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 .
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence filed 10/17/2024.
Claims 1-6 are pending and rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/2024, 02/26/2026, & 04/06/2026 are 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) are the “receiving unit configured to receive…” the “control unit configured to determine…” and the “transmitting unit configured to transmit…” recited in claim 1.
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.
For the receiving unit, the corresponding disclosed structure is terminal receiving unit 220, which wirelessly receives signals from the base station, together with the disclosed communication hardware. The specification identifies communication device 1004 as transmitting/receiving hardware that may include a transmitting/receiving antenna, amplifier unit, and transmitting/receiving unit. (See Applicant Specification [0132]-[0133], [0140], [0145]).
For the transmitting unit, the corresponding structure is terminal transmitting unit 210, which generates transmission signals and wirelessly transmits them, together with communication device 1004 and its disclosed transmitting hardware. (See Applicant Specification [0132]-[0133], [0140], [0145]).
The control unit is especially clearly subject to 112(f). The claim merely says “control unit configured to determine” the feedback and then functionally requires the control unit to “construct a codebook”; it does not recite processor circuitry or another definite structure. The specification, however, expressly identifies control unit 240 and states that it is realized by processor 1001 executing a control program stored in storage device 1002. (See Applicant Specification [0132]-[0133], [0140], [0145] together with particular algorithms in [0101]-[0106 and [0110]-[0114]).
And importantly, this is not a situation where the specification merely discloses a generic processor without an algorithm. The specification provides the actual codebook algorithm. For example, it teaches generating HARQ-ACK bits first according to actual-CC and then virtual-CC index, or alternatively first according to virtual-CC and then actual-CC index. It also expressly provides the sub-codebook and concatenation alternatives. Thus, the processor/program disclosure is linked to an disclosed algorithm for performing the specialized claim codebook-construction function, which is what MPEP 2181 requires for computer implemented 112(f) limitation. (See Applicant Specification [0101]-[0106] for Algorithm for the claimed codebook ordering; [0110]-[0114], for Type-2 codebook algorithm and alternatives; [0140]-[0142] for processor/program corresponding structure)
In short, there will be no 112(b) indefiniteness rejection based solely on 112(f) here. There appears to be adequate corresponding structure and algorithm in the specification; 112(f) instead affects the construction and scope of claim 1. Under MPEP 2181, once 112(f) applies and the adequate corresponding structure is identified, the limitation is construed to cover that disclosed structure and equivalents.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi et al (US20200280337A1) in view of Shen et al (US20180241510A1).
Regarding claim 1 (and method claim 6), Yi teaches a terminal comprising:
a receiving unit configured to receive, from a base station, a downlink shared channel in virtual CCs (component carrier) that are discontinuous in a frequency domain and that include a plurality of actual CCs ([0092], [0103]-[0107], [0117], [0164], [0182]-[0183], [0187]-[0188], teaches aggregation of continuous or discontinuous component carriers; teaches that multiple physical carriers may be mapped to an treated as one logical or virtual carrier/cell, including treating the union of PRBs of two carriers as a single carrier for resource mapping; logical/virtual carrier corresponds to the claimed virtual CC and its constituent physical carriers correspond to the actual CCs; specifically [0050], [0089], [0148], teaches that a transport block may be scheduled over multiple PHY-carriers and that a virtual carrier may be formed by flexibly aggregating two carriers, with the virtual carrier’s DL resources coming from CC1 and CC2 for data transmission; further explains that PDSCH is the downlink user-data channel received by the UE, so the virtual-carrier DL data transmission encompasses PDSCH reception);
a control unit configured to determine feedback information related to retransmission control corresponding to the downlink shared channel ([0107], [0152], [0183], [0188], teaches shared HARQ processing across the multiple physical carriers and aggregation of multiple HARQ-ACKs corresponding to multiple DL transmissions; specifically [0050], [0089], [0148], teaches that a transport block may be scheduled over multiple PHY-carriers and that a virtual carrier may be formed by flexibly aggregating two carriers, with the virtual carrier’s DL resources coming from CC1 and CC2 for data transmission; further explains that PDSCH is the downlink user-data channel received by the UE, so the virtual-carrier DL data transmission encompasses PDSCH reception); and
a transmitting unit configured to transmit, to the base station, an uplink control channel including the feedback information in the virtual CCs ([0150]-[0152], expressly teaches scheduling over the virtual carrier and, within that virtual-carrier operation, transmitting PUCCH on an available UL resource while aggregating HARQ-ACK feedback corresponding to multiple DL transmissions; accordingly Yi discloses the claimed UL control channel including retransmission feedback in the virtual CC, as well as the relationship between the preceding DL transmission and the responsive HARQ-ACK feedback),
However, Yi does not fully teach but Shen teaches wherein the control unit constructs a codebook of the feedback information in an order that prioritizes either the virtual CCs or the actual CCs first and then the other CCs second ([0045]-[0052], [0146]-[0152], [0217]-[0218], expressly teaches constructing HARQ-ACK codebooks for respective cells groups, ordering the feedback associated with individual serving cells within each group according to serving-cell index, and concatenating the group codebooks into a final HARQ-ACK codebook).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shen’s grouped HARQ-ACK codebook construction to Yi’s flexible carrier-aggregation system because Yi permits multiple physical carriers to function as a single logical or virtual carrier and share a HARQ process, but does not specify a detailed mechanism for consistently ordering the resulting feedback. Shen addresses that precise implementation concern by constructing group-specific codebooks, assigning carrier-specific feedback-bit positions, and concatenating the codebooks into a final codebook so that the UE and network maintain a common understanding of codebook size and feedback-bit order. The modification would predictably provide deterministic and reliable HARQ feedback for Yi’s logical carrier containing multiple physical carriers.
