UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 2231371450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`15/653,148
`
`07/18/2017
`
`TETSUYA YAMAMOTO
`
`731456.443C1
`
`8108
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`CHOWDHURY' HARUN UR R
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2473
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/06/2019
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`
`following e—mail address(es):
`US PTOeACtion @ SeedIP .Com
`
`pairlinkdktg @ seedip .eom
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0,7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/653,148
`Examiner
`HARUN U CHOWDHURY
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAMAMOTO et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2473
`Yes
`
`- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet wit/7 the correspondence address -
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing
`date of this communication.
`|f NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1). Responsive to communication(s) filed on 07/18/2017.
`[:1 A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2a)D This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)
`
`This action is non-final.
`
`3)[:] An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)[:] Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Expat/7e Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5)
`Claim(s)
`
`1—10 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`E] Claim(s)
`
`is/are allowed.
`
`Claim(s) fl is/are rejected.
`
`[:1 Claim(s) _ is/are objected to.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`6 7
`
`8
`
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement
`[j Claim(s)
`9
`* If any claims have been determined aflowabie. you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPeredback@uspto.gov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)[:] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11). The drawing(s) filed on 07/18/2017 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:] objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12). Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a). All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`C)D None of the:
`
`1.. Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.[:] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`
`3:] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date_
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) C] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) CI Other-
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20190228
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Priority
`
`2.
`
`Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C.
`
`119 (a)-(d).
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`(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.
`
`4.
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 3
`
`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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 4
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the
`
`word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a
`
`generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting
`
`sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is
`
`not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: repeater,
`
`controller in claim 1, and controller, combiner in claim 8.
`
`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.
`
`lf 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 5
`
`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 |imitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
`
`or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1 12
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the
`
`applicant regards as the invention.
`
`Claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph because it recites generic placeholders (a repeater, a controller)
`
`performing functions (generating repetition signals, setting timing for transmitting
`
`repetition signals) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function.
`
`Claimed repeater and controller are generic placeholders that do not
`
`specify any structure. Specification discloses that a repetition unit performs the
`
`function of the claimed repeater (Fig. 7) and a control unit performs the function
`
`of the claimed controller (Fig. 7). Unit can be a software unit and specification
`
`does not specify that the repetition unit and the control unit are hardware unit. As
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 6
`
`the specification does not disclose any hardware/structure associated with the
`
`claimed repeater and controller, it is not clear which structure/hardware performs
`
`the functions of the claimed repeater and controller.
`
`Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1 and thereby, rejected for the reasons
`
`discussed above.
`
`Claim 4 recites “the predetermined number” in line 7 and it is not clear
`
`what is meant by the predetermined number? Is it the predetermined number of
`
`subframes? Claim 4 further recites “a first subframe” but it is not clear whether
`
`the first subframe is associated with obtaining the “value” to determine the SRS
`
`transmission period. Is the first subframe included in the SRS transmission
`
`period or excluded from SRS transmission period? Claim 4 further recites, “a first
`
`subframe of a subset constituted by an E sets of the predetermined number of
`
`subframes is a next subframe of the transmission candidate subframe”. Claim
`
`needs to further define “n” because “n” sets can be any number of sets.
`
`Claim 5 recites to perform frequency hopping for (n-1) times? Does “n” in
`
`(n-1) times refer to “n times” or “n sets”? Claim further needs to define (n-1)
`
`times.
`
`Claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph because it recites generic placeholders (a controller, a combiner)
`
`performing functions (setting timing for transmitting repetition signals, combining
`
`repetition signals) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the functions.
`
`Claimed controller and combiner are generic placeholders that do not
`
`specify any structure. Specification discloses that a control unit performs the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 7
`
`function of the claimed controller (Fig. 6) and a combining unit performs the
`
`function of the claimed combiner (Fig. 6). Unit can be a software unit and
`
`specification does not specify that the control unit and the combining unit are
`
`hardware unit. As the specification does not disclose any hardware/structure
`
`associated with the claimed controller and combiner, it is not clear which
`
`structure/hardware performs the functions of the claimed controller and
`
`combiner.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`Papasakellariou (US 20160286555 A1, hereinafter referred to as Papasakellariou).
