DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20-22, 26, 30-32, and 36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 11, and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,743,874 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 20 of the application, claim 11 of the patent is directed towards a WTRU performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the network device of claim 20 of the application. The claimed reciprocal functions of the network device are obvious in view of the patented functions of the WTRU. Further, the claimed network device comprises only well-known structure (i.e. a processor). Thus, claim 20 of the application is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim.
Regarding claim 21 of the application, claim 11 of the patent is directed towards a WTRU performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the network device of claim 21 of the application. Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claim 20 of the application.
Regarding claim 22 of the application, claim 15 and claim 16 of the patent are directed towards a WTRU performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the network device of claim 22 of the application. Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claim 20 of the application.
Regarding claim 26 of the application, claim 11 of the patent is directed towards a WTRU performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the network device of claim 26 of the application. Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claim 20 of the application.
Regarding claim 30 of the application, claim 1 of the patent is directed towards a method of performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the method of claim 30 of the application. The claimed reciprocal functions of the method of the application are obvious in view of the functions of the patented method. Thus, claim 30 of the application is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim.
Regarding claim 31 of the application, claim 1 of the patent is directed towards a method of performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the method of claim 31 of the application. Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claim 30 of the application.
Regarding claim 32 of the application, claims 5 and 6 of the patent are directed towards a method of performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the method of claim 32 of the application. Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claim 30 of the application.
Regarding claim 36 of the application, claim 1 of the patent is directed towards a method of performing the reciprocal communication functions (i.e. transmitting/receiving) as performed by the method of claim 36 of the application. Thus, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied above to claim 30 of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 20-23, 25, 30-33, and 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (U.S. Publication US 2011/0116467 A1) in view of Fwu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2013/0265982 A1) and Wu (U.S. Publication US 2011/0105043 A1).
With respect to claims 20 and 30, Jung et al. discloses a network device comprising a processor implementing a method (See paragraph 45, paragraph 99, and Figure 1 of Jung et al. for reference to a base station, which is a network device, and for reference to embodiments wherein the base station is implemented via a processor performing the instructions of a software program). Jung et al. also discloses sending configuration information associated with a serving cell to a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), wherein the configuration information indicates at least a first subset of resources of a carrier and a second subset of resources (See page 3 paragraph 45, page 4 paragraphs 60-62, pages 6-7 paragraphs 90-91, Figures 1 and 4, and Table 5 of Jung et al. for reference to the base station transmitting assignment information regarding a bandwidth of a secondary carrier, i.e. RF 2, which is a first subset of resources of a carrier, that a terminal, which is a type of WTRU, can use transmit and receive data, and assignment information regarding a bandwidth of another secondary carrier, i.e. carrier RF 3, which is a second subset of resources, wherein the base station comprises multiple carriers containing contiguously indexed resources, i.e. RF 1 though RF 4, of which RF 2 and RF 3 comprises a subset). Jung et al. further discloses transmitting or receiving information in the serving cell using the first subset of contiguously indexed RBs of the carrier (See page 5 paragraph 64 and Figure 4 of Jung et al. for reference to the terminal transmitting data traffic through the assigned secondary carrier, i.e. RF 2). Jung et al. also discloses sending, to the WTRU, a control channel transmission, wherein the control channel transmission includes an indication that the second subset of contiguously indexed RBs is activated for the serving cell (See page 3 paragraph 45, pages 6-7 paragraphs 90-91, Figures 1 and 4, and Table 5 of Jung et al. for reference to the base station sending to the terminal a Traffic Indicator message, which is a type of control message, that may include information activating the another secondary carrier, i.e. carrier RF 3). Jung et al. further discloses switching to use the second subset of contiguously indexed RBs to transmit or receive information in the serving cell (See page 3 paragraph 45, pages 6-7 paragraphs 90-91, Figures 1 and 4, and Table 5 of Jung et al. for reference to the Traffic Indicator message indicating a number of different carriers as well as whether the carriers are to be activated or deactivated, such that the message may both be an indication to activate a carrier RF 3 and deactivate a carrier RF 2 for transmitting or receiving, thereby switching to using carrier RF3 to transmit instead of a deactivated carrier RF2). Although Jung et al. does disclose activating and deactivating carriers based on received control messages, Jung et al. does not specifically disclose the carriers being first and second subsets of a single carrier subdivided according to first and second contiguously indexed resource blocks (RBs) of the carrier and the control message being a PDCCH transmission. However the use of both RBs and PDCCH transmissions to control resources assigned to a WTRU are old and well known in the art of communications. For example, Fwu et al., in the field of communications, discloses multiple different carrier segments, which are subsets of the same carrier, comprising contiguously indexed RBs that may be allocated according to PDCCH transmissions (See page 4 paragraphs 24-26 and Figure 6 of Fwu et al. for reference to allocating resources for use by a UE, i.e. a type of WTRU, wherein the resources include contiguously indexed RBs of the same carrier, i.e. the RBs of segment 1, edge 1, central band, edge 2, and segment 2, and wherein resources may be allocated via PDCCH transmissions). Using RBs and PDCCH transmissions to control resources assigned to a WTRU has the advantages of allowing the exact resources segments, i.e. RBs, of an assigned carrier to be defined, as well as allowing carrier segments of the same carrier to be allocated according to well-known control procedures using the PDCCH. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, when presented with the work of Fwu et al., to combine using RBs and PDCCH transmissions to control resources assigned to a WTRU, as taught by Fwu et al., with the system and method of Jung et al., with the motivation being to allow the exact resource segments, i.e. RBs, of an assigned carrier to be defined, as well as allow carrier segments of the carrier to be allocated and activated or deactivated according to well-known control procedures using the PDCCH. Further, although Fwu et al. does teach indicating assignment of carrier segments including the use of a PDCCH (See page 4 paragraphs 24-26 and Figure 6 of Fwu et al.), the combination of Jung et al. and Fwu et al. does not specifically disclose activating the carriers according to the PDCCH. However, Wu, in the field of communications, discloses that an eNB can activate or deactivate any of multiple component carriers by using a PDCCH order (See paragraph 10 of Wu). Activating and deactivating carriers by using a PDCCH order has the advantage of allowing the network device control over which specific allocated carriers are currently activated for transmission and reception and which specific allocated carriers are currently deactivated for transmission and reception. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, when presented with the work of Wu, to combine activating and deactivating carriers by using a PDCCH order, as taught by Wu, with the system and method of Jung et al., with the motivation being to allow the network device control over which specific allocated carriers are currently activated for transmission and reception and which specific allocated carriers are currently deactivated for transmission and reception.