Regarding claim 2, Yi does not fully teach but Shen teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control unit constructs the codebook by constructing sub- codebooks for each one of the virtual CCs and concatenating the sub-codebooks ([0046], [0052], [0203]-[0205], [0217]-[0218], [0227]-[0228], teaches concatenating HARQ ACK codebooks from all cell groups and subframes; recites constructing a HARQ-ACK codebook for each cell group and concatenating the codebooks when more than one cell groups exists; provides an express example In which four individual group/subframe codebooks are concatenated into one final HARQ ACK codebook, and teaches determining multiple codebooks for respective cell-groups/subframe combinations and concatenating them).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shen’s grouped HARQ-ACK codebook construction to Yi’s flexible carrier-aggregation system because Yi permits multiple physical carriers to function as a single logical or virtual carrier and share a HARQ process, but does not specify a detailed mechanism for consistently ordering the resulting feedback. Shen addresses that precise implementation concern by constructing group-specific codebooks, assigning carrier-specific feedback-bit positions, and concatenating the codebooks into a final codebook so that the UE and network maintain a common understanding of codebook size and feedback-bit order. The modification would predictably provide deterministic and reliable HARQ feedback for Yi’s logical carrier containing multiple physical carriers.
Regarding claim 3, Yi does not fully teach but Shen teaches the terminal according to claim 1, wherein the control unit constructs the codebook using the virtual CCs altogether ([0103]-[0104], [0203]-[0205], [0217]-[0218], teaches generating HARQ-ACK feedback for all the aggregated serving cells and transmitting the feedback bits for the received transport blocks on all such serving cells in the same UL subframe; then combines the feedback generated for the multiple groups and subframes into a single final HARQ-ACK codebook; aggregated serving-cell arrangement is applied to Yi’s multiple virtual-carrier arrangement, the resulting final codebook is constructed using the feedback associated with all virtual CCs).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shen’s grouped HARQ-ACK codebook construction to Yi’s flexible carrier-aggregation system because Yi permits multiple physical carriers to function as a single logical or virtual carrier and share a HARQ process, but does not specify a detailed mechanism for consistently ordering the resulting feedback. Shen addresses that precise implementation concern by constructing group-specific codebooks, assigning carrier-specific feedback-bit positions, and concatenating the codebooks into a final codebook so that the UE and network maintain a common understanding of codebook size and feedback-bit order. The modification would predictably provide deterministic and reliable HARQ feedback for Yi’s logical carrier containing multiple physical carriers.
Regarding claim 4, Yi teaches the terminal according to claim 3, wherein the control unit aggregates the feedback information related to the retransmission control corresponding to the downlink shared channel scheduled over the plurality of actual CCs ([0152], [0183], [0188], teaches that a transport block may be scheduled over multiple physical carriers using a hopping pattern or VRB-to-PRB mapping pattern, with the HARQ process shared between the physical carriers; further teaches mapping multiple downlink resources to the same UL resource and aggregating the multiple corresponding HARQ ACKs).
Regarding claim 5, Yi does not fully teach but Shen teaches the terminal according to claim 3, wherein the control unit generates, for each one of the actual CCs, the feedback information related to the retransmission control corresponding to the downlink shared channel scheduled over the plurality of actual CCs ([0103], [0105], [0186]-[0188], [0231], teaches that the UE is expected to transmit HARQ-ACK feedback for each serving cell scheduled with PDSCH; teaches generating one or more HARQ-ACK feedback bits for each serving cell, depending on the number of transport blocks supported by that cell; identifies and inserts the feedback corresponding to individual serving cells into respective positions in the codebook, teaches allocating codebook bits to each serving cell having a PDSCH according to the serving cell-identifier or index).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Shen’s grouped HARQ-ACK codebook construction to Yi’s flexible carrier-aggregation system because Yi permits multiple physical carriers to function as a single logical or virtual carrier and share a HARQ process, but does not specify a detailed mechanism for consistently ordering the resulting feedback. Shen addresses that precide implementation concern by constructing group-specific codebooks, assigning carrier-specific feeback-bit positions, and concatenating the codebooks into a final codebook so that the UE and network maintain a common understanding of codebook size and feedback-bit order. The modification would predictably provide deterministic and reliable HARQ feedback for Yi’s logical carrier containing multiple physical carriers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fong et al (US20110034175A1) discloses system and method for a virtual carrier for multi-carrier and coordinated multi-point network operation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE whose telephone number is (571)272-0192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0830-1700 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at (571) 270-3125. 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.
/MICHAEL WILLIAM ABBATINE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights