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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Nordstrom et al. (U.S. 2018/0278354), hereinafter Nordstrom.
With respect to Claim 1, Nordstrom teaches a terminal comprising: a
transmitting section that transmits support information indicating a support for a specific reception function for interference mitigation in reception (¶ 0092, “When the UE is indicating the (advanced) capability of interference mitigation, then the network node may use a lower power level for transmitting the control channels (e.g. PDCCH).”) and
a control section that controls the reception by using the specific reception function (¶ 0092, “When the UE is indicating the (advanced) capability of interference mitigation, then the network node may use a lower power level for transmitting the control channels (e.g. PDCCH).”)
With respect to Claim 2, Nordstrom teaches the terminal according to claim 1, Nordstrom teaches wherein the support information indicates the support for the specific reception function by using an index or a bit location corresponding to the specific reception function (¶ 0087, “The UE capability can be taken as one combined value with all control channels included as one bit indicating the interference mitigation capability, or it can be taken separately as capability for each control channel with different receiver types standing for different capabilities.”)
With respect to Claim 3, Nordstrom teaches the terminal according to claim 1, Nordstom teaches wherein the control section determines channel state information (CSI), based on a configuration corresponding to the specific reception function and a measurement result (¶ 0108, “Regarding neighCellsCRS-Info, this field contains assistance information, concerning the primary frequency, used by the UE to mitigate interference from CRS while performing RRM/RLM/CSI measurement or data demodulation.”)
With respect to Claim 5, the claim is the radio communication method for a terminal corresponding to the terminal of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
With respect to Claim 6, the claim is the corresponding base station, which communicates with and corresponds to the terminal of Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom et al. (U.S. 2018/0278354), hereinafter Nordstrom, in view of Berliner et al. (U.S. 11,115,086), hereinafter Berliner.
With respect to Claim 4, Nordstrom teaches the terminal according to claim 1, Nordstrom fails to explicitly teach wherein the control section controls reception of resource allocation information involving a parameter higher than a specific value with respect to modulation or encoding.
Berliner teaches wherein the control section controls reception of resource allocation information involving a parameter higher than a specific value with respect to modulation or encoding (column 6, lines 30-45, “At base station 110, a transmit processor 220 may receive data from a data source 212 for one or more UEs, select one or more modulation and coding schemes (MCS) for each UE based at least in part on channel quality indicators (CQIs) received from the UE, process (e.g., encode and modulate) the data for each UE based at least in part on the MCS(s) selected for the UE, and provide data symbols for all UEs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Berliner with the invention of Nordstrom to alter the resource allocation based on the modulation and coding scheme in order to improve utilization as higher MCS schemes improve data rate and reduce overall resource utilization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights