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 .
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 April 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02 April 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nory et al. (US 2022/0217559 as supported by U.S. Provisional application No. 62/842,169) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2019/0045491) and Lee et al. (US 2019/0103954).
Regarding claim 6, Nory discloses a terminal (figs. 2-3, item 22) comprising: a receiver (item 82; para. 94, especially the last sentence) that receives a first Downlink Control Information (DCI) used for scheduling in multiple cells (fig. 9, steps S140-S142; fig. 12, DCI; paras. 137-139; para. 77, especially the last sentence), the first DCI being a single piece of information (note: BWP control of cells using a single DCI - paras. 74 and 155-175); and a controller (item 84 or 86; paras. 95-97) that configures, based on a single Bandwidth Part (BWP) indicator field included in the first DCI (fig. 12, C1 or C2; para. 74), a BWP of one or more BWPs to be activated in each cell of the multiple cells (fig. 12; paras. 137-139), and wherein the controller determines a bit size of the single BWP indicator field (para. 115, penultimate sentence; note: higher layer signaling indicating the number of bits of the L1 command C1 or C2), wherein the single BWP indicator field is included in the first DCI (fig. 12, C1 or C2; paras. 155, 159, 165 and 170-175; note: field including several SCell BWP values) and the single BWP indicator field is for activating the BWP of the one or more BWPs in each cell of the multiple cells (fig. 12; note: the BWP does not have an identical BWP identifier among the Scells) as a maximum value among the number of the one or more BWPs configured in respective cells of the multiple cells (fig. 12; paras. 138-139; note: the field bits are based on a logarithm of the number of BWPs, or a field bitmap is equal the number of BWPs).
However, Nory fails to disclose wherein a number of the one or more BWPs is configured by a higher layer and wherein the multiple cells scheduled by the single piece of first DCI are configured by the higher layer. Zhang discloses these features (para. 6, especially the last sentence; fig. 8; note: RRC for configuring BWPs; para. 93 and para. 94, especially the last two sentences; para. 109; note: SCells and their BWPs are initially configured or added by RRC messaging). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a number of the one or more BWPs is configured by a higher layer and the multiple cells scheduled by the single piece of first DCI are configured by the higher layer in the invention of Nory. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, configuring a device for operation in a wireless network as is known in the art (Zhang, fig. 8 and paras. 6, 93-95 and 109; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Nory in view of Zhang teaches and makes obvious a second DCI to schedule BWPs for cells (Nory, figs. 10-12, item C2; paras. 133, 136 and 138) but fails to teach and make obvious wherein the receiver receives a second DCI to schedule only a single cell of the multiple cells, and the controller changes, based on a BWP indicator field included in the second DCI, the activated BWP to another BWP in only the single cell of the multiple cells. Lee discloses a DCI for a single cell and a group DCI for multiple cells (para. 89, especially the last four sentences; note: dedicated DCI for a single SCell and a group DCI for multiple SCells). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the receiver receives a second DCI to schedule only a single cell of the multiple cells, and the controller changes, based on a BWP indicator field included in the second DCI, the activated BWP to another BWP in only the single cell of the multiple cells in the invention of Nory in view of Zhang. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, configuring a device for operation using available control signaling as is known in the art (Lee, para. 89; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 7, Nory in view of Zhang and Lee teaches and makes obvious the terminal according to claim 6, further comprising: a transmitter that transmits one or more Physical Uplink Shared Channels (PUSCHs) in the multiple cells by using the activated BWPs (paras. 3 and 149, penultimate sentences).
Regarding claim 8, Nory in view of Zhang and Lee teaches and makes obvious the terminal according to Claim 6, wherein the receiver receives a second DCI to schedule a single cell (Nory, fig. 12, C2; note: the DCI bits schedule a single Scell and other Scells, and the claim language fails to require the bits to schedule only a single cell; note: in an alternate interpretation, the bits of a DCI can schedule (activate) a single cell where the other Scells are deactivated with bit values of “0”), and wherein a bit size of a BWP indicator field included in the second DCI and the bit size of the BWP indicator field included in the first DCI are
Regarding claim 9, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 6 from the perspective of the base station (Nory, figs. 2-3, item 16). In addition, Nory in view of Zhang and Lee teaches and makes obvious the base station comprising: a controller (Nory, item 68 or 70; paras. 95-97) that configures the first DCI and a transmitter (Nory, item 62; para. 94, especially the last sentence) that transmits the first DCI, wherein the controller configures a number of the one or more BWPs by using higher layer (Zhang, para. 6), and wherein the controller configures a bit size of the single BWP indicator field (Nory, para. 115, penultimate sentence; note: higher layer signaling indicating the number of bits of the L1 command C1 or C2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights