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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 17 October 2024, 06 February 2026, 06 April 2026, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the single actual CC” in line 8.
Regarding claim 6, there is no antecedent basis for the claimed limitation “the single actual CC” in line 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “control unit”, “transmitting unit” in claims 1-5.
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 § 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 (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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (PG Pub US 2017/0134935 A1) in view of Kundu et al. (PG Pub US 2020/0351668 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, Wei discloses a terminal and a method.
a control unit (processor 2501, fig. 25) configured to set a virtual component carrier (CC) including a plurality of actual CCs (“it indicates the user equipment of available uplink resources for current transmission in a form of virtual resource block (VRB). The user equipment determines an available physical resource block (PRB) according to the VRB, that is, maps the VRB to the PRB” [0087]); and
a transmitting unit (radio communication interface 2512, fig. 25) configured to transmit an uplink control channel in the virtual CC, wherein the transmitting unit transmits the uplink control channel in a resource set for the single actual CC or resources respectively set for the plurality of actual CCs (“utilizes the PRB to perform actual uplink transmission .. Particularly, based on an indication for example a frequency hopping flag of the base station, the PRBs may directly correspond to the VRBs one by one, or the VRBs are interlaced firstly and then mapped onto PRBs” [0087]).
However, Wei does not explicitly disclose discontinuous in a frequency domain.
Nevertheless, Kundu discloses “each RBG may include a (potentially virtual/non-contiguous in the frequency domain) set of physical resource blocks (PRBs)” [0126].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to disclose a cc discontinuous in a frequency domain because “a bitmap of size NRBG bits, in which each bit can be toggled to indicate whether an interlace index (and thus a RBG associated with the interlace index according to the pre-configured table) is allocated to a wireless device, could be used to indicate a frequency domain resource allocation for the wireless device” [0126].
Regarding claim 2, Wei, Kundu discloses everything claimed as applied above.
Further, Kundu discloses transmitting unit sets, when transmitting the uplink control channel using the resource set for the single actual CC, an upper limit of the number of resource blocks of the uplink control channel (“UE can implicitly derive the number of PRBs per allocated interlace based on higher layer signaling, e.g. whether to use uniform or non-uniform interlace, whereas other parameters associated with resource allocation like starting PRB index (RBSTART), nominal number of PRBs per interlace and the allocated interlace indices are signaled by higher layers” [0179], “a single wideband carrier” [0187]).
Regarding claim 3, Wei, Kundu discloses everything claimed as applied above.
In addition, Wei discloses transmitting unit sets, when transmitting the uplink control channel using the resources respectively set for the plurality of actual CCs, the resource of the uplink control channel for each actual CC (“The user equipment determines an available physical resource block (PRB) according to the VRB, that is, maps the VRB to the PRB, and then utilizes the PRB to perform actual uplink transmission” [0087]).
Regarding claim 4, Wei, Kundu discloses everything claimed as applied above.
In addition, Wei discloses transmitting unit sets, when transmitting the uplink control channel using the resources respectively set for the plurality of actual CCs, the resource of the uplink control channel for each virtual CC (“The user equipment determines an available physical resource block (PRB) according to the VRB, that is, maps the VRB to the PRB, and then utilizes the PRB to perform actual uplink transmission” [0087]). Further, Kundu discloses “The resource block assignment information may include a bitmap indicating the resource block groups (RBGs) that are allocated to the UE, where a RBG is a set of virtual resource blocks. As one example, for an interlace based structure, a RBG refers to a set of non-contiguous PRBs corresponding to one or more than one interlace(s)” [0148].
Regarding claim 5, Wei, Kundu discloses everything claimed as applied above.
In addition, Wei discloses transmitting unit determines, when transmitting the uplink control channel using the resources respectively set for the plurality of actual CCs, whether to apply interlaced mapping for each actual CC (“based on an indication for example a frequency hopping flag of the base station, the PRBs may directly correspond to the VRBs one by one, or the VRBs are interlaced firstly and then mapped onto PRBs having discontinuous resources” [0087]). Further, Kundu discloses “a RBG refers to a set of non-contiguous PRBs corresponding to one or more than one interlace(s)” [0148].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 07/24/2026
Prosecution Insights