DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8 and