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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12-10-2025 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-30 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-6, 12, 15-20, 26 and 29-30 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claims 7-11, 13-14, 21-25 and 27-28 are objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-6, 12, 15-20, 26, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al (US 2024/0178962) in view of Harada et al (US 2021/0243680) and further in view of Liu (US 2020/0374847). Hereinafter referred to as Cui, Harada and Liu.
Regarding claim claims 1, 15, 29, and 30. Cui discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, from a network node, information configuring an active bandwidth part (BWP) that does not include a bandwidth associated with one or more of a synchronization signal block (SSB) or a control resource set zero (CS0) (see at least figures 4-5); and performing, based at least in part on a radio frequency (RF) retune mode, an RF retune to a union bandwidth that covers the active BWP and the bandwidth associated with one or more of the SSB or the CS0 (see at least figures 4-5).
Cui discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the SSB is associated with Common Search Space (CSS). However, Harada, from the same field of endeavor, teaches SSB is associated with Common Search Space (CSS) (see at least figure 5). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Harada, as indicated, into the communication method of Cui for the purpose of ensuring reliable transmission to a UE.
Cui in view of Harada discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that configuration received is via RRC signaling. However, Liu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches configuring new active bandwidth resources through RRC signaling (see at least paragraphs [0006], [0008], [0010] and figures 3, 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Liu, as indicated, into the communication method of Cui in view of Harada for the purpose of increasing system agility and efficiency.
Regarding claim 2 and 16. Cui in view of Harada and further in view of Liu discloses a method wherein the RF retune mode is a static RF retune mode in which the union bandwidth covers the active BWP and the bandwidth associated with one or more of the SSB or the CSO during one or more periods in which neither the SSB nor the CSO is received (see at least figures 4-5).
Regarding claims 3 and 17. Cui in view of Harada and further in view of Liu discloses a method wherein the RF retune is performed in the static RF retune mode based at least in part on receiving a message triggering a handover, receiving a paging message indicating one or more of a system information modification or a public warning system communication, or one or more measurements indicating poor channel conditions (see at least figures 4-5 and paragraph [0049]).
Regarding claims 4 and 18. Cui in view of Harada and further in view of Liu discloses a method wherein the RF retune mode is a dynamic RF retune mode in which the union bandwidth covers the active BWP and the bandwidth associated with one or more of the SSB or the CSO only during one or more periods in which the SSB or the CSO is received (see at least figures 4-5 and paragraphs [0061]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19. Cui in view of Harada and further in view of Liu discloses a method wherein the RF retune is performed in the dynamic RF retune mode based at least in part on one or more measurements indicating a stable tracking condition in one or more of a time, frequency, or spatial domain (see at least figures 4-5).
Regarding claims 6 and 20. Cui in view of Harada and further in view of Liu discloses a method wherein the RF retune is performed in the dynamic RF retune mode based at least in part on a reception rate associated with the SSB satisfying a threshold (see at least figures 4-5).
Regarding claims 12 and 26. Cui in view of Harada and further in view of Liu discloses a method wherein the RF retune to the union bandwidth is performed based at least in part on determining that a next scheduled reception of one or more of the SSB or the CS0 is within a timing threshold (see at least figures 4-5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 12, 15-20, 26 and 29-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 13-14, 21-25, and 27-28 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476