DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 12/19/2025 has been received and considered by the examiner. Claims 1 and 9 were amended, and claim 2 was cancelled.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: it contains a typographical error (“more than one different subcarrier spacings”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because it depends on Claim 11, which was cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 is interpreted as if it depends on Claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-10, 12-14, and 19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 9-10, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2020/0128526 A1, hereinafter “Yang”) and He et al. (US 2023/0042274 A1, hereinafter “He”).
As to Claim 1:
A base station (BS) of a cellular network (CN), the base station serving a plurality of user equipments (UE)
(“It should be noted that a plurality of access network device 120 and/or a plurality of terminals 140 may be included in the mobile communication system shown in Fig. 1” (Yang, 0070).
Here, “access network device 120” maps to “a base station (BS)”,
“the mobile communication system” maps to “a cellular network (CN)”, and
“a plurality of terminals 140” map to “a plurality of user equipments”).
Said user equipment is incapable of supporting all subcarriers (SC) across a full frequency band supported by the base station (BS) as a result of a physical limitation of a transceiver of the user equipment (UE) being incapable of processing all the subcarriers in parallel
(“[D]ifferent terminals in 5G systems in the future may have different capabilities of software and hardware, that is, the parallel processing capabilities of different terminals are different.... [T]here is provided an information sending method, including: generating, by a terminal, User Equipment (UE) capability information, the UE capability information being used for indicating a parallel processing capability of the terminal for signals sent and/or received by at least two subcarriers” (Yang, 0004, 0007).
Here, “a terminal” maps to “said user equipment”, and
“different capabilities of ... hardware” for “a parallel processing capability of the terminal for ... at least two subcarriers” maps to “incapable of supporting all subcarriers (SC) across a full frequency band supported by the base station (BS) as a result of a physical limitation of a transceiver of the user equipment (UE) being incapable of processing all the subcarriers in parallel”).
The base station (BS) is capable of applying at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS) to a supported frequency band
(“[S]ending, by the access network device, the first uplink subcarrier spacings and/ the first uplink bandwidths and/or first downlink subcarrier spacings and first downlink bandwidths supported by the camped cell to the terminal, includes ...” (Yang, 0035).
Here, “the access network device” maps to “the base station (BS)”,
“supported” maps to “capable of applying”,
“the first uplink subcarrier spacings” and “first downlink subcarrier spacings map to “at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)”, and
“the first uplink bandwidths” and “first downlink bandwidths” map to “a supported frequency band”)
Ascertaining a capability information from said ... user equipment (UE) including an indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment
(“Optionally, the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal according to the UE capability information. The access network device schedules uplink transmission of the terminal according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported by the terminal” (Yang, 0151).
Here, “according to the UE capability information” maps to “ascertaining a capability information from said ... user equipment (UE)”, and
“the uplink subcarrier spacings” map to “an indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment”).
Determining a scheduling bandwidth (SBW) for said ... user equipment (UE) by identifying a plurality of subcarriers and time slots during which the subcarriers are free to be allocated to the ... user equipment (UE) while taking into account the indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment and the at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)
(“Optionally, the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal according to the UE capability information. The access network device schedules uplink transmission of the terminal according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported by the terminal” (Yang, 0151).
Here, “schedules” maps to “determining a scheduling bandwidth (SBW)”,
“the terminal” maps to “said ... user equipment (UE)”, and
“according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths” maps to “by identifying a plurality of subcarriers and time slots during which the subcarriers are free to be allocated to the ... user equipment (UE) while taking into account the indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment and the at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)”).
Transferring information to said ... user equipment (UE) considering said determined scheduling bandwidth (SBW)
(“Optionally, the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal according to the UE capability information. The access network device schedules uplink transmission of the terminal according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported by the terminal” (Yang, 0151).
Here, “the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal” maps to “transferring to said ... user equipment considering said determined scheduling bandwidth” because this clearly shows that the network device sends the time and subcarriers for transmission to the terminal).
