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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 9/22/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite a case regarding MAX MIMO layers across a plurality of band combinations supported by a terminal and feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the plurality of band combinations. The specification (published paragraph 38) states there is a band set assumed by the base station according to terminal capability information, but the spec does not appear to link this to the Max MIMO layers as given in the final optional element. Further, the claimed feature sets are not tied to the capability information of anything. At best, the specification states parameters are configured in consideration of a feature set related to a serving cell.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm “Adaptation of maximum number of MIMO layers” R1-1911131 published October 2019 as submitted in Applicant’s IDS., hereinafter “Qualcomm” in view of Ericsson “Mimo layers configuration per BWP” published October 2019, Submitted in Applicant’s IDS hereinafter “Ericsson” and further in view of 3GPP TS38.214 published June 2019 (submitted in Applicant’s IDS) hereinafter “3GPP”.
Regarding claims 16 and 24, Qualcomm teaches a method and a terminal of a 3GPP system (The Qualcomm document is 3GPP) communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver; and a controller configured to receive information indicating limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) from a base station (Section 2.2 is for the downlink communications (i.e .between a base station and UE). Further, section 2.2.2 teaches how the UE determines a limited buffer rate matching and to do this the UE obtains information from the serving cell configuration information);
to identify a parameter related to the maximum number of layers for one transport block (Section 2.2.2 “parameter X”),
to identify the maximum number of layers for the one transport block based on the parameter (Section 2.2.2 teaches a maximum number of layers for one transport block is the minimum of X and 4),
to identify a transport block size (TBS) to which the LBRM is applied to the PUSCH (Section 2.1 PUSCH) based on the determined maximum number of layers (Section 2.2.2 teaches for determining of the TBS LBRM, maximum number of layers is used), and to
transmit or receive data to or from the base station based on the TBS (The UE and base station are in communication wherein the UE determines the TBS such that the UE and base station can communicate, thus they would transmit/receive based on the TBS; Section 2.2.2),
wherein:
in case a max number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP is configured, X1 is a max value across all configured maximum number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP (Section 2.2.2 teaches X is given by a maximum value of the maxMIMO-layers across BWPs);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is not configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”); and
While Qualcomm teaches band combinations/feature sets in Section 2.2.2 proposal 2, Qualcomm does not disclose the first and second max number of MIMO are not configured, the parameter is a MAX value of a max rank for each BWP of the serving cell and the layers supported are across a plurality of band/feature sets consistent with the serving sell; however, Ericsson teaches if maxMIMO-layers is not configured, X is given by the max value of maxRank across all BWPs of the serving cell; Section 2.2. As the value is across all the BWPs of the serving sell, this reads on the claimed plurality of bands/feature sets.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Qualcomm to include setting X to be the max value of the max rank if the maxlayers are not configured as well as the layers is supported across all band combination and feature sets as taught by Ericsson.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the value of X can be defined in the event there is no MaxMimo layers set as taught by Ericsson; Section 2.2.
The prior art of record does not expressly disclose the band combinations are supported by a terminal and the feature sets are indicated by capability parameters for the band combinations; however, 3GPP teaches
The prior art does not expressly disclose the band combinations are supported by the terminal and the feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the plurality of band combinations; however, 3GPP teaches data rates (i.e. capability) is for any band combination and feature set consistent with the servings cells where the data rate value is given as shown in TS 38.306; page 18 line starts with “DataRate [Mbps]”, see also pages 19, 86 and 87.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to expressly recite the band combinations are supported by the terminal and feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the band combinations as taught by 3GPP.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the maximum data rate can be determined as taught by 3GPP; Page 18 line starts with “DataRate”
Regarding claims 17 and 25, Qualcomm teaches in case the TBS is related to an uplink, the max number of layers for one TB is the same value as that of the parameter; and in case the TB is related to DL, the max number of layers for one TB is the smaller of the parameter and 4 (Section 2.2.2 teaches max number of layers for one TB for DL-SCH/PCH is given by the minimum of X and 4, otherwise X is the maximum layers the UE can support. This value is considered “X2”);
identify a transport block size (TBS) to which the LBRM is applied to the PDSCH based on the determined maximum number of layers (Section 2.2.2 teaches for determining of the TBS LBRM, maximum number of layers is used for a PDSCH), and
receiving from the base station the PDSCH according to the TBS for the PDSCH (The UE and base station are in communication wherein the UE determines the TBS such that the UE and base station can communicate, thus they would transmit/receive based on the TBS; Section 2.2.2) wherein
in case a max number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP is configured, X2 is a max value across all configured maximum number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP (Section 2.2.2 teaches X is given by a maximum value of the maxMIMO-layers across BWPs);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is not configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”).
Qualcomm does not disclose the first and second max number of MIMO are not configured, the parameter is a MAX value of a max rank for each BWP of the serving cell; however, Ericsson teaches if maxMIMO-layers is not configured, X is given by the max value of maxRank across all BWPs of the serving cell; Section 2.2.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Qualcomm to include setting X to be the max value of the max rank if the maxlayers are not configured as taught by Ericsson.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the value of X can be defined in the event there is no MaxMimo layers set as taught by Ericsson; Section 2.2.
Regarding claims 19 and 27, Qualcomm teaches in case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is not configured for each BWP, the parameter (x2) is identified as the max number of layers for PDSCH supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received for any band combination and feature sets (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”. The claim does not state there are a plurality of feature sets of band combinations, thus since there can be just one of each, the prior art properly reads on the broad claim limitations).
