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 .
The office action is a response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination, filed January 2, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 2, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180220295 A1 (hereinafter Takahashi) in view of Takada, U.S. Patent Application Publication 20220418027 A1
Regarding Claim 1, Takahashi discloses user equipment (e.g. FIGS. 8, 9, user equipment 100) comprising: a transmitter (e.g., FIGS. 8, ¶ [0040], user interface 104; FIG. 9, ¶ [0044], communication control unit 110) configured to transmit a first indication of bandwidth amount associated with a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability to a base station (e.g., ¶ [0010], if the user equipment supports the combination of the frequency band 1 and the frequency band 5 and has the maximum bandwidth 20 MHz, the user equipment indicates “Bandwidth combination set=0” together with CA_1A-5A as the capability information to the base station [indicating band combination capability can reasonably be interpreted to indicate the maximum equivalent total bandwidth capability of the terminal device, as evidenced in prior art example, Shi et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 4271066 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0171]: Optionally, one or more band-combination information is further used to indicate the maximum equivalent total bandwidth of the terminal device; e.g., ¶ [0172]: Optionally, a signaling corresponding to band-combination information can further indicate the maximum aggregation bandwidth corresponding to the first UE capability. In this implementation, different capabilities are provided for different band-combinations)]; e.g., ¶ [0011], when the available channel bandwidth in the inter-band carrier aggregation is changed, “Bandwidth combination set” is used to indicate the changed combination of frequency bands. For example, it is assumed that two “Maximum aggregated bandwidth” items for 30 MHz and 20 MHz are specified for the combination (CA_1A-8A) of the frequency band 1 and the frequency band 8 available in the inter-band carrier aggregation and they are identified with “Bandwidth combination set=0” and “Bandwidth combination set=1”, respectively; e.g., ¶ [0016], a communication control unit configured to control radio communication with a base station; a capability information management unit configured to manage requirements regarding transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment for respective combinations of carrier aggregation frequency bands; and a capability information reporting unit configured to use an identifier for identifying a combination of channel bandwidths supported for a combination of inter-band carrier aggregation capable frequency bands to report the requirements regarding transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment as capability information to the base station);
a receiver (e.g., FIGS. 8, ¶ [0040], user interface 104; FIG. 9, ¶ [0044], communication control unit 110) configured to receive a second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability from the base station (e.g., ¶ [0010], Upon receiving the capability information, the base station can identify a channel bandwidth (5 MHz, 10 MHz, 15 MHz, 20 MHz or the like) supported by the user equipment based on the received capability information and configure the inter-band carrier aggregation for the user equipment in accordance with the supported channel bandwidth); and processing circuitry (e.g., FIG. 8, CPU 101, ¶ [0040], user equipment 100 may be any appropriate information processing device with a radio communication function) configured to transmit, via the transmitter, or receive, via the receiver, signals using the aggregated component carriers (e.g., ¶ [0035], user equipment identifies the requirements regarding the transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment from the requirements specified for the radio communication system for the respective combinations of carrier aggregation frequency bands; ¶ [0038] [0039], user equipment 100 uses component carriers CC#1, CC#2 and CC#3 served from the base stations 200A and 200B to perform simultaneous communication).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose first indication of a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability of the user equipment expressed independently of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class and a component carrier configuration.
Takada discloses first indication of a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability of the user equipment expressed independently of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class and a component carrier configuration (e.g., ¶ [0100] The Supported Bandwidth 532 is a field including capability information indicating a bandwidth supported by the communication apparatus…103 (e.g., FIG. 1, ¶ [0023] station, STA); e.g., ¶ [0101] In a case where operating information is indicated by a Multi-Link Capability Element, this field may indicate a bandwidth to be actually used in multi-link communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate carrier bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi, with the disclosure of indicating a user equipment’s bandwidth capability, as disclosed by Takada. The motivation to combine would have been to support multi-link standard-based communication (Takada: e.g., ¶ [0009]).
Regarding Claim 3, Takahashi in view of Takada discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 1.