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The plurality of user equipments comprises those which are qualified as a reduced capability user equipment
Reduced capability user equipment
However, He does describe a method for a UE to indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station during a random access procedure.
Specifically, He teaches:
The plurality of user equipments comprises those which are qualified as reduced capability user equipment
(“Other exemplary embodiments are related to a processor of a base station configured to perform operations. The operations include transmitting a system information block (SIB) to one or more user equipments (UEs) and receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “one or more user equipments” map to “the plurality of user equipments”, and
“reduced capability (redcap) device type” maps to “those which are qualified as reduced capability user equipment”).
Reduced capability user equipment
(“The operations include ... receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “a reduced capability (redcap) ... UE” maps to “reduced capability user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate He’s practice of having a user equipment explicitly indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station into Yang’s method for determining scheduling bandwidth. The UE indicating its reduced capability to the base station can help the base station determine what subcarriers are available to schedule the UE.
As to Claim 3:
Yang teaches:
The base station (BS) supports at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS1, SCS2)
(“When an access network sends data to a terminal, it is allowed to use at least two subcarriers with different subcarrier spacings to perform parallel transmission” (Yang, 0004).
Here, “an access network” maps to “the base station (BS)”,
“allowed to use” maps to “supports”, and
“at least two subcarriers with different subcarrier spacings” map to “at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS1, SCS2)”).
When a candidate scheduling bandwidth covers an area with more than one different subcarrier spacing, the step of determining the scheduling bandwidth (SBW) comprises taking into account the smallest of the at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS2)
(“[T]he time-frequency resource blocks 20 [in Fig. 2] may be divided according to different subcarrier spacings ... [T]he subcarrier with relatively small subcarrier spacing may be used in the massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) service” (Yang, 0072).
Here, “the time frequency resource blocks 20” map to “a candidate scheduling bandwidth”,
“divided according to different subcarrier spacings” maps to “covers an area with more than one different subcarrier spacing”, and
“the subcarrier with relatively small subcarrier spacing may be used” maps to “the step of determining the scheduling bandwidth (SBW) comprises taking into account the smallest of the at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS2)”).
As to Claim 5:
From the list of:
The ascertained capability information comprises an information indicative of at least one of:
A maximum supported subcarrier spacing (SCS),
A supported group of subcarrier spacings (SCS),
A maximum required processing time,
A supported fixed subcarrier spacing (SCS), and
A supported subcarrier spacing (SCS) per frequency range
Yang at least teaches:
The ascertained capability information comprises an information indicative of ... a supported group of subcarrier spacings (SCS)
(“[T]he UE capability information includes: uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported to send in parallel by the terminal, at least two of the uplink subcarrier spacings being different” (Yang, 0011).
Here, “the UE capability information” maps to “the ascertained capability information”,
“includes” maps to “comprises”, and
“uplink subcarrier spacings being different” map to “a supported group of subcarrier spacings (SCS)”).
As to Claim 9:
A base station (BS) of a cellular network (CN), the base station serving a plurality of user equipments (UE)
(“It should be noted that a plurality of access network device 120 and/or a plurality of terminals 140 may be included in the mobile communication system shown in Fig. 1” (Yang, 0070).
Here, “access network device 120” maps to “a base station (BS)”,
“the mobile communication system” maps to “a cellular network (CN)”, and
“a plurality of terminals 140” map to “a plurality of user equipments”).
Said user equipment is incapable of supporting all subcarriers (SC) across a full frequency band supported by the base station (BS) as a result of a physical limitation of a transceiver of the user equipment (UE) being incapable of processing all the subcarriers in parallel
(“[D]ifferent terminals in 5G systems in the future may have different capabilities of software and hardware, that is, the parallel processing capabilities of different terminals are different.... [T]here is provided an information sending method, including: generating, by a terminal, User Equipment (UE) capability information, the UE capability information being used for indicating a parallel processing capability of the terminal for signals sent and/or received by at least two subcarriers” (Yang, 0004, 0007).