With respect to claims 21 and 31, Jung et al. discloses wherein the processor being configured to switch to using the second subset of contiguously indexed RBs to transmit or receive information in the serving cell comprises the processor being configured to deactivate the first subset of contiguously indexed RBs for the serving cell (See page 3 paragraph 45, pages 6-7 paragraphs 90-91, Figures 1 and 4, and Table 5 of Jung et al. for reference to the Traffic Indicator message indicating a number of different carriers as well as whether the carriers are to be activated or deactivated, such that the message may both be an indication to activate a carrier RF 3 and deactivate a carrier RF 2 for transmitting or receiving).
With respect to claims 22 and 32, Jung et al. discloses wherein the carrier is an uplink carrier or a downlink carrier (See paragraph 46 of Jung et al. for reference to the carriers being uplink or downlink carriers).
With respect to claims 23 and 33, as shown above in the rejection of claims 21 and 31, Fwu et al. renders obvious wherein the configuration information indicates respective frequency domain locations of the first subset of contiguously indexed RBs and the second subset of contiguously indexed RBs (See paragraph 18, paragraphs 24-26, and Figure 6 of Fwu et al. for reference to allocating resources for use by a UE, wherein the resources include contiguously indexed RBs of the same carrier, which is indicated via a frequency allocation). Thus these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 21 and 31.
With respect to claims 25 and 35, as shown above in the rejection of claims 21 and 31, Fwu et al. renders obvious wherein the first subset of contiguously indexed RBs corresponds to a first carrier segment and wherein the second subset of contiguously indexed RBs corresponds to a second carrier segment (See paragraphs 24-26, and Figure 6 of Fwu et al. for reference to allocating resources for use by a UE, wherein the resources include contiguously indexed RBs of the same carrier, wherein the resources correspond to first and second carrier segments). Thus these claims are rendered obvious for the same reasons as applied above to claims 21 and 31.
Claims 24 and 34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Fwu et al. and Wu, and in further view of Damnjanovic et al. (U.S. Publication US 2012/0014330 A1).
With respect to claims 24 and 34, Jung et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first subset of contiguously indexed RBs and the second subset of contiguously indexed RBs are associated with respective sub-carrier spacing values. However, Damnjanovic et al., in the field of communications, discloses defining a subcarrier spacing between adjacent subcarriers that may include a base carrier and carrier segments (See paragraph 32, paragraphs 43-45, and Figures 4A-C of Damnjanovic et al.). Associating carriers with respect subcarrier spacing values has the advantage of allowing control over the number of subcarriers that the entire system bandwidth may be divided into. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, when presented with the work of Damnjanovic et al., to combine associating carriers with respect subcarrier spacing values, as taught by Damnjanovic et al., with the system and method of Jung et al., with the motivation being to allow control over the number of subcarriers that the entire system bandwidth may be divided into.
Claims 26-29 and 36-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jung et al. in view of Fwu et al. and Wu, and in further view of Fong et al. (U.S. Publication US 2011/0170496 A1).
With respect to claims 26 and 36, although both Fwu et al. and Wu render obvious the use of a PDCCH transmission, they do not specifically disclose wherein the PDCCH transmission includes downlink control information (DCI) associated with a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI).
With respect to claims 27 and 37, although both Fwu et al. and Wu render obvious the use of a PDCCH transmission, they do not specifically disclose wherein the PDCCH transmission further indicates a starting symbol, relative to the beginning of a slot, of a downlink shared channel transmission.
With respect to claims 28 and 38, Jung et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the configuration information sent to the WTRU indicates a value of the starting symbol.
With respect to claims 29 and 39, although both Fwu et al. and Wu render obvious the use of a PDCCH transmission, they do not specifically disclose wherein the PDCCH transmission further indicates schedule information for the downlink shared channel transmission.
With further respect to claims 26-29 and 36-39, Fong et al., in the field of communications, discloses PDCCH including a DCI scrambled by a RNTI value (See paragraph 88 of Fong et al.), wherein the DCI is used to inform UEs of an action starting OFDM symbol within a slot for a scheduled PDSCH transmission (See paragraph 95 of Fong et al.). Using a DCI scrambled by an RNTI value has the advantage of allowing devices receiving the DCI to determine whether or not the DCI is intended for them based on the RNTI value. Indicating a starting OFDM symbol of a scheduled PDSCH transmission has the advantage of allowing devices receiving the DCI to determine the exact location where the PDSCH transmission may be received. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, when presented with the work of Fong et al., to combine using a DCI scrambled by an RNTI value, as taught by Fong et al., with the system and method of Jung et al., with the motivation being to allow devices receiving the DCI to determine whether or not the DCI is intended for them based on the RNTI value, and to combine indicating a starting OFDM symbol of a scheduled PDSCH transmission, as taught by Fong et al., with the system and method of Jung et al., with the motivation being to allow devices receiving the DCI to determine the exact location where the PDSCH transmission may be received.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