`
`Re claim 1, Papasakellariou teaches a terminal (UE 114) (Fig. 1-2,
`
`Abstract) comprising:
`
`(i) a repeater (UE 114) that generates repetition signals by repeating uplink
`
`signals (repeating RA preamble/PUSCH/PUCCH) over a plurality of subframes
`
`(Fig. 1-2, Fig. 16, Par 0094-0097, Par 0153-0158, Par 0162, Par 0165);
`
`(ii) a controller that sets a timing for transmitting the repetition signals (subframes
`
`selected for transmitting RA preamble/PUSCH/PUCCH repeatedly), based on
`
`information indicating a transmission candidate subframe for a sounding
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 8
`
`reference signal (avoiding subframes associated with SRS transmission) used for
`
`measuring an uplink reception quality (Fig. 1-2, Fig. 16-17, Par 0065, Par 0094-
`
`0097, Par 0153-0158, Par 0162, Par 0165, Par 0169); and
`
`(iii) a transmitter that transmits the repetition signals at the set timing (Fig. 16-17,
`
`Par 0094-0097, Par 0153-0158, Par 0162, Par 0165, Par 0169).
`
`Claim 9 recites a method performing the steps recited in claim 1 above
`
`and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`10.
`
`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.
`
`11.
`
`Claims 2, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Papasakellariou as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sivanesan et al (US
`
`20180109346 A1 , hereinafter referred to as Sivanesan).
`
`Re claim 2, Papasakellariou teaches that a first subframe (1613, 1615,
`
`Fig. 16) of the predetermined number of subframes (subframes determined for
`
`transmitting repetition signals) is a next subframe of the transmission candidate
`
`subframe (SR8 subframe 1612, 1614, Fig. 16) (Fig. 16, Par 0154-0158).
`
`Papasakellariou does not explicitly disclose that a base station performs
`
`in-phase combining on the repetition signals every predetermined number of
`
`subframes of the plurality of subframes.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 9
`
`Sivanesan teaches that a base station performs in-phase combining on
`
`the repetition signals (IQ combining of the repetition signals) every
`
`predetermined number of subframes of the plurality of subframes (Fig. 5, Fig. 8-
`
`10, Par 0026-0029, Par 0040-0041, Par 0047, Par 0054-0056, Par 0058, Par
`
`0060-0062).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the
`
`filing date of the invention to modify Papasakellariou by including the step that a
`
`base station performs in-phase combining on the repetition signals every
`
`predetermined number of subframes of the plurality of subframes, as taught by
`
`Sivanesan for the purpose of reducing interference in uplink transmission, as
`
`taught by Sivanesan (par 0002, Par 0025-0026).
`
`Re claim 6, Papasakellariou teaches that the predetermined number
`
`(subframes SFO, SF1, SF3, SF5 for UL repetition signals) is larger than or equal
`
`to the transmission period of the sounding reference signal (SR8 transmission
`
`period SF2 to SF4) (Fig. 16, Par 0154-0158), the controller punctures a symbol
`
`that is a candidate to which the sounding reference signal Is to be mapped (last
`
`symbol associated with SRS subframe), the symbol being included in the
`
`transmission candidate subframe of subframes in which the repetition signals are
`
`transmitted (avoiding transmission of repetition signals in last symbol of a
`
`subframe associated with SRS transmission) (Par 0162).
`
`Papasakellariou does not explicitly disclose that a base station performs
`
`in-phase combining on the repetition signals every predetermined number of
`
`subframes of the plurality of subframes.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 10
`
`Sivanesan teaches that a base station performs in-phase combining on
`
`the repetition signals (IQ combining of the repetition signals) every
`
`predetermined number of subframes of the plurality of subframes (Fig. 5, Fig. 8-
`
`10, Par 0026-0029, Par 0040-0041, Par 0047, Par 0054-0056, Par 0058, Par
`
`0060-0062).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the
`
`filing date of the invention to modify Papasakellariou by including the step that a
`
`base station performs in-phase combining on the repetition signals every
`
`predetermined number of subframes of the plurality of subframes, as taught by
`
`Sivanesan for the purpose of reducing interference in uplink transmission, as
`
`taught by Sivanesan (par 0002, Par 0025-0026).
`
`Re claim 7, Papasakellariou teaches that a first subframe (subframe SF3,
`
`SF5) of the predetermined number of subframes (subframes SFO, SF1, SF3, SF5
`
`for UL repetition signals) is a subframe that is next to the transmission candidate
`
`subframe (SRS subframe SF2, SF4) and that is other than the transmission
`
`candidate subframe (Fig. 16, Par 0154-0158).
`
`12.
`
`Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Papasakellariou as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sivanesan et al (US
`
`20180109346 A1 , hereinafter referred to as Sivanesan) and Oh et al (US 20180213484
`
`A1, hereinafter referred to as Oh).
`
`Re claim 3, Papasakellariou teaches that the predetermined number
`
`(consecutive subframes SFO, SF1, Fig. 16) is smaller than a transmission period
`
`of the sounding reference signal (SRS transmission period SF2 to SF4) (Fig. 16,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 11
`
`Par 0154-0158), the predetermined number of subframes are consecutive
`
`subframes (consecutive subframes SFO, SF1, Fig. 16) that are not set in the
`
`transmission candidate subframe (SF2/SF4) (Fig. 16, Par 0154-0158).
