DETAILED ACTION
Claims 28-47 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-28 are original claims to patent US 11,711,177 to Goktepe et al. (herein Goktepe ‘177) and claims 29-47 are newly added claims. NOTE: claim 28 was an original claim, but is mislabeled as a new claim in the amendment of 07/23/2025.
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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,711,177 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2025 is considered by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, MPEP 609, and MPEP 1406, to the fullest extent of the items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined through and not considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 28-47 are objected to because of the following informalities in the amendment of 07/23/2025: (1) the amendment does not make changes relative to the patent as required by CFR 1.173(g); and (2) the amendment does not preserve the claim numbering of the patent as required by CFR 1.173(e). The original claims of the patent run through claim 28. Therefore, the new claims should start at claim 29. Appropriate correction is required. For the purposes of this Office Action, all original claims are evaluated as being cancelled, and for simplicity the new claims will be referred to as claims 28-47 (although it is assumed the next amendment will correct the new claims to start at claim 29).
Specification Objections
The amended specification filed with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1)(i)) because of the following: (1) “The precise point in the specification where any added or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified”. A better description of the amendment location would be to instruct the replacing of the first paragraph of page 1 with the new paragraph.
Oath/Declaration Objections
The reissue oath/declaration filed 08/25/2025 for this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) and objected to because it fails: (1) to specifically identify at least one error under 35 USC 251 (37 CFR 1.175(a)); (2) to identify the broadened claims (37 CFR 1.175(b)); and (3) to be signed by all the inventors when the claim scope is enlarged (37 CFR 1.175(c)). First, the error identified is generic and does not identify specific claim language wherein the error is found (for example, assuming claim numbering is corrected, a possible correction would be to indicate a limitation that is changed in new independent claim 29 as compared to original claim 1). Second, no broadened claim is specifically identified (for example, a simple statement that claim 29 is broadened). Third, a declaration by the assignee broadening the claim language is possible under certain circumstances, however the filed declaration does not indicate the original patent was filed under 37 CFR 1.46 (review of the record indicates it is appropriate to check this box, and thus overcome the objection to lack of inventor signatures).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Issue 1
Claims 28-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 28 is unclear for having the appearance of additional claim elements, which ultimately do not particularly and distinctly define the claimed subject matter. Independent claim 28 recites, “a receiver” followed by a series of “wherein” clauses: “wherein the receiver is configured to receive …”; “wherein the receiver is configured to detect …”; “wherein the receiver is configured to detect …”; and “wherein the receiver is configured to determine …”. None of the “wherein the receiver is configured to …” claim elements impart any meaningful limitation beyond a “configurable receiver” and amount to merely claiming what an apparatus “does”, and not what it “is” (see MPEP 2114 II.). The dependent claims 29-46 suffer from the same underlying defect.
As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims 28-46 is a “configurable receiver”.
Issue 2
Claims 32, 39-42, and 44-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 32 and 39 use an unclear formatting of a list of options. It is not clear how to render an English sentence with the word “comprises” (immediately followed by no punctuation), followed by three options starting with ‘-’. Correction would be to write “… the redundant control message comprises:” followed by three options with out the ‘-’. Claim 40 does not correct claim 39 on which it depends.
Claim 41 uses an unclear formatting of a list of options. It is not clear to start the list of options at the word “message” (in line 4 of the 07/23/2025 amendment) without the use a colon, “:”, immediately following the word “message”. Claim 42 does not correct claim 41 on which it depends.
Claims 44 and 45 use the phrase "like" rendering the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For example, claim 44 recites “like a base station” and claim 45 recites “like a user equipment”.
Claim 46 recites the limitation "the PDCCH or the PSCCHH". There is insufficient antecedent basis for either of these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 28-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because independent claim 28 is not clearly either an apparatus or method claim. Independent claim 28 appears to recite an apparatus/machine/manufacture (the claimed “receiver”), but all other limitations of the claim (and the corresponding dependent claims) are to a series of functional steps/processes.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251
Claims 28-47 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action (see Oath/Declaration Objections): (1) to specifically identify at least one error under 35 USC 251 (37 CFR 1.175(a)); (2) to identify the broadened claims (37 CFR 1.175(b)); and (3) to be signed by all the inventors when the claim scope is enlarged (37 CFR 1.175(c)).