Here, “a terminal” maps to “said user equipment”, and
“different capabilities of ... hardware” for “a parallel processing capability of the terminal for ... at least two subcarriers” maps to “incapable of supporting all subcarriers (SC) across a full frequency band supported by the base station (BS) as a result of a physical limitation of a transceiver of the user equipment (UE) being incapable of processing all the subcarriers in parallel”).
The base station (BS) is capable of applying at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS) to a supported frequency band
(“[S]ending, by the access network device, the first uplink subcarrier spacings and/ the first uplink bandwidths and/or first downlink subcarrier spacings and first downlink bandwidths supported by the camped cell to the terminal, includes ...” (Yang, 0035).
Here, “the access network device” maps to “the base station (BS)”,
“supported” maps to “capable of applying”,
“the first uplink subcarrier spacings” and “first downlink subcarrier spacings map to “at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)”, and
“the first uplink bandwidths” and “first downlink bandwidths” map to “a supported frequency band”)
Ascertain a capability information from said ... user equipment (UE) including an indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment
(“Optionally, the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal according to the UE capability information. The access network device schedules uplink transmission of the terminal according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported by the terminal” (Yang, 0151).
Here, “according to the UE capability information” maps to “ascertain a capability information from said ... user equipment (UE)”, and
“the uplink subcarrier spacings” map to “an indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment”).
Determine a scheduling bandwidth (SBW) for said ... user equipment (UE) by identifying a plurality of subcarriers and time slots during which the subcarriers are free to be allocated to the ... user equipment (UE) while taking into account the indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment and the at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)
(“Optionally, the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal according to the UE capability information. The access network device schedules uplink transmission of the terminal according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported by the terminal” (Yang, 0151).
Here, “schedules” maps to “determine a scheduling bandwidth (SBW)”,
“the terminal” maps to “said ... user equipment (UE)”, and
“according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths” maps to “by identifying a plurality of subcarriers and time slots during which the subcarriers are free to be allocated to the ... user equipment (UE) while taking into account the indicated maximum number of subcarriers (SC) supported by the ... user equipment and the at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)”).
Transfer information to said ... user equipment (UE) considering said determined scheduling bandwidth (SBW)
(“Optionally, the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal according to the UE capability information. The access network device schedules uplink transmission of the terminal according to the uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported by the terminal” (Yang, 0151).
Here, “the access network device schedules uplink/downlink transmission of the terminal” maps to “transfer to said ... user equipment considering said determined scheduling bandwidth” because this clearly shows that the network device sends the time and subcarriers for transmission to the terminal).
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The plurality of user equipments comprises those which are qualified as a reduced capability user equipment
Reduced capability user equipment
However, He does teach:
The plurality of user equipments comprises those which are qualified as reduced capability user equipment
(“Other exemplary embodiments are related to a processor of a base station configured to perform operations. The operations include transmitting a system information block (SIB) to one or more user equipments (UEs) and receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “one or more user equipments” map to “the plurality of user equipments”, and
“reduced capability (redcap) device type” maps to “those which are qualified as reduced capability user equipment”).
Reduced capability user equipment
(“The operations include ... receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “a reduced capability (redcap) ... UE” maps to “reduced capability user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate He’s practice of having a user equipment explicitly indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station into Yang’s method for determining scheduling bandwidth. The UE indicating its reduced capability to the base station can help the base station determine what subcarriers are available to schedule the UE.
As to Claim 10:
Yang teaches:
The base station (BS) ... configured to support at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS1, SCS2)
(“When an access network sends data to a terminal, it is allowed to use at least two subcarriers with different subcarrier spacings to perform parallel transmission” (Yang, 0004).
Here, “an access network” maps to “the base station (BS)”,
“allowed to use” maps to “configured to support”, and
“at least two subcarriers with different subcarrier spacings” map to “at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS1, SCS2)”).
In case a candidate scheduling bandwidth covers an area with more than one different subcarrier spacings (SCS), for determining the scheduling bandwidth, the base station is configured to take into account the smallest of the at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS)
(“[T]he time-frequency resource blocks 20 [in Fig. 2] may be divided according to different subcarrier spacings ... [T]he subcarrier with relatively small subcarrier spacing may be used in the massive Machine Type Communication (mMTC) service” (Yang, 0072).
Here, “the time frequency resource blocks 20” map to “a candidate scheduling bandwidth”,
“divided according to different subcarrier spacings” maps to “covers an area with more than one different subcarrier spacings (SCS)”, and
“the subcarrier with relatively small subcarrier spacing may be used” maps to “for determining the scheduling bandwidth, the base station (BS) is configured to take into account the smallest of the at least two subcarrier spacings (SCS2)”).
As to Claim 12:
From the list of:
The ascertained capability information additionally includes an information indicative of at least one of:
A maximum supported subcarrier spacing (SCS),
A supported group of subcarrier spacings (SCS),
A maximum required processing time,
A supported fixed subcarrier spacing (SCS), and
A supported subcarrier spacing (SCS) per frequency range
Yang at least teaches:
The ascertained capability information additionally includes an information indicative of ... a supported group of subcarrier spacings (SCS)
(“[T]he UE capability information includes: uplink subcarrier spacings and uplink bandwidths supported to send in parallel by the terminal, at least two of the uplink subcarrier spacings being different” (Yang, 0011).
Here, “the UE capability information” maps to “the ascertained capability information”,
“includes” maps to “additionally includes”, and
“uplink subcarrier spacings being different” map to “a supported group of subcarrier spacings (SCS)”).
As to Claim 19:
Yang teaches:
By the base station, identifying the plurality of subcarriers and the time slots during which the subcarriers are free to be allocated to the ... user equipment (UE) further while taking into account an amount of data to be transmitted
(“[T]he access network device can learn the data buffer capability of the terminal for signals sent and/or received by at least subcarriers having different subcarrier spacings and then schedules the uplink/downlink transmission according to the data buffer capability of the terminal” (Yang, 0135).
Here, “the access network device can” maps to “by the base station”,
“learn” maps to “identifying”,
“subcarriers” maps to “the plurality of subcarriers”,
“schedules the uplink downlink transmission” maps to “identifying ... the time slots during which the subcarriers are free to be allocated”,
“the terminal” maps to “the ... user equipment (UE)”, and
“according to the data buffer capability of the terminal” maps to “while taking into account an amount of data to be transmitted”).
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The reduced capability user equipment (UE)
However, Yang does teach:
Reduced capability user equipment
(“The operations include ... receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “a reduced capability (redcap) ... UE” maps to “reduced capability user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate He’s practice of having a user equipment explicitly indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station into Yang’s method for determining scheduling bandwidth. The UE indicating its reduced capability to the base station can help the base station determine what subcarriers are available to schedule the UE.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0128526 A1) in view of He (US 2023/0042274 A1) and further in view of Tomeba et al. (US 11,134,488 B2, hereinafter “Tomeba”).
As to Claim 6:
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The reduced capability user equipment
However, He does teach:
Reduced capability user equipment
(“The operations include ... receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “a reduced capability (redcap) ... UE” maps to “reduced capability user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate He’s practice of having a user equipment explicitly indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station into Yang’s method for determining scheduling bandwidth. The UE indicating its reduced capability to the base station can help the base station determine what subcarriers are available to schedule the UE.
The combination of Yang and He does not explicitly disclose:
In non-consecutive assignments to the ... user equipment (UE) the step of determining of the scheduling bandwidth (SBW) comprises considering a whole bandwidth between a lowest and a highest scheduled subcarrier (SC) as part of the maximum number of subcarriers supported by the ... user equipment
However, Tomeba does describe a method for configuring frame structures across multiple sub-bands.