Takahashi discloses wherein the first indication comprises a field corresponding a frequency separation class (e.g., ¶ [0060], the capability information reporting unit 130 uses an identifier for identifying a combination of channel bandwidths supported for a combination of inter-band carrier aggregation capable frequency bands to report the requirements regarding transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment 100 as the capability information to the base station 200).
Regarding Claim 9, Takahashi discloses one or more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media storing instructions (e.g., FIG. 15, ¶ [0062], user equipment 100, with processor 1001 and memory 1002; ¶ [0066], processor 1001 loads programs (program codes), software modules and data from the storage 1003 and/or the communication device 104 into the memory 1002 and executes various operations; ¶ [0067], memory 1002 is a computer-readable storage medium) that, when executed, cause one or more processors to: receive a first indication of a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability from a user equipment (e.g., ¶ [0010], if the user equipment supports the combination of the frequency band 1 and the frequency band 5 and has the maximum bandwidth 20 MHz, the user equipment indicates “Bandwidth combination set=0” together with CA_1A-5A as the capability information to the base station [indicating band combination capability can reasonably be interpreted to indicate the maximum equivalent total bandwidth capability of the terminal device, as evidenced in prior art example, Shi et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 4271066 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0171]: Optionally, one or more band-combination information is further used to indicate the maximum equivalent total bandwidth of the terminal device; e.g., ¶ [0172]: Optionally, a signaling corresponding to band-combination information can further indicate the maximum aggregation bandwidth corresponding to the first UE capability. In this implementation, different capabilities are provided for different band-combinations)]; allocate aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability to the user equipment (e.g., ¶ [0010], Upon receiving the capability information, the base station can identify a channel bandwidth (5 MHz, 10 MHz, 15 MHz, 20 MHz or the like) supported by the user equipment based on the received capability information and configure the inter-band carrier aggregation for the user equipment in accordance with the supported channel bandwidth); and transmit a second indication of the aggregated component carriers to the user equipment (e.g., ¶ [0035], user equipment identifies the requirements regarding the transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment from the requirements specified for the radio communication system for the respective combinations of carrier aggregation frequency bands; ¶ [0038] [0039], user equipment 100 uses component carriers CC#1, CC#2 and CC#3 served from the base stations 200A and 200B to perform simultaneous communication).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose first indication of a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability of the user equipment expressed independently of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class and a component carrier configuration.
Takada discloses first indication of a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability of the user equipment expressed independently of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class and a component carrier configuration (e.g., ¶ [0100] The Supported Bandwidth 532 is a field including capability information indicating a bandwidth supported by the communication apparatus…103 (e.g., FIG. 1, ¶ [0023] station, STA); e.g., ¶ [0101] In a case where operating information is indicated by a Multi-Link Capability Element, this field may indicate a bandwidth to be actually used in multi-link communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate carrier bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi, with the disclosure of indicating a user equipment’s bandwidth capability, as disclosed by Takada. The motivation to combine would have been to support multi-link standard-based communication (Takada: e.g., ¶ [0009]).
Regarding Claim 16, the claim is directed to a method comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the user equipment of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 16.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Liu et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20250056287 A1 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding Claim 2, Takahashi in view of Takada discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 1.
Takahashi discloses wherein the first indication comprises a first field comprising the bandwidth amount associated with the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability (e.g., ¶ [0056], the capability information reporting unit 130 may report the requirement regarding transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment 100 as the capability information to the base station 200 by setting a value of identifier for “supportedBandwidthCombinationSet” or “supportedTxRxRequirementSet” field in the capability information (“UE-EUTRA-Capability-IE) station [indicating band combination capability can reasonably be interpreted to indicate the maximum equivalent total bandwidth capability of the terminal device] to indicate that a harmonic measure is provided to the user equipment 100. As a result, the base station 200 can identify the requirement regarding transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment 100).
In the context of claim 1, Takahashi does not expressly disclose first indication being a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability of the user equipment expressed independently of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class and a component carrier configuration.
Takada discloses first indication of a maximum aggregated bandwidth capability of the user equipment expressed independently of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class and a component carrier configuration (e.g., ¶ [0100] The Supported Bandwidth 532 is a field including capability information indicating a bandwidth supported by the communication apparatus…103 (e.g., FIG. 1, ¶ [0023] station, STA); e.g., ¶ [0101] In a case where operating information is indicated by a Multi-Link Capability Element, this field may indicate a bandwidth to be actually used in multi-link communication).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate carrier bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi, with the disclosure of indicating a user equipment’s bandwidth capability, as disclosed by Takada. The motivation to combine would have been to support multi-link standard-based communication (Takada: e.g., ¶ [0009]).
Takahashi in view of Takada does not expressly disclose a second field comprising a carrier aggregation bandwidth class.
Liu discloses the first indication comprises a first field corresponding to comprising the bandwidth amount associated with the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability (e.g., ¶ [0061], The supported maximum cumulative bandwidth of carrier aggregations can be indicated by a fixed value, such as 800 MHz (Mega Hertz). Or, the supported maximum cumulative bandwidth of carrier aggregations can be indicated by a range value) and a second field comprising a carrier aggregation bandwidth class (e.g., ¶ [0061], a number of different classes can be predefined, for example, class A indicates 0-400 MHz, class B indicates 400 MHz-800 MHz, and class C indicates 800 MHz-1200 MHz. When the supported maximum cumulative bandwidth of carrier aggregations is indicated by class B, it indicates that the supported maximum cumulative bandwidth of carrier aggregations is 800 MHz, and a base station can realize continuous carrier scheduling between 400 MHz and 800 MHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of indicating a carrier aggregation bandwidth class as part of the capability, as disclosed by Liu. The motivation to combine would have been to support acquisition of device capability information (Liu: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Claims 4, 5, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Li et al, U.S. Patent Publication No. 11343826 B2 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 4, Takahashi in view of Takada discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 1.
Takahashi discloses the UE providing capability for each carrier band (e.g., ¶ [0059], user equipment 100 to report the requirements regarding transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment 100 for respective combinations or some specified combinations of carrier aggregation frequency bands to the base station 200; ¶ [0060], the capability information reporting unit 130 uses an identifier for identifying a combination of channel bandwidths supported for a combination of inter-band carrier aggregation capable frequency bands), but does not expressly disclose the UE transmitting indication of a maximum bandwidth capability for each component carrier to the base station.
Li discloses wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a third indication of a maximum bandwidth capability for each component carrier to the base station (e.g., Claims 1, 3: determining, by the terminal device, a carrier aggregation capability and baseband capabilities of the terminal device, wherein the carrier aggregation capability indicates a quantity of the carriers in the carrier aggregation band combination supported by the terminal device and indicates a bandwidth of each carrier in the carrier aggregation band combination, and the baseband capabilities comprise a first multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) capability, and the first MIMO capability indicates a first quantity of MIMO layers that is capable of being processed by the terminal device; sending, by the terminal device, information of the carrier aggregation capability and the baseband capabilities to a network device)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of maximum bandwidth capability for each component carrier, as disclosed by Li. The motivation to combine would have been to support higher transmission rate requirement of mobile users (Li: e.g., Column 1, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 5, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Li discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 4.
Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the receiver is configured to receive the second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and the maximum bandwidth capability for each component carrier from the base station.
Li discloses wherein the receiver is configured to receive the second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and the maximum bandwidth capability for each component carrier from the base station ((e.g., Claims 1, 3: receiving, by the terminal device from the network device in response to sending the information of the carrier aggregation capability and the baseband capabilities, configuration information, wherein the configuration information is based on the information of the carrier aggregation capability and the baseband capabilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of maximum bandwidth capability for each component carrier, as disclosed by Li. The motivation to combine would have been to support higher transmission rate requirement of mobile users (Li: e.g., Column 1, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 17, Takahashi in view of Takada discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 16.
The functional limitations of Claim 17 are similar to claim 4. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 4 shall be applied to claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Li discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 16.
The functional limitations of Claim 18 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 5 shall be applied to claim 18.
Claims 6, 7, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Fan et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20250024462 A1 (hereinafter Fan).
Regarding Claim 6, Takahashi in view of Takada discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 1.
Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a third indication of maximum number of components carriers capable of supporting a maximum component carrier bandwidth to the base station.
Fan discloses wherein the transmitter is configured to transmit a third indication of maximum number of components carriers capable of supporting a maximum component carrier bandwidth to the base station (e.g., ¶ [0056], The base station may further determine, based on the terminal capability information, whether the terminal device has a CA capability, whether the terminal device supports a CA band combination… based on information elements such as UE-category, supported band information (supported band EUTRA), supported band combination (supported band combination-r10), supported intra-band contiguous maximum aggregated bandwidth and maximum quantity of carriers (ca-bandwidthclassDL-r10), and supported bandwidth combination (supported bandwidth combinationSet-r10) in the terminal capability information [i.e., sees capability with respect to maximum aggregated bandwidth and maximum quantity of carriers]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of capability to support a maximum component carrier bandwidth, as disclosed by Fan. The motivation to combine would have been to support efficient scheduling (Fan: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 7, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Fan discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 6.
Takahashi discloses wherein the receiver is configured to receive the second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and component carrier support (e.g., ¶ [0010], Upon receiving the capability information, the base station can identify a channel bandwidth (5 MHz, 10 MHz, 15 MHz, 20 MHz or the like) supported by the user equipment based on the received capability information and configure the inter-band carrier aggregation for the user equipment in accordance with the supported channel bandwidth).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the receiver is configured to receive the second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and the maximum number of components carriers capable of supporting the maximum component carrier bandwidth from the base station.
Fan discloses wherein the receiver is configured to receive the second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and the maximum number of components carriers capable of supporting the maximum component carrier bandwidth from the base station (e.g., ¶ [0056], The base station may further determine, based on the terminal capability information, whether the terminal device has a CA capability, whether the terminal device supports a CA band combination… based on information elements such as UE-category, supported band information (supported band EUTRA), supported band combination (supported band combination-r10), supported intra-band contiguous maximum aggregated bandwidth and maximum quantity of carriers (ca-bandwidthclassDL-r10), and supported bandwidth combination (supported bandwidth combinationSet-r10) in the terminal capability information [i.e., sees capability with respect to maximum aggregated bandwidth and maximum quantity of carriers]; e.g., ¶ [0057] [0058], [paraphrased citation] base station sends configuration to terminal device based on received capability information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of capability to support a maximum component carrier bandwidth, as disclosed by Fan. The motivation to combine would have been to support efficient scheduling (Fan: e.g., ¶ [0005]).
Regarding Claim 19, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Li discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 16.
The functional limitations of Claim 19 are similar to claim 6. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 6 shall be applied to claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Li discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 19.
The functional limitations of Claim 20 are similar to claim 7. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 7 shall be applied to claim 20.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Ng et al, European Patent Application Publication No. 4228195 A1 (hereinafter Ng).
Regarding Claim 10, Takahashi in view of Takada discloses all the limitations of the one more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 9.
Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to receive a third indication of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class from the user equipment.
Ng discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to receive a third indication of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class from the user equipment (e.g., FIG. 4, ¶ [0056], In phase 410, the UE stores the carrier aggregation capability information of the user equipment. In phase 420, which may take place in connection with an attachment, such as initial attachment, to a wireless communication network, the UE signals to the base station BS to indicate the carrier aggregation capability information, at least in part. In particular, the UE may indicate the proper subset of carrier aggregation bandwidth classes which are comprised in a first fallback group and associated with a second fallback group, wherein the second fallback group has a narrower maximum CC bandwidth than the first group, and the carrier aggregation capability information indicates the UE supports fallback from bandwidth classes in the proper subset to bandwidth classes in the second fallback group).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of indication of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class, as disclosed by Ng. The motivation to combine would have been to manage telecommunication connections (Ng: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 11, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Ng discloses all the limitations of the one more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 10.
Takahashi discloses wherein the receiver is configured to receive the second indication of aggregated component carriers based on the bandwidth amount associated with the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and component carrier support (e.g., ¶ [0010], Upon receiving the capability information, the base station can identify a channel bandwidth (5 MHz, 10 MHz, 15 MHz, 20 MHz or the like) supported by the user equipment based on the received capability information and configure the inter-band carrier aggregation for the user equipment in accordance with the supported channel bandwidth).
Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to allocate the aggregated component carriers based on the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and according to the carrier aggregation bandwidth class to the user equipment.
Ng discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to allocate the aggregated component carriers based on the bandwidth amount associated with maximum aggregated bandwidth capability and according to the carrier aggregation bandwidth class to the user equipment (e.g., FIG. 4, ¶ [0057], in phase 430, the UE and the network may negotiate concerning establishing a carrier aggregation, CA, session [i.e., one of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted establishment of a session to include resource allocation], which may be based, at least in part, on the carrier aggregation capability information communicated in phase 420).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of indication of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class, as disclosed by Ng. The motivation to combine would have been to manage telecommunication connections (Ng: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 12, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Ng discloses all the limitations of the one more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 10.
Takahashi discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to allocate the aggregated component carriers based on the bandwidth amount associated with the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability (e.g., ¶ [0010], Upon receiving the capability information, the base station can identify a channel bandwidth (5 MHz, 10 MHz, 15 MHz, 20 MHz or the like) supported by the user equipment based on the received capability information and configure the inter-band carrier aggregation for the user equipment in accordance with the supported channel bandwidth), but does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to allocate the aggregated component carriers according to a lower order carrier aggregation bandwidth class than the carrier aggregation bandwidth class to the user equipment.
Ng discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to allocate the aggregated component carriers based on the aggregated bandwidth capability (e.g., FIG. 5, step 510) and according to a lower order carrier aggregation bandwidth class than the carrier aggregation bandwidth class to the user equipment (e.g., FIG. 5, ¶ [0006], Phase 520 comprises using the carrier aggregation capability information to select a fallback carrier aggregation configuration, wherein the fallback group(s) associated with the proper subset of the carrier aggregation bandwidth classes has lower maximum supported component carrier bandwidth(s) than the fallback group in which the proper subset of the carrier aggregation bandwidth classes is comprised).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, with the disclosure of indication of a carrier aggregation bandwidth class, as disclosed by Ng. The motivation to combine would have been to manage telecommunication connections (Ng: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 14, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Ng discloses all the limitations of the one more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 12.
Takahashi discloses wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to receive a third indication of a component carrier configuration from the user equipment (e.g., ¶ [0035], user equipment identifies the requirements regarding the transmission and reception characteristics supported by the user equipment from the requirements specified for the radio communication system for the respective combinations of carrier aggregation frequency bands; ¶ [0038] [0039], user equipment 100 uses component carriers CC#1, CC#2 and CC#3 served from the base stations 200A and 200B to perform simultaneous communication).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Fan, and in further view of Sha et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230345232 A1 (hereinafter Sha).
Regarding Claim 8, Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Fan discloses all the limitations of the user equipment of claim 6.
Takahashi does not expressly disclose wherein maximum component carrier bandwidth comprises 200 megahertz.
Sha discloses wherein bandwidth amount associated with the maximum component carrier bandwidth comprises 200 megahertz (e.g., ¶ [0150], capability information set may include the following capability information: a maximum carrier bandwidth; a maximum number of aggregated carriers; and a maximum number of MIMO layers. It is assumed that capability information sets corresponding to the three capability modes indicated by the second indication information may be respectively: For information included in a capability information set corresponding to the capability mode 1: the maximum carrier bandwidth is 200 MHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of sending capability with respect to component carriers and maximum aggregate bandwidth, as disclosed by Takahashi in view of Takada, in further view of Fan, with the disclosure of capability to support a particular maximum component carrier bandwidth, as disclosed by Sha. The motivation to combine would have been to update capability information of a terminal device (Sha: e.g., ¶ [0006]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 13, dependent from claim 12, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation regarding wherein the lower order carrier aggregation bandwidth class comprises a maximum bandwidth greater than the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability, and an aggregated bandwidth of the aggregated component carriers comprises the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability.
Regarding Claim 15, dependent from claim 14, prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation regarding wherein the lower order carrier aggregation bandwidth class comprises a maximum bandwidth less than the bandwidth amount associated with the maximum aggregated bandwidth capability, and the instructions cause the one or more processors to determine a maximum bandwidth of each component carrier based on the component carrier configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471