Claims 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being improperly broadened in a reissue application made and sworn to by the assignee. The application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest only if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or, for reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest under 37 CFR 1.46.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251 – Recapture
Claims 28-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Wadlinger, 496 F.2d 1200, 181 USPQ 826 (CCPA 1974); In re Richman, 409 F.2d 269, 276, 161 USPQ 359, 363-364 (CCPA 1969); In re Willingham, 282 F.2d 353, 127 USPQ 211 (CCPA 1960). The question as to whether a reissue patent violates the rule against recapture of subject matter surrendered during original prosecution is a question of law. Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d at 1358, 98 USPQ2d at 1642. See MPEP 1412.02.
Claims directed toward separate inventions/embodiments/species that were disclosed but never covered by the original prosecution claims may be to overlooked aspects. Claims to overlooked aspects are not subject to recapture because the claims are, by definition, unrelated to subject matter that was surrendered during the prosecution of the original application (see MPEP 1412.01 II. and MPEP 1402.02).
The following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02 II.):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
A broadening aspect is present in the reissue which was not present in the application for patent. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Step 1 – “Is There Broadening?” (MPEP 1412.02 II.A):
Yes, the instant reissue application of patent 11,711,177 (Goktepe ‘177), by way of the preliminary amendment of 07/23/2025, does have broadening:
Patent Owner seeks to broaden independent claim 28 by deleting/omitting the limitations:
“A receiver
“control message for one
“
“
“
“when the control message and the redundant control message are in the common control region of the radio signal, the certain location is indicated by an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to the detected control message in the common control region, or relative to a border of the common control region, and” (entirely omitted)
“when the control message is in the first control region of the radio signal and the redundant control message is in the second control region of the radio signal, the certain location is indicated by an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to a border of the second control region” (entirely omitted)
Patent Owner seeks to broaden independent claim 47 in a similar manner as stated for claim 1 (see patented claim 23).
Step 2 – “Does Any Broadening Aspect of the Reissue Claim Relate to Surrendered Subject Matter?” (MPEP 1412.02 II.B):
Yes, the broadening relates to surrendered subject matter. Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by amendment to define over the art, OR reliance on an argument/statement made by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the amendment and/or argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. The record of the prior proceedings from which this reissue application claims priority indicate:
During the prosecution of application 16/992,944 that would result in patent 11,711,177 (Goktepe ‘177):
The amendment of 02/14/2023 added, (1) “when the control message and the redundant control message are in the common control region of the radio signal, the certain location is indicated by an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to the detected control message in the common control region, or relative to a border of the common control region”, and (2) “when the control message is in the first control region of the radio signal and the redundant control message is in the second control region of the radio signal, the certain location is indicated by an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to a border of the second control region” (the last two claim limitations), to independent claim 1 in order to overcome the cited prior art 2013/0294547 to Lane et al. Similar language was added to the other independent claims.
The accompanying remarks of 02/14/2023 (see pages 19-20) argued the independent claims are now allowable for being amended to include the limitations of at least claim 6 (previously indicated as allowable by the Office Action of 10/14/2022). The above added limitations correspond to the limitations of claim 6.
The other amendments to claim 1 of 02/14/2023 appear to be primarily directed toward addressing the 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 rejections (by adding structural elements) and/or antecedent language necessary for adding the two limitations described at 2.1.a.
Therefore, (1) “when the control message and the redundant control message are in the common control region of the radio signal, the certain location is indicated by an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to the detected control message in the common control region, or relative to a border of the common control region”, and (2) “when the control message is in the first control region of the radio signal and the redundant control message is in the second control region of the radio signal, the certain location is indicated by an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to a border of the second control region”, are surrendered subject matter; and at least some of the broadening of the reissue claims (see Step 1) is in the area of the surrendered subject matter.
Step 3 – “Are the Reissue Claims Materially Narrowed in Other Respects, and Hence Avoid the Recapture Rule?” (MPEP 1412.02 II.C):
No, the reissue claims are not materially narrowed in other respects related to the surrendered subject matter. It is noted that if surrendered subject matter has been entirely eliminated from a claim present in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim. Stated another way, if a claim limitation present in the original patent that was added to overcome a rejection or that was argued by applicant to distinguish over the prior art is entirely eliminated from a claim in the reissue application, then a recapture rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 is proper and must be made for that claim. In the decision of In re Mostafazadeh, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit stated that to avoid the recapture rule "the claims must be materially narrowed relative to the surrendered subject matter such that the surrendered subject matter is not entirely or substantially recaptured." Id. at 1361, 98 USPQ2d at 1644.