Specifically, Tomeba teaches:
In non-consecutive assignments to the ... user equipment (UE) the step of determining of the scheduling bandwidth (SBW) comprises considering a whole bandwidth between a lowest and a highest scheduled subcarrier (SC) as part of the maximum number of subcarriers supported by the ... user equipment
(“The radio parameters include some or all of a frequency bandwidth ... the number of subcarriers ... The occupied bandwidth of the discrete spectrum signal may be defined as the difference between the frequency of the subcarrier allocated at the lowest frequency and the frequency of the subcarrier allocated at the highest frequency among the multiple subcarriers with the discrete spectrum signals” (col. 23, lines 19-21; col. 37, lines 42-47).
Here, “discrete spectrum signal” maps to “non-consecutive assignments to the ... user equipment (UE)”,
“configures the scheduling information” for “subcarrier frequencies maps to “the step of determining of the scheduling bandwidth (SBW)”,
“may be defined” maps to “considering”,
“occupied bandwidth” maps to “a whole bandwidth”,
“the difference between the frequency of the subcarrier located at the lowest frequency and the frequency of the subcarrier located at the highest frequency” maps to “between a lowest and a highest scheduled subcarrier (SC)”,
“includes some or all” maps to “as part of”, and
“the number of subcarriers” maps to “the maximum number of subcarriers supported by the ... user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Tomeba’s practice of considering the entire bandwidth spanning from the lowest subcarrier to the highest with Yang’s method for scheduling a UE based on its supported subcarriers. This provides a quick and accurate picture of the frequency range spanned by distinct subcarriers.
As to Claim 13:
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The reduced capability user equipment
However, He does teach:
Reduced capability user equipment
(“The operations include ... receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “a reduced capability (redcap) ... UE” maps to “reduced capability user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate He’s practice of having a user equipment explicitly indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station into Yang’s method for determining scheduling bandwidth. The UE indicating its reduced capability to the base station can help the base station determine what subcarriers are available to schedule the UE.
The combination of Yang and He does not explicitly disclose:
In non-consecutive assignments to the ... user equipment (UE) the step of determining of the scheduling bandwidth (SBW) comprises considering a whole bandwidth between a lowest and a highest scheduled subcarrier (SC) as part of the maximum number of subcarriers supported by the ... user equipment
However, Tomeba does teach:
In non-consecutive assignments to the ... user equipment (UE) the step of determining of the scheduling bandwidth (SBW) comprises considering a whole bandwidth between a lowest and a highest scheduled subcarrier (SC) as part of the maximum number of subcarriers supported by the ... user equipment
(“The radio parameters include some or all of a frequency bandwidth ... the number of subcarriers ... The occupied bandwidth of the discrete spectrum signal may be defined as the difference between the frequency of the subcarrier allocated at the lowest frequency and the frequency of the subcarrier allocated at the highest frequency among the multiple subcarriers with the discrete spectrum signals” (col. 23, lines 19-21; col. 37, lines 42-47).
Here, “discrete spectrum signal” maps to “non-consecutive assignments to the ... user equipment (UE)”,
“configures the scheduling information” for “subcarrier frequencies maps to “the step of determining of the scheduling bandwidth (SBW)”,
“may be defined” maps to “considering”,
“occupied bandwidth” maps to “a whole bandwidth”,
“the difference between the frequency of the subcarrier located at the lowest frequency and the frequency of the subcarrier located at the highest frequency” maps to “between a lowest and a highest scheduled subcarrier (SC)”,
“includes some or all” maps to “as part of”, and
“the number of subcarriers” maps to “the maximum number of subcarriers supported by the ... user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Tomeba’s practice of considering the entire bandwidth spanning from the lowest subcarrier to the highest with Yang’s method for scheduling a UE based on its supported subcarriers. This provides a quick and accurate picture of the frequency range spanned by distinct subcarriers.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0128526 A1) in view of He (US 2023/0042274 A1) and further in view of Li et al. (US 11,949,478 B2, hereinafter “Li”).
