DETAILED ACTION
The amendments and remarks filed on 2/2/2026 were received.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation 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
Claims 9, 10, and 13-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Independent claim 9 recites “a configuration of an active bandwidth without frequency region at which a synchronization signal block is transmitted is supported, as the bandwidth to be used for the communication” (markings to show recent amendments). Independent claims 14-16 recite similar limitations. On page 5 of their Remarks, Applicant asserts that “Support for the amendments can be found in, for example, paragraph [0208] of the originally-filed specification and in the originally-filed claims.” The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0208] contains the only two mentions of the phrase “active” in the specification as filed. Paragraph [0206] starts the discussion of bandwidth parts (BWP) by explaining how it represents a submits of resource blocks, [0207] describes uplink and downlink BWPs, and then [0208] describes the general idea of an “active” BWP:
At least one of configured BWPs may be active, and a UE does not need to assume to transmit/receive a given signal/channel outside active BWPs. Note that a "cell," a "carrier," and so on in the present disclosure may be interpreted as a "BWP”.
However, nowhere does [0208] or any other part of the disclosure describe configuration of an active bandwidth. Configuration of bandwidths is describes. Active bandwidths are described. However, the specification lacks specific disclosure of configuring an active bandwidth. Accordingly independent claims 9, and 13-16 fail to meet the written description requirement. Dependent claim 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependency.
PRIOR ART
The following references are prior art:
1. (PTO-892 9/11/2024) Application No. 16/914,077 (Liu) is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) since it was published as US 2021/0029678 A1, names another inventor (Le LIU), and was effectively filed on Jul. 25, 2019 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (Jan. 27, 2020).
CLAIM REJECTIONS — 35 U.S.C. 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:
35 U.S.C. 103 Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 9, 10 and 13-16
Claims 9, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu. Claims 9, 14, 15, and 16 are independent. Claim 16 is addressed first.
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Liu taught:
A system comprising a terminal supporting a bandwidth that is configured to be narrower than bandwidths of other terminals, and a base station (Liu [0045] taught that FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a base station 310 in communication with a UE 350 in an access network. Liu [0054] taught that the [reduced capability/complexity] RC [New Radio] NR [User Equipment] UE may have more limited capabilities than the non-RC NR UEs, and therefore may need a limited bandwidth to receive control information and/or data, or may need the power savings offered through the utilization of a limited bandwidth when receiving control information and/or data. Challenges in RC NR UE design include a potentially limited band on which the UE may operate and low complexity requirements. For example, RC NR UEs may only support bandwidths of 5 MHz, 10 MHz, or 20 MHz, rather than 100 MHz of non-RC NR UEs. Liu [0070] taught that FIG. 9 is a call flow diagram 900 of signaling between a UE and a base station in accordance with certain aspects of the disclosure. The diagram 900 of FIG. 9 includes a UE 902 and a base station 904. The base station 904 may be configured to provide a cell. The UE 902 may be configured to communicate with the base station 904. The Examiner finds that Liu (e.g., FIG. 9) taught a system comprising a UE 902 (reading on a terminal) supporting a limited bandwidth (reading on bandwidth that is configured to be narrower than bandwidths of other terminals, i.e., compared to non-RC NR UEs), and a base station 904),
wherein: the terminal comprises: a transmitter and a processor (Liu [0045] taught that FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a base station 310 in communication with a UE 350 in an access network. Liu FIG. 3 shows that UE 350 includes TX processor 368 coupled to TX 354 and Controller/Processor 359),
the transmitter transmits capability information regarding a bandwidth supported by the terminal and capability information regarding a power class supported by the terminal (Liu [0054] taught that the [reduced capability/complexity] RC NR UE may have more limited capabilities than the non-RC NR UEs, and therefore may need a limited bandwidth to receive control information and/or data, or may need the power savings offered through the utilization of a limited bandwidth when receiving control information and/or data… Challenges in RC NR UE design may further include a lower transmit maximum power (e.g., 20 dBm or 14 dBm rather than 23 dBm). Liu [0071] taught that at 906, the UE 902 may send information indicating a UE capability. The UE may send the information indicating the UE capability to a network. The information may indicate that the UE capability is a type of UE with RC. The UE may send the information indicating the UE capability to the network via a base station. The Examiners finds that the transmitter of the UE in Liu transmits capability information regarding a bandwidth supported by the UE (terminal) and capability information regarding a power class supported by the UE (terminal) since the information indicating a UE capability indicates that it is type RC (reduced capability), which indicates limited bandwidth capability (i.e., a bandwidth supported by the terminal) as well as lower transmit maximum power and a need for power savings (i.e., a power class supported by the terminal);
and the processor determines, based on information provided from the base station, at least one of a size and a location of a bandwidth to be used for communication (Liu [0039] taught that within a set of frames, there may be one or more different bandwidth parts (BWPs) (see FIG. 2B) that are frequency division multiplexed. Each BWP may have a particular numerology. Liu [0072] taught that, as illustrated at 908, the base station 904 may send information indicating a second BWP associated with a first BWP. The UE 902 may receive the information indicating a second BWP associated with a first BWP. The UE 902 may receive the information indicating the second BWP based on the UE capability. The second BWP may have a frequency range that may be equal to or less than the first BWP. The Examiner finds that the processor of the UE in Liu determines, based on Bandwidth Part (BWP) information provided from the base station, a BWP having a frequency range for communication (i.e., at least one of a size and a location of a bandwidth to be used for communication since a BWP has a size and location as shown in FIG. 2B, 4, and 5 of Liu),
and the base station comprises: a receiver and a processor (Liu [0045] taught that FIG. 3 is a block diagram of a base station 310 in communication with a UE 350 in an access network. Liu FIG. 3 shows that base station 310 includes RX processor 370 coupled to RX318 and Controller/Processor 375)
the receiver receives, from the terminal, the capability information regarding the bandwidth supported by the terminal and the capability information regarding the power class supported by the terminal (Liu [0054] taught that the [reduced capability/complexity] RC NR UE may have more limited capabilities than the non-RC NR UEs, and therefore may need a limited bandwidth to receive control information and/or data, or may need the power savings offered through the utilization of a limited bandwidth when receiving control information and/or data… Challenges in RC NR UE design may further include a lower transmit maximum power (e.g., 20 dBm or 14 dBm rather than 23 dBm). Liu [0071] taught that at 906, the UE 902 may send information indicating a UE capability. The UE may send the information indicating the UE capability to a network. The information may indicate that the UE capability is a type of UE with RC. The UE may send the information indicating the UE capability to the network via a base station. Liu [0069] taught that The RC NR BWP may be a VE-specific BWP based on UE capability of supporting UL BW size. The Examiners finds that receiver of the base station in Liu receives, from the UE (terminal), the capability information regarding the bandwidth supported by the UE (terminal) and the capability information regarding the power class supported by the UE (terminal) since the information indicating a UE capability indicates it is type RC (reduced capability), which indicates limited bandwidth capability (i.e., a bandwidth supported by the terminal) as well as lower transmit maximum power and a need for power savings (i.e., a power class supported by the terminal).
and the processor indicates at least one of the size and the location of the bandwidth to be used by the terminal for communication (Liu [0039] taught that within a set of frames, there may be one or more different bandwidth parts (BWPs) (see FIG. 2B) that are frequency division multiplexed. Each BWP may have a particular numerology. Liu [0072] taught that, as illustrated at 908, the base station 904 may send information indicating a second BWP associated with a first BWP. The UE 902 may receive the information indicating a second BWP associated with a first BWP. The UE 902 may receive the information indicating the second BWP based on the UE capability. The second BWP may have a frequency range that may be equal to or less than the first BWP. The Examiner finds that the processor of the base station in Liu indicates Bandwidth Part (BWP) information indicating a frequency range for communication (reading on at least one of the size and the location of the bandwidth to be used by the UE (terminal) for communication since a bandwidth part has a size and location as shown in FIG. 2B, 4, and 5 of Liu);
wherein a configuration of an active bandwidth without frequency region at which a synchronization signal block is transmitted is supported, as the bandwidth to be used for the communication, depending on the capability information of the terminal (Liu [0058] taught that FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 illustrating a second exemplary configuration for a plurality of BWPs. A RC NR initial BWP (BWP#0') 514 may be defined for a system information (e.g., SIB1) using predefined resources based on an SSB ID of the SSB 504 within the initial BWP (BWP#0) 502. One RC NR initial BWP 514 may be configured within the initial BWP 502 per the SSB 504… the PDSCH carrying SIB1 in BWP#0 can be distributed in BWP#0, with only a subset of BWP#0 in the same frequency range as that of BWP#0'. Liu [0059] taught that the SSB 504 may also be within a light initial BWP 514... the CORESET 510 and the PDSCH 512 have the same bandwidth as the light initial BWP 514. The Examiner finds that FIG. 5 of Liu illustrates a configuration of a bandwidth for PDSCH 512 that where a subset of the bandwidth for PDSCH 512 is an active bandwidth without frequency region at which a synchronization signal block is transmitted (in the sense that the PDSCH is distributed across frequencies such that only a subset has the same frequency range shared with the SSB 204), which is supported by the UE as the bandwidth to be used for the communication from the UE to the base station, and which depends on the capability information of the UE (terminal). This is an active bandwidth in the sense that the bandwidth is active for downlink communication),
and wherein the size of the bandwidth is configured to be common (Liu taught [0066] FIG. 7 is a diagram 700 illustrating an exemplary system information (e.g., SIB1). The system information may include the additional system information in the dotted boxes, with the information 702 providing separate scheduling information for RC NR broadcast or non-broadcast OSI, and the information 704 providing a list of RC NR nonSIB1-initial BWPs for RC NR. Liu [FIG. 7] taught DownlinkConfigCommonSIB including initialDownlinkBWPList-NRLight … BWP-DownlinkCommon. The Examiner finds that Liu taught the size of the bandwidth (i.e., the bandwidth part (BWP)) is configured to be common (i.e., BWP-DownlinkCommon))
The Examiner has annotated FIG. 5 of Liu (see page below) to clarify their interpretation of how Liu reads on “wherein a configuration of a bandwidth without frequency region at which a synchronization signal block is transmitted is supported, as the bandwidth to be used for the communication, depending on the capability information of the terminal.” As described in [0059] and illustrated in FIG. 5, the PDSCH 512 has the same bandwidth as the BWP 514 while the SSB 504 is merely “within” the BWP 514. This means that a subset of the bandwidth within BWP 514 used for communicating the PDSCH 512 is “without frequency region at which a SSB is transmitted.”
[The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.
See the annotated figure on the following page.]
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liu taught the limitations of claim 1 above, including a size of the bandwidth being “configured to be common.” However Liu failed to explicitly teach that the size of the bandwidth is “determined by the terminal to be used for an uplink” as recited in the amended claim. As discussed above and noted by Applicant, Liu described downlink communications using BWP-DownlinkCommon. Nevertheless, Liu suggested applying this technique to uplink communications. In addition, the Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “determine” is “to ascertain or establish” something. Accordingly, the UE/terminal in Liu receives RRC signaling and ascertains or establishes (i.e., determines) the configuration thereof.
After describing FIG. 7, which illustrated system information SIB1 including BWP-DownlinkCommon, in [0066] and then describing FIG. 8, illustrating configuration for a plurality of BWPs, Liu goes on to teach in [0068] that the RC NR uplink BWP may also be configured. For RRC idle UEs, the system information (e.g., SIB1) for the RC NR uplink BWP may further include an uplink common configuration specific for RC NR, in addition to conventional uplink and downlink common configurations for non-RC NR (emphasis added). [0069] For RRC connected UEs, the configuration may be indicated by unicast RRC signaling. In one configuration, UEs may receive an explicit indication of RC NR UL BWP by unicast RRC signaling. The RC NR BWP may be a VE-specific BWP based on UE capability of supporting UL BW size. In one configuration, UEs may receive an implicit indication of an RC NR UL BWP by using its DL CORESET configuration if TDD. The RC NR CORESET may be configured no larger than the BW based on the UE capability. PUSCH/PUCCH may be scheduled within the bandwidth of the RC NR DL CO RESET. From this, Liu suggested that the size of the bandwidth is “determined by the terminal to be used for an uplink”
The Examiner finds that it 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 to implement Liu’s technique for downlink communications in uplink communications since [0068] and [0069] of Liu suggested doing so.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites limitations similar to claim 16 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Liu taught:
The terminal according to claim 9 (see rejection above),
wherein the transmitter transmits capability information regarding a modulation scheme supported by the terminal (Liu [0036] taught that the UE 104 may be configured to send information to a network indicating a UE capability of the UE, such as UE max BW size, number of rx antennas, tx power, etc. Liu [0050] taught that the TX processor 368 [of UE 350] can select the appropriate coding and modulation schemes. The Examiner finds that the modulation and coding scheme used by the UE is a “capability” (the power or ability to do something) and, as such, the transmitter of the UE of Liu may be configured to transmit capability information regarding a modulation scheme supported by the UE (terminal)).