Therefore, improper recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application is clearly present in the instant reissue application.
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)(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) 28-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0294547 A1 to Lane et al. (herein Lane ‘547).
Claims 28-46
As an initial matter, claims 28-46 merely claim a “configurable receiver” (see above discussion under 35 USC 112). Lane ‘547 discloses a “configurable receiver” (Lane ‘547: figure 7; [0063]-[0065]).
Claim 28
Lane ‘547 discloses a receiver (Lane ‘547: figure 1, elements 120; [0012]; figure 7, element 730, receiver of a UE),
wherein the receiver is configured to receive a radio signal from a transmitter of a wireless communication system serving a plurality of receivers (Lane ‘547: figure 1, base station transmitting to plurality of UEs; [0021]-[0023]), the radio signal comprising for the plurality of receivers served by the transmitter a plurality of control messages (Lane ‘547: [0023], in general all the “control messages”, “DCI”) and a redundant control message for at least one of the control messages (Lane ‘547: [0010], same message detected; [0057]-[0059], duplicate DCIs, aliases),
wherein the receiver is configured to detect a control message from the radio signal (Lane ‘547: [0011], identify messages; [0026], UE control information can be in both targeted CCEs and common CCEs; [0027], multiple CCEs aggregated to form control messages; [0028], the aggregated CCEs form search spaces, having control messages for a particular UE),
wherein the receiver is configured to detect, responsive to detecting the control message, a signal from another location in the radio signal (Lane ‘547: [0030], 22 candidate locations for control messages, at least one having the claimed detected “control message” and at least one being the claimed “signal from another location”), and
wherein the receiver is configured to determine the detected control message as a specific control message for the receiver based on the signal detected from the other location (Lane ‘547: [0048]-[0054], comparing differing candidates, at least one having the claimed detected “control message” and at least one being the claimed “signal from another location”).
Claim 29
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 28, wherein, to determine the detected control message as the specific control message, the receiver is configured to combine or correlate the detected control message and the signal detected from the other location (Lane ‘547: [0048]-[0054], comparing/correlating differing candidates, at least one having the claimed detected “control message” and at least one being the claimed “signal from another location”; [0053] strongest candidate chosen).
Claim 30
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 29, wherein the receiver is configured to
determine that the detected control message is the specific control message in case the combination of the detected control message and the signal detected from the other location has a signal quality higher than or equal to a signal quality of the detected control message and/or yields a decodable message (Lane ‘547: [0047]-[0054], “QM”), and
determine that the detected control message is not the specific control message in case the combination of the detected control message and the signal detected from the other location has a signal quality less than a signal quality of the detected control message and/or yields a non-decodable message (Lane ‘547: [0047]-[0054], “QM”).
Claim 31
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 29, wherein the receiver is configured to
determine that the detected control message is the specific control message in case the correlation of the detected control message and the signal detected from the other location yields a value equal to or exceeding a predefined threshold (Lane ‘547: [0047]-[0054], “threshold”) and
determine that the detected control message is not the specific control message in case the correlation of the detected control message and the signal detected from the other location yields a value below the predefined threshold (Lane ‘547: [0047]-[0054], “threshold”).
Claim 32
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 28, wherein the redundant control message comprises
a certain redundancy version of the control message to provide for an incremental redundancy, or
an error correction code for the control message, or
a duplicate of the control message (Lane ‘547: [0010], same message detected; [0057]-[0059], duplicate DCIs, aliases).
Claim 36
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 28, wherein the receiver is preconfigured with the other location, or wherein the other location is indicated in the control message (Lane ‘547: [0028], “As they need to be received by all the UEs, the CCEs in the common search spaces are defined to be in fixed position at the beginning of the CCE space …”).
Claim 37
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 36, wherein the control message explicitly indicates the other location or comprises a reference to one of a plurality of preconfigured locations (Lane ‘547: [0033], “… one message type may be used to indicate that data needs to be retrieved in the data region of the subframe …”).
Claim 38
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 28, wherein
the radio signal comprises at least one further redundant control message for a control message (Lane ‘547: [0010], “… it is possible for the same control information message to be detected by the UE in multiple search spaces …”), and
the receiver is configured to detect from at least one further location in the radio a further signal, and to determine the detected control message as the specific control message for the receiver based on the signal detected from the other location and/or the further signal detected from the at least one further location (Lane ‘547: [0010]; [0030], [0048]-[0054], comparing more 3 or more candidates).