As to Claim 7:
The combination of Yang and He does not explicitly disclose:
Transferring the ascertained capability information to a neighbor base station in the case of handover or multicarrier scheduling
However, Li does describe a method for reporting carrier aggregation capabilities.
Specifically, Li teaches:
Transferring the ascertained capability information to a neighbor base station in the case of handover or multicarrier scheduling
(“Optionally, when reporting capability information, the UE adds the carrier range information, so that when the capability information is transferred to another base station, the another base station learns that the capability information is reported for a carrier range ... When a capability reported by the UE is transferred, by using a handover process (Li, 0102, 0119).
Here, “transferred” maps to “transferring”,
“the capability information” maps to “the ascertained capability information”,
“to another base station” maps to “to a neighbor base station”, and
“a handover process” maps to “in the case of handover” from the list of “in the case of handover or multicarrier scheduling”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s practice of reporting UE capability information to a neighboring base station with Yang’s method for scheduling a UE based on its supported subcarriers. Reporting a UE’s capabilities to a neighbor base station allows for faster and more efficient handover.
As to Claim 14:
The combination of Yang and He does not explicitly disclose:
Transfer the ascertained capability information to a neighbor base station in the case of handover or multicarrier scheduling
However, Li does teach:
Transfer the ascertained capability information to a neighbor base station in the case of handover or multicarrier scheduling
(“Optionally, when reporting capability information, the UE adds the carrier range information, so that when the capability information is transferred to another base station, the another base station learns that the capability information is reported for a carrier range ... When a capability reported by the UE is transferred, by using a handover process (Li, 0102, 0119).
Here, “transferred” maps to “transfer”,
“the capability information” maps to “the ascertained capability information”,
“to another base station” maps to “to a neighbor base station”, and
“a handover process” maps to “in the case of handover” from the list of “in the case of handover or multicarrier scheduling”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s practice of reporting UE capability information to a neighboring base station with Yang’s method for scheduling a UE based on its supported subcarriers. Reporting a UE’s capabilities to a neighbor base station allows for faster and more efficient handover.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 2020/0128526 A1) in view of He (US 2023/0042274 A1) and further in view of Fodor et al. (US 10,412,745 B2, hereinafter “Fodor”).
As to Claim 8:
Yang does not explicitly disclose:
The reduced capability user equipment
However, He does teach:
Reduced capability user equipment
(“The operations include ... receiving an indication of a reduced capability (redcap) device type from a UE” (He, 0004).
Here, “a reduced capability (redcap) ... UE” maps to “reduced capability user equipment”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate He’s practice of having a user equipment explicitly indicate its reduced capabilities to a base station into Yang’s method for determining scheduling bandwidth. The UE indicating its reduced capability to the base station can help the base station determine what subcarriers are available to schedule the UE.
The combination of Yang and He does not explicitly disclose:
Amending the applied at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS) in consideration of the number of ... user equipments (UE) operating in at least parts of the cellular network (CN)
However, Fodor does describe a method for adapting subcarrier frequency spacing to increase power efficiency.
Specifically, Fodor teaches:
Amending the applied at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS) in consideration of the number of ... user equipments (UE) operating in at least parts of the cellular network (CN)
(“The number of subcarriers within a reference signal can be adapted to the number of spatially multiplexed devices. The number of subcarriers (or REs) within a symbol corresponds to the number of complex symbols of the reference sequence that can be accommodated within that symbol” (Fodor, col. 4, lines 39-44).
Here, “adapted” maps to “amending”,
“the number of subcarriers within a reference signal” maps to “the applied at least one subcarrier spacing (SCS)”,
“corresponds to” maps to “in consideration of”, and
“the number of ... devices” maps to “the number of ... user equipment (UE) operating in at least parts of the cellular network (CN)”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Fodor’s practice of adapting subcarrier spacings to the number of applicable devices into Yang’s method for allocating UEs scheduling bandwidth. Fodor’s dynamic spacing allocation makes Yang’s method more efficient, saving power and resources when they’re not needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Chirag Shah, can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
/B.P.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2477
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights