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
`
`16/156,585
`
`10/10/2018
`
`TETSUYA YAMAMOTO
`
`731456.405C2
`
`1124
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panason1e (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`OH” ANDREW CHUNG SUK
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2466
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`09/18/2019
`
`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.
`16/156,585
`Examiner
`ANDREW 0 OH
`
`Applicant(s)
`YAMAMOTO et al.
`Art Unit
`AIA (FITF) Status
`2466
`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 10/10/2018.
`[: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—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 10/10/2018 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)I:I All
`
`b)D Some**
`
`0). 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 20190910
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 2
`
`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.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the applicant’s submissions of the Information
`
`Disclosure Statements dated 10/10/2018 are acknowledged by the examiner and the
`
`cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
`
`As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of the PTOL-1449 initialed and dated by the
`
`examiner is attached to the instant office action.
`
`The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
`
`Drawings
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`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.
`
`Independent Claims
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Kim (US-20130021982) in view of Ratasuk (US-20110235534), Jen (US-
`
`20120113962).
`
`As to claim 1, 6: Kim teaches a terminal comprising: a receiver which, in
`
`operation, receives information indicating a first subframe at which repetition
`
`transmission of a Scheduling Request (SR) starts (fig.1, [0030]).
`
`Kim may not explicitly teach and a second subframe at which repetition
`
`transmission of an Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) for a
`
`downlink data signal starts; and a transmitter which, in operation, repeatedly transmits
`
`the SR using a defined number of consecutive subframes starting at the first subframe
`
`and the ACK/NACK using at least the defined number of consecutive subframes starting
`
`at the second subframe. However, Ratasuk and a second subframe at which repetition
`
`transmission of an Acknowledgement/Negative Acknowledgement (ACK/NACK) for a
`
`downlink data signal starts ([0019]: ACK/NACK resource assignment); and a
`
`transmitter which, in operation, repeatedly transmits the SR using a defined number of
`
`consecutive subframes starting at the first subframe and the ACK/NACK using at least
`
`the defined number of consecutive subframes starting at the second subframe
`
`and
`
`the number of repetitions of the ACK/NACK is the same as the number of repetitions of
`
`the SR. ([0018]: ACK/NACK repetition multiplexed with SR) (see also US-
`
`20140050185 [0025]: ack/nack repetition; US-20130272241 [0090, 141]: repeatedly
`
`transmit SR; US-20120026957 claim 11, 12: repeated SR transmission on PUCCH).
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
`
`ACK/NACK and SR repetition, taught by Ratasuk, into LTE, taught by Kim, in order to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 4
`
`combat interference and increase range ([0018, 19]). In addition it would have been
`
`obvious to combine Ratasuk and Kim in a known manner to obtain predictable results
`
`as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior
`
`art references. Moreover, it is generally considered to be within the ordinary skill in the
`
`art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the numerical parameters or values of any system
`
`absent a showing of criticality in a particular recited value. The burden of showing
`
`criticality is on Applicant.
`
`In re Mason, 87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937);
`
`Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. US, 320 US. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); m
`
`Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105
`
`USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); l_n
`
`re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205
`
`USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Ratasuk discloses repetition of ACK/NACK and SR, it
`
`would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`adjust the repetition level for ACK/NACK and SR, including making them identical,
`
`absent a showing of criticality by Applicant.
`
`Kim may not explicitly teach wherein the first subframe is set to the same time
`
`resource as the second subframe. However, Jen teaches wherein the first subframe is
`
`set to the same time resource as the second subframe ([0035, 71]: simultaneous
`
`transmission of SR and ACK/NACK using PUCCH and PUSCH).
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
`
`matching the SR and ACK/NACK in time, taught by Jen, into LTE, taught by Kim, in
`
`order to make efficient use of resources ([0011]). In addition it would have been obvious
`
`to combine Jen and Kim in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 5
`
`combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art
`
`references.