Claim 39
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 38, wherein the further redundant control message comprises
a certain redundancy version of the control message to provide for an incremental redundancy, or
an error correction code for the control message, or
a duplicate of the control message (Lane ‘547: [0010], same message detected).
Claim 43
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 38, wherein the receiver is configured to detect
one or more further signals from one or more of the further locations in the radio signal until the detected control message is determined to be the specific control message (Lane ‘547: figures 4-5; [0030], [0048]-[0054]), or until a predefined number of detection attempts is reached, or after a predefined timer has expired, or
the signal from the other location and the further signal from the at least one further
location in the radio signal sequentially or in parallel (Lane ‘547: figures 4-5).
Claim 44
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 28, wherein
the radio signal is part of a downlink, DL, communication from a transmitter, like a base station, to the receiver (Lane ‘547: figure 1; [0023]),
the control message comprises a DCI message (Lane ‘547: [0023]),
the radio signal comprises a downlink frame (Lane ‘547: figure 2A; [0023]-[0027], frame from base station to mobile stations, is a downlink frame),
the downlink frame comprises at least one physical downlink control channel, PDCCH, region as the control region, the PDCCH region comprising a plurality of PDCCHs, each carrying a DCI message or a redundant DCI message (Lane ‘547: figures 2A-3; [0023], [0029]), and
the receiver is configured to detect a control message from the radio signal and from the signal at the other location using a blind detection based on the control message's CRC and the receiver's RNTI (Lane ‘547: figures 4-5; [0031]; [0042]-[0047]).
Claim 46
Lane ‘547 discloses the receiver of claim 28, wherein the control message is located in the PDCCH or the PSCCHH comprises one or more control-channel elements (Lane ‘547: figure 3; [0030]), CCEs within a control-resource set, CORESET.
Claim 47
The limitations of claim 47 correspond to the limitations of claim 1 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
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.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0294547 A1 to Lane et al. (herein Lane ‘547) in view of US 2009/0207781 A1 to Sidi et al. (herein Sidi ‘781).
Claim 40
Lane ‘547 does not explicitly state the receiver of claim 39, wherein the redundant control message comprises a first redundancy version of the control message, and wherein respective further redundant control messages comprise respective further redundancy versions. Sidi ‘781 demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use redundancy versions for control information in downlink transmissions and retransmissions (Sidi ‘781: [0014]-[0016]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the control messages of Lane ‘547 with a first redundancy version for a control message and further redundancy version for other control messages as suggested by the teachings of Sidi ‘781. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: redundancy versions increase the likelihood that the UE will be able to blind decode successfully; the implementation of is an application of a known element and technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; and both Lane ‘547 and Sidi ‘781 are directed to downlink wireless transmission in 3GPP (Lane ‘547: [0002]-[0003]) (Sidi ‘781: [0001]-[0004]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the limitations of claims 33, 41, or 45 (if the other outstanding issues noted above are addressed). For example, the cited prior art does not show the combined limitations of claim 33: wherein in case the control message and the redundant control message are in a common control region of the radio signal, the other location indicates an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to the detected control message in the common control region, or relative to a border of the common control region, and in case the control message is in a first control region of the radio signal and the redundant control message is in a second control region of the radio signal, the other location indicates an offset in time and/or frequency and/or spatial domain relative to a border of the second control region. Further, the cited prior art does not show the combined limitations of claim 41: wherein in the control region of the radio signal, the redundant control message and the at least one further redundant control message are offset relative to the specific control message in time so as to define a comb structure, or in frequency so as to define a n-offset structure, n being the number of redundant control messages in the radio signal, or in time and frequency so as to define a tree structure, or based on a signal quality of a signal at a child node of the tree structure, the receiver is configured to follow a decoding path in the tree with the highest key performance indicator, KPI, thereby needing only log k decoding attempts for k redundancy versions. Further, the cited prior art does not show the combined limitations of claim 45: wherein the radio signal is part of a sidelink, SL, communication from a transmitter, like a user equipment, to the receiver, the control message comprises a SCI message, the radio signal comprises sidelink frame, the downlink frame comprises at least one physical sidelink control channel, PSCCH, region as the control region, the PSCCH region comprising a plurality of PSCCHs, each carrying a SCI message or a redundant SCI message, and the receiver is configured to detect a control message from the radio signal and from the signal at the other location using a blind detection based on the control message's CRC and the receiver's RNTI.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992