The prior art does not expressly disclose the band combinations are supported by the terminal and the feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the plurality of band combinations; however, 3GPP teaches data rates (i.e. capability) is for any band combination and feature set consistent with the servings cells where the data rate value is given as shown in TS 38.306; page 18 line starts with “DataRate [Mbps]”, see also pages 19, 86 and 87.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to expressly recite the band combinations are supported by the terminal and feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the band combinations as taught by 3GPP.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the maximum data rate can be determined as taught by 3GPP; Page 18 line starts with “DataRate”
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Qualcomm teaches a method and a base station of a 3GPP communication system (The Qualcomm document is 3GPP), the base station comprising:
a transceiver; and a controller configured to transmit information indicating limited buffer rate matching (LBRM) to a user terminal (Section 2.2 is for the downlink communications (i.e .between a base station and UE). Further, section 2.2.2 teaches how the UE determines a limited buffer rate matching and to do this the UE obtains information from the serving cell configuration information);
to identify a parameter related to the maximum number of layers for one transport block (Section 2.2.2 “parameter X”),
to identify the maximum number of layers for the one transport block based on the parameter (Section 2.2.2 teaches a maximum number of layers for one transport block is the minimum of X and 4),
to identify a transport block size (TBS) to which the LBRM is applied to the PUSCH (Section 2.1 PUSCH) based on the determined maximum number of layers (Section 2.2.2 teaches for determining of the TBS LBRM, maximum number of layers is used), and to
receive data from the terminal based on the TBS (The UE and base station are in communication wherein the UE determines the TBS such that the UE and base station can communicate, thus they would transmit/receive based on the TBS),
wherein:
in case a max number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP is configured, X1 is a max value across all configured maximum number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP (Section 2.2.2 teaches X is given by a maximum value of the maxMIMO-layers across BWPs);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is not configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”).
While Qualcomm teaches band combinations/feature sets in Section 2.2.2 proposal 2, Qualcomm does not disclose the first and second max number of MIMO are not configured, the parameter is a MAX value of a max rank for each BWP of the serving cell and the layers supported are across a plurality of band/feature sets consistent with the serving sell; however, Ericsson teaches if maxMIMO-layers is not configured, X is given by the max value of maxRank across all BWPs of the serving cell; Section 2.2. As the value is across all the BWPs of the serving sell, this reads on the claimed plurality of bands/feature sets.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Qualcomm to include setting X to be the max value of the max rank if the maxlayers are not configured as well as the layers is supported across all band combination and feature sets as taught by Ericsson.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the value of X can be defined in the event there is no MaxMimo layers set as taught by Ericsson; Section 2.2.
The prior art does not expressly disclose the band combinations are supported by the terminal and the feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the plurality of band combinations; however, 3GPP teaches data rates (i.e. capability) is for any band combination and feature set consistent with the servings cells where the data rate value is given as shown in TS 38.306; page 18 line starts with “DataRate [Mbps]”, see also pages 19, 86 and 87.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to expressly recite the band combinations are supported by the terminal and feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the band combinations as taught by 3GPP.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the maximum data rate can be determined as taught by 3GPP; Page 18 line starts with “DataRate”
Regarding claims 21 and 29, Qualcomm teaches in case the TBS is related to an uplink, the max number of layers for one TB is the same value as that of the parameter; and in case the TB is related to DL, the max number of layers for one TB is the smaller of the parameter and 4 (Section 2.2.2 teaches max number of layers for one TB for DL-SCH/PCH is given by the minimum of X and 4, otherwise X is the maximum layers the UE can support. This value is considered “X2”);
identify a transport block size (TBS) to which the LBRM is applied to the PDSCH based on the determined maximum number of layers (Section 2.2.2 teaches for determining of the TBS LBRM, maximum number of layers is used for a PDSCH), and
receiving from the base station the PDSCH according to the TBS for the PDSCH (The UE and base station are in communication wherein the UE determines the TBS such that the UE and base station can communicate, thus they would transmit/receive based on the TBS; Section 2.2.2)
wherein
in case a max number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP is configured, X2 is a max value across all configured maximum number of MIMO layers per uplink BWP (Section 2.2.2 teaches X is given by a maximum value of the maxMIMO-layers across BWPs);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is not configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”);
In case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is configured for each BWP, the parameter is identified as the max number of layers supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”).
Qualcomm does not disclose the first and second max number of MIMO are not configured, the parameter is a MAX value of a max rank for each BWP of the serving cell; however, Ericsson teaches if maxMIMO-layers is not configured, X is given by the max value of maxRank across all BWPs of the serving cell; Section 2.2.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Qualcomm to include setting X to be the max value of the max rank if the maxlayers are not configured as taught by Ericsson.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the value of X can be defined in the event there is no MaxMimo layers set as taught by Ericsson; Section 2.2.
Regarding claim 23, Qualcomm teaches in case the first and second maximum MIMO layers are not configured and a maximum rank is not configured for each BWP, the parameter (x2) is identified as the max number of layers for PDSCH supported by the terminal for a channel which data is transmit/received for any band combination and feature sets (Section 2.2.2 proposal 2 states “otherwise, X is given by the maximum number of layers for PDSCH supported by the UE for the serving cell”. The claim does not state there are a plurality of feature sets of band combinations, thus since there can be just one of each, the prior art properly reads on the broad claim limitations).
The prior art does not expressly disclose the band combinations are supported by the terminal and the feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the plurality of band combinations; however, 3GPP teaches data rates (i.e. capability) is for any band combination and feature set consistent with the servings cells where the data rate value is given as shown in TS 38.306; page 18 line starts with “DataRate [Mbps]”, see also pages 19, 86 and 87.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to expressly recite the band combinations are supported by the terminal and feature sets indicated by capability parameters for the band combinations as taught by 3GPP.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the maximum data rate can be determined as taught by 3GPP; Page 18 line starts with “DataRate”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 27-29 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411