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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 use the word “means” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitations are: “means for receiving” and “means for performing” in claim 17.
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.
The steps 206 and 210 of Figure 6 correspond to the claimed functions of receiving independent CCA decisions and scheduling UEs, recited in claim 17. Paragraphs [0054]-[0056] of the specification, as filed, disclose the operation of the processing system illustrated in Figure 6 and, in particular, the baseband processing unit 30 of the processing system 26 to perform scheduling based on forecasted probabilities of successful reception. Furthermore, Fig. 10 and paragraphs [0070]-[0071] disclose that the baseband processing unit 30 of the processing system 26 includes one or more processors 34 (e.g., CPU(s), ASIC(s), FPGA(s), and/or the like), memory 36, and a network interface 38 (e.g., fiber optic or other wired or wireless interface to the RX/TX processing unit 28). Therefore, the corresponding structure of “means for receiving” and “means for performing” in claim 17 can be found in at least paragraphs [0070]-[0071] of the specification, as filed.
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.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0366997 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Kim discloses, teaches, or suggests:
regarding claims 1, 12, and 17, a method of operation of a processing system to schedule downlink transmissions to wireless devices in a shared cell in an unlicensed frequency band, the shared cell being served by a plurality of Reception/Transmission, R/T, points (see at least paragraphs 47 and 51-53, in an unlicensed frequency band, a central unit informs all transmission points (TPs) of information on data to be transmitted and scheduling information), the method and the processing system comprising:
at least one processor (see at least Fig. 13 and paragraph 129-131, processor 11); and
memory containing instructions executable by the at least one processor whereby the processing system is operable to (see at least Fig. 13 and paragraph 129-131, memory 12):
receive independent Clear Channel Assessment, CCA, decisions from the plurality of R/T points serving the shared cell, each CCA decision from each R/T point being indicative of whether a CCA succeeded or failed at the R/T point (see at least paragraphs 47 and 51-53, the central unit collects a CCA result from a plurality of TPs, where the TPs belonging to a CoMP cluster use the same physical cell ID corresponding to a shared cell, where a CCA is checked to determine that a different node does not transmit a signal); and
perform scheduling for one or more upcoming Transmit Time Intervals, TTIs, based on the CCA decisions received from the plurality of R/T points serving the shared cell (see at least paragraph 52, the central unit collects a CCA results from TPs at a subframe boundary and selects a TP of which a channel is idle and CSI is good from the plurality of TPs to trigger transmission, where the selected TP performs CCA at a subframe boundary (i.e., one or more upcoming TTIs) to check whether or not a channel is idle and transmits data if it is determined that the channel is idle).
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0103782 (hereinafter “Xu”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all of the subject matter of the invention of claim 1 as described above but Kim does not explicitly disclose determining whether a same R/T point of the plurality of R/T points has failed CCA for a predetermined amount of time; and upon determining that the same R/T point of the plurality of R/T points has failed CCA for the predetermined amount of time, triggering channel reselection.
However, in an analogous art, Xu discloses, teaches, or suggests determining whether a same R/T point of the plurality of R/T points has failed CCA for a predetermined amount of time; and upon determining that the same R/T point of the plurality of R/T points has failed CCA for the predetermined amount of time, triggering channel reselection (see at least paragraphs 130-132, Operator B is not able to clear CCA during CCA opportunities and forcing one of the operators to switch channels to alleviate CCA blocking).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the channel switching technique as taught by Xu in to the invention of Kim in order to alleviate CCA blocking to allow the operator to clear CCA for channel access.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0256306 (hereinafter “Kim_306”).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses all of the subject matter of the invention of claim 1 as described above but Kim does not explicitly disclose receiving received signal strength measurements from the plurality of R/T points for a plurality of channels; and performing channel selection for the shared cell based on the received signal strength measurements.
However, in an analogous art, Kim_306 discloses, teaches, or suggests receiving received signal strength measurements from the plurality of R/T points for a plurality of channels; and performing channel selection for the shared cell based on the received signal strength measurements (see at least paragraphs 126-138, the scheduler receives information including RSRP and RSRQ from each TP, where the scheduler determines TPs and UEs that will be served by the TPs based on the information received from each TP, where the TPs and the UEs that will be served by the TPs utilize at least one channel for CoMP operation).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Kim_306 in to the invention of Kim in order to efficiently support CoMP operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11, and 13-16 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0174217 (Salem et al.) discloses transmission point grouping based on channel sensing results in the unlicensed spectrum band (see at least Fig. 18 and paragraphs 211-219).
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0050684 (Ni) discloses a controller configured to simultaneously generate scheduling schemes for a plurality of access points controlled by the controller (see at least paragraphs 245-268).
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0133177 (Garnett et al.) discloses a computing device configured to collect channel sensing results from multiple sensing devices in a region to determine whether each radio channel is being used (see at least Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and paragraphs 15-21).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 10/07/2026
Prosecution Insights