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Liu taught:
The terminal according to claim 9 (see rejection above),
wherein the capability information of the terminal is capability information regarding support of a bandwidth that does not include a synchronization signal block (Liu [0036] taught that the UE 104 may be configured to send information to a network indicating a UE capability of the UE, such as UE max BW size, number of rx antennas, tx power, etc. Liu [0054] taught that Challenges in RC NR UE design include a potentially limited band on which the UE may operate and low complexity requirements. For example, RC NR UEs may only support bandwidths of 5 MHz, 10 MHz, or 20 MHz, rather than 100 MHz of non-RC NR UEs. The supported bandwidth of RC NR UEs may be at least the bandwidth of a synchronization signal block (SSB), and therefore RC NR UEs may receive the same SSB that non-RC NR UEs receive. Liu [0058] taught that FIG. 5 is a diagram 500 illustrating a second exemplary configuration for a plurality of BWPs. A RC NR initial BWP (BWP#0') 514 may be defined for a system information (e.g., SIB1) using predefined resources based on an SSB ID of the SSB 504 within the initial BWP (BWP#0) 502. One RC NR initial BWP 514 may be configured within the initial BWP 502 per the SSB 504… the PDSCH carrying SIB1 in BWP#0 can be distributed in BWP#0, with only a subset of BWP#0 in the same frequency range as that of B WP#0'. The Examiner finds that the capability information of the UE (terminal) in Liu is capability information regarding support of a bandwidth that does not include a synchronization signal block since the capability of the configuration shown in FIG. 5, which supports a bandwidth without synchronization signal block in the sense that the PDSCH in this configuration is distributed such that only a subset has the same frequency range as BWP#0’, shared with the SSB 204. The subset of frequency not shared with the SSB204 is a bandwidth that does not include a synchronization signal block).
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites limitations similar to claim 16 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites limitations similar to claim 16 and is rejected by the same reasoning.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
The Examiner responds below to Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 2/2/2026.
Rejections under §103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10, with respect to the rejections under §103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 7 Applicant argued that “Liu is silent with respect to any active bandwidth without frequency region at which a synchronization signal block is transmitted is supported.” The Examiner disagrees. While Liu does not explicitly use the term “active bandwidth,” Liu describes configuration of a bandwidth that is actively use, as discussed in the rejection above.
On pages 7-8 Applicant argues about the limitation “wherein the size of the bandwidth, which is determined by the processor to be used for an uplink, is configured to be common.” First, the Specification [0027]-[0036] describes that FR1 and FR2, defined in the 3GPP specification, configure a common bandwidth size as claimed. In other words, this is a normal part of 3GPP standard wireless communication for NR light devices.
On page 7 Applicant recognizes that Liu describes “receiving” but argues that is not the same as “determining.” The Examiner wonders how the device could possibly receive a bits of wireless communication without determining what those bits are. As stated in the Advisory Action dated 1/15/2026: “The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "determine" is "to ascertain or establish" something. Accordingly, the UE/terminal in Liu receives RRC signaling and ascertains or establishes (i.e., determines) the configuration thereof.”
On pages 8-9 Applicant complains about the Examiner’s interpretation copied above and argues that.
Applicant appears to misunderstand the requirements for a special definition. Referring to MPEP 2173.01: “If an Office action has issued where the plain meaning of the claim terms was used, applicant may point out that the term has been given a special definition. Since there is a presumption that claim terms are given their plain meaning, and the use of special definitions is an exception, the applicant must point to where the specification as filed provides a clear and intentional use of a special definition for the claim term to be treated as having a special definition” (emphasis added). Here, Applicant pointed to paragraphs [0027]-[0043], arguing that these sixteen paragraphs provide a special definition of a single term “determined.” The Examiner cannot find any special definition of the term “determine” (or its variants) in those paragraphs or elsewhere in the disclosure. Even Applicant explains that these paragraphs “describe” rather than “define.” Description of something alone does not make it a special definition. Referring to MPEP 2111.01, to act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In addition, it is important to note that any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, Applicant has failed to clearly set forth a special definition of the claim term.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Davis whose telephone number is 703-756-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 11AM to 7PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayaz Sheikh, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, use the Request Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/C.R.D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2476
/AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476