`
`Papasakellariou does not explicitly disclose that a base station performs
`
`in-phase combining on the repetition signals every predetermined number of
`
`subframes of the plurality of subframes.
`
`Oh teaches that a base station performs combining on the repetition
`
`signals every predetermined number of subframes (x consecutive subframes) of
`
`the plurality of subframes (Fig. 9, Par 0069, Par 0076-0078, Par 0129, Par 0175-
`
`0179).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the
`
`filing date of the invention to modify Papasakellariou by including the step that a
`
`base station performs combining on the repetition signals every predetermined
`
`number of subframes of the plurality of subframes, as taught by Oh for the
`
`purpose of “preventing deterioration in communication performance due to inter-
`
`UE interference” as taught by Oh (Par 0016).
`
`Sivanesan discloses that a base station performs in-phase combining (l/Q
`
`combining) of uplink repetition signals (Fig. 5, Fig. 8-10, Par 0026-0029, Par
`
`0040-0041, Par 0047, Par 0054-0056, Par 0058, Par 0060-0062).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the
`
`filing date of the invention to modify Papasakellariou by including the step to
`
`perform in-phase combining of uplink repetition signals, as taught by Sivanesan
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 12
`
`for the purpose of reducing interference in uplink transmission, as taught by
`
`Sivanesan (par 0002, Par 0025-0026).
`
`Papasakellariou in view of Oh and Sivanesan discloses that a base station
`
`performs in-phase combining on the repetition signals every predetermined
`
`number of subframes of the plurality of subframes.
`
`13.
`
`Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Papasakellariou (US 20160286555 A1, hereinafter referred to as Papasakellariou) in
`
`view of Sivanesan et al (US 20180220452 A1, hereinafter referred to as Sivanesan
`
`‘452).
`
`Re claim 8, Papasakellariou teaches a base station (eNB 102, Fig. 1, Fig.
`
`3) comprising:
`
`(i) a controller (eNB 102, Fig. 1, Fig. 3) that sets a timing at which a terminal
`
`transmits repetition signals (valid subframes for transmitting uplink repetition
`
`signals) generated by repeating uplink signals over a plurality of subframes
`
`((subframes SFO, SF1, SF3, SF5 for UL repetition signals), based on information
`
`indicating a transmission candidate subframe (SR8 subframes are invalid for
`
`transmitting UL repetition signals) for a sounding reference signal used for
`
`measuring an uplink reception quality (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 16-17, Par 0051-0057,
`
`Par 0065, Par 0094-0097, Par 0153-0158, Par 0162, Par 0165-0169);
`
`(ii) a receiver that receives the repetition signals (RF transceivers receiving
`
`incoming signals) (Fig. 3, Fig. 11, Fig. 16-17, Par 0051-0057, Par 0084, Par
`
`0154-0158, Par 0165-0169);
`
`Papasakellariou does not explicitly disclose
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 13
`
`(iii) a combiner that performs in-phase combining on the repetition signals in the
`
`plurality of subframes, based on the set timing.
`
`Sivanesan ‘452 teaches (iii) a combiner that performs in-phase combining
`
`(IQ combining) on the repetition signals in the plurality of subframes, based on
`
`the set timing (Par 0047-0048, Par 0054-0055, Par 0067-0068, Par 0077-0080,
`
`Par 0117).
`
`It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the
`
`filing date of the invention to modify Papasakellariou by including the step that
`
`(iii) a combiner that performs in-phase combining on the repetition signals in the
`
`plurality of subframes, based on the set timing, as taught by Sivanesan ‘452 for
`
`the purpose of providing an efficient RACH design to “reduce power consumption
`
`of CS—CloT devices”, as taught by Sivanesan ‘452 (Par 0079).
`
`Claim 10 recites a method performing the steps recited in claim 8 above
`
`and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this
`
`Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any
`
`intervening claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 14
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from
`
`the examiner should be directed to HARUN UR R CHOWDHURY whose
`
`telephone number is (571)270-3895. The examiner can normally be reached on
`
`Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
`
`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, Kwang B Yao can be reached on 5712723182. The fax
`
`phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is
`
`assigned is 571-273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from
`
`the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information
`
`for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public
`
`PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through
`
`Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-
`
`direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR
`
`system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-
`
`free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/653,148
`Art Unit: 2473
`
`Page 15
`
`Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
`
`9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/HARUN CHOWDHURY/
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2473
`
`