduling a plurality of downlink data transmissions with repetitions from a network device. The terminal device determines a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-ACK codebook for the plurality of downlink data transmissions based on a repetition pattern for the plurality of downlink data transmissions and the slot offset. The terminal device transmits a feedback for the repetitions for the downlink data transmissions based on the HARQ-ACK codebook to the network device. In this way, it achieves a flexible repetition patterns for the plurality of downlink data transmissions scheduled by signal DCI, which improves the coverage/reliability performance for data transmission.
Bagheri et al. (Pub No.: 2023/0141989) discloses various aspects relate to a device that receives a configured uplink grant from a base station for semi-persistent uplink transmissions, receives a configuration for a retransmission timer, receives a configuration of a next-generation NodeB (gNB) fixed frame period (FFP) for semi-static channel access in a shared spectrum, detects a downlink transmission burst within gNB-FFP, and obtains a medium access control protocol data unit for a configured uplink transmission that includes a first physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission. A communications manager establishes that a hybrid automatic repeat request process associated with the first PUSCH transmission is pending so as to preclude performance of the first PUSCH transmission in response to determinations that the first PUSCH transmission is associated with a gNB channel occupancy time (COT), there is a time gap between the downlink transmission burst within the gNB-COT, and the first PUSCH transmission is smaller than a time gap threshold.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN YUEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am-7pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights