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
`
`15/754,276
`
`02/21/2018
`
`Alexander Golitschek Edler von Elbwart
`
`736456.460USPC
`
`5217
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasomc (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`CROMPTON' CHRISTOPHER R
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2463
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/02/2019
`
`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 .Com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`0/7709 A0170” Summary
`
`Application No.
`15/754,276
`Examiner
`CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON
`
`Applicant(s)
`Golitschek Edler von Elbwart e
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2463
`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.
`If 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 2/21/2018.
`[: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—15 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 2/21/18 is/are: a). accepted or b)[:j 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 20190302
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice ofPre-AIA 0r 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.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 102
`
`2.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC.
`
`102 and 103 (or as subject to pre—AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
`
`statutory basis 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.
`
`3.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC. 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.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1—5 and 7—15 are rejected under 35 USC. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by
`
`Yerramalli et al (US 2015/0023315) [hereafter R1].
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 1 is a method claim. The claim comprises a contingent limitation (i.e. “if
`
`the predetermined resources are detected to be available for transmission, transmission data in
`
`the predetermined resources and transmitting a transmission confirmation indication that the data
`
`has been transmitted”). Since this step is not require to be performed, the step is not considered
`
`to be limiting on the claim, but rather an optional limitation. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal
`
`2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 3
`
`For claim 1, R1 discloses receiving an uplink grant for transmitting data on predetermined
`
`resources of an uplink carrier (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85, 92-95, 100—103, 109-111,
`
`120—131 receive time periods when uplink resources are allowed to be transmitted by the UE);
`
`detecting by carrier sensing whether or not the predetermined resources are available for
`
`transmission (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85, 92—95, 100—103, 109—111, 120—131 perform
`
`a detection for resource availability by the UE); if the predetermined resources are detected to be
`
`available for transmission, transmitting data in the predetermined resources (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B,
`
`9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80-85, 92-95, 100—103, 109—111, 120—131 transmitting if the detection indicates the
`
`channel is available) and transmitting a transmission confirmation indication indicating that the
`
`data has been transmitted (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85, 92—95, 100-103, 109—111, 120—
`
`131 transmitting a waveform or message to the BS in addition to any previous data transmitted).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 2 in a method claim. The claim comprises a contingent limitation (i.e. “if
`
`the predetermined resources are detected not to be available”). Since this step is not require to be
`
`performed, the step is not considered to be limiting on the claim, but rather an optional
`
`limitation. Since as cited in claim 1, R1 discloses the other optional limitation of “if the
`
`predetermined resources are detected to be available. . .”, the claim limitation is met by the
`
`previous citation. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016)
`
`(precedential).
`
`For claim 2, R1 discloses if the predetermined resources are detected not to be available, not
`
`transmitting the data in the predetermined resources and transmitting the transmission
`
`confirmation indication indicating that the data has not been transmitted (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B,
`
`‘JI 70—72, 80—85, 92—95, 100—103, 109-111, 120-131).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 4
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 3 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if’ limitation) and therefore
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 3, R1 discloses wherein the transmission confirmation indication is transmitted:
`
`multiplexed within a physical resource block in adjacency of demodulation reference signal,
`
`wherein the physical resource block is a time—frequency resource consisting of a predetermined
`
`number of sub—carriers and time symbols (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80-85, 92-95, 100—
`
`103, 109—111, 120—131 waveforms are transmitted contiguous directly after receiving the
`
`received signal with the uplink grant) .
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 4 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if’ limitation) and therefore
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 4, R1 discloses the transmission confirmation indication is multiplexed within the
`
`physical resource block into one or more consecutive subcarriers in the proximity of the
`
`demodulation reference signal; and the physical resource block is a resource of a physical uplink
`
`shared channel (Fig 19-21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘11 70-72, 80-85, 92-95, 100-103, 109—111, 120—131
`
`waveforms are transmitted contiguous directly after receiving the received signal with the uplink
`
`grant).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 5 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if’ limitation) and therefore
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 5
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 5, R1 discloses the transmission confirmation indication is transmitted on a physical
`
`uplink control channel resource (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80-85, 92—95, 100-103, 109—
`
`111, 120—131 the transmitted waveform is on a physical uplink channel and is for downlink
`
`channel control configuration).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 7 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if" limitation) and therefore
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 7, R1 discloses the transmission confirmation indication is transmitted on a physical
`
`uplink control channel resource of a carrier for which carrier sensing is not performed (Fig 19—
`
`21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘11 70-72,80-85,92-95,100-103,109-111,120-131).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 8 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if" limitation) and therefore
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 8, R1 discloses the transmission confirmation indication indicates one of the following
`
`states: —the uplink grant has been received and the data transmission has been executed; —no
`
`uplink grant has been detected; —the uplink grant has been received, but no transmission of data
`
`has been executed (Fig 19-21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘11 70-72, 80-85, 92-95, 100-103, 109—111, 120—131).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 9 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if" limitation) and therefore
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 6
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 9, R1 discloses the confirmation indication indicates status of the current uplink hybrid
`
`automatic repeat request, HARQ, process if the confirmation indication indicates that the data
`
`has been transmitted; and the status indicates whether or not a preceding transmission of the data
`
`was successful (Fig 19-21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘11 70-72, 80-85, 92-95, 100-103, 109—111, 120—131).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 10 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if" limitation) and therefore
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 10, R1 discloses the confirmation indication is coded using forward error correction
`
`coding (Fig 19-21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘11 70-72, 80-85, 92-95, 100-103, 109—111, 120—131).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 11 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if" limitation) and therefore
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 11, R1 discloses the confirmation indication is bundled with acknowledgement
`
`feedback information regarding a downlink transmission, the bundled confirmation indication
`
`and the acknowledgement feedback is transmitted on a predetermined resource (Fig 19—21, 6B,
`
`7B, 9B, ‘11 70—72, 80—85, 92-95, 100-103, 109-111, 120-131).
`
`Examiner Note: Claim 12 is directed to only contingent limitations of method claim 1 (i.e. the
`
`transmission confirmation indication, which was part of an optional “if" limitation) and therefore
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 7
`
`the limitations are not given weight since the limitations are only optional limitations. See Ex
`
`parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013—007847(PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential).
`
`For claim 12, R1 discloses the transmission confirmation indication further suggests either that
`
`the data transmitted is to be combined with buffered data from previous transmissions or that the
`
`data transmitted is to replace the content of the buffer (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85,
`
`92—95, 100—103, 109-111, 120-131).
`
`For claims 13—15, R1 discloses reception unit for receiving an uplink grant for transmitting data
`
`on predetermined resources of an uplink carrier (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80-85, 92-95,
`
`100—103, 109—111, 120—131 receive time periods when uplink resources are allowed to be
`
`transmitted by the UE); carrier sensing unit for detecting by carrier sensing whether or not the
`
`predetermined resources are available for transmission (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85,
`
`92-95, 100—103, 109—111, 120—131 perform a detection for resource availability by the UE); if the
`
`predetermined resources are detected to be available for transmission, transmitting data in the
`
`predetermined resources (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85, 92—95, 100-103, 109—111, 120—
`
`131 transmitting if the detection indicates the channel is available) and transmitting unit for, if
`
`the predetermined resources are detected to be available for transmission, transmitting data in the
`
`predetermined resources and transmitting a transmission confirmation indication indicating that
`
`the data has been transmitted (Fig 19—21, 6B, 7B, 9B, ‘JI 70—72, 80—85, 92-95, 100—103, 109-111,
`
`120—131 transmitting a waveform or message to the BS in addition to any previous data
`
`transmitted) .
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 US C § 103
`
`1.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC.
`
`102 and 103 (or as subject to pre—AIA 35 USC. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 8
`
`statutory basis 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.
`
`2.
`
`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.
`
`3.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere C0., 383 U.S. l, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied 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.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 in view of Chen
`
`et al (US 2015/0103715).
`
`For claim 6, R1 does not explicitly state the transmission confirmation indication is configured
`
`semi—statically by radio resource control protocol signaling.
`
`However, Chen, from the same area of the art, discloses the control information to UE sent from
`
`the eNB is configured in a semi—static fashion by means of RRC protocol (paragraph 201).
`
`Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective
`
`filing date of the invention to modify R1 to use the teachings of Chen for control information
`
`configuration, which includes the transmission confirmation indication configuration, in a semi—
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 9
`
`static fashion through RRC protocol signaling. The rationale to combine would be to use a
`
`known technique in a similar device, to allow more dynamic configuration of information and
`
`settings increasing efficiency, and design choice.
`
`Conclusion
`
`5.
`
`The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
`
`disclosure. Van Phan et al (US 2016/0345381); Oishi et al (US 2006/0007952).
`
`6.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270—3678. The examiner can normally be reached on lOAM—4PM ET M—Th.
`
`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, Mark Rinehart can be reached on 5712723632. 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 15/754,276
`Art Unit: 2463
`
`Page 10
`
`like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated
`
`information system, call 800—786—9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571—272—1000.
`
`/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
`
`