`
`Independent Claims
`
`Claim 2, 4, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Kim (US-20130021982) in view of Ratasuk (US-20110235534), Jen (US-
`
`20120113962).
`
`As to claim 2, 7: The terminal according to Claim 1, 6, wherein the receiver
`
`receives the information indicating the first subframe and the second subframe via a
`
`Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) (fig.1, [0030]).
`
`As to claim 4, 9: The terminal according to Claim 1, 6.
`
`Kim may not explicitly teach wherein the first subframe is set to the same time
`
`resource as the second subframe so that start positions of the SR repetition
`
`transmission and the ACK/NACK repetition transmission are the same. However, Jen
`
`teaches wherein the first subframe is set to the same time resource as the second
`
`subframe so that start positions of the SR repetition transmission and the
`
`ACK/NACK repetition transmission are the same ([0035, 71]: simultaneous
`
`transmission of SR and ACK/NACK using PUCCH and PUSCH).
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
`
`matching the SR and ACK/NACK in time, taught by Jen, into LTE, taught by Kim, in
`
`order to make efficient use of resources ([0011]). In addition it would have been obvious
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 6
`
`to combine Jen and Kim in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the
`
`combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art
`
`references.
`
`Claim 3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Kim (US-20130021982) Ratasuk (US-20110235534), Jen (US-20120113962) in
`
`further view of Loehr (US-20150117342).
`
`As to claim 3, 8: The terminal according to Claim 1, 6.
`
`Kim may not explicitly teach wherein the SR indicates a request for a base
`
`station to assign resources. However, Loehr teaches wherein the SR indicates a
`
`request for a base station to assign resources (examiner takes official notice that the
`
`designed purpose of the SR is to assign resources) ([0155]).
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
`
`SR indicating request to assign resources, taught by Loehr, into the SR, taught by Kim,
`
`in order to perform its inherent, intended, and designed purpose. In addition it would
`
`have been obvious to combine Kim and Loehr in a known manner to obtain predictable
`
`results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of
`
`the prior art references.
`
`Claim 5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Kim (US-20130021982) Ratasuk (US-20110235534), Jen (US-20120113962) in
`
`further view of Hooli (US-20140050185).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 7
`
`As to claim 5, 10: The terminal according to Claim 1, 6,
`
`Kim may not explicitly teach wherein the number of repetitions of the ACK/NACK
`
`and of the SR can take one of multiple values, including a value of four. However, Hooli
`
`teaches wherein the number of repetitions of the ACK/NACK and of the SR can take
`
`one of multiple values, including a value of four ([0025]) (see also US-20140185577
`
`[0066]: resources allocated for SR and ACK/NACK repetition).
`
`Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement
`
`adjusting the repetition value for SR and ACK/NACK, taught by Hooli, into the LTE,
`
`taught by Kim, in order to adjust the repetition value to a desired number customized to
`
`the system. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Hooli and Kim in a
`
`known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the
`
`essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references. Moreover, it is generally
`
`considered to be within the ordinary skill in the art to adjust, vary, select or optimize the
`
`numerical parameters or values of any system absent a showing of criticality in a
`
`particular recited value. The burden of showing criticality is on Applicant.
`
`In re Mason,
`
`87 F.2d 370, 32 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1937); Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. v. US, 320
`
`US. 1, 57 USPQ 471 (1943); In re Schneider, 148 F.2d 108, 65 USPQ 129 (CCPA
`
`1945); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955); In re Saether, 492 F.2d
`
`849, 181 USPQ 36 (CCPA 1974); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA
`
`1977); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since Hooli and
`
`Ratasuk discloses repetition of ACK/NACK and SR, it would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the repetition level for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 8
`
`ACK/NACK and SR, including making them four, absent a showing of criticality by
`
`Applicant.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is
`
`(571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6a.
`
`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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on 5712727969. 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 https://ppair-
`
`my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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 Representative or access
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/156,585
`Art Unit: 2466
`
`Page 9
`
`to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -
`
`272-1000.
`
`/ANDREW C OH/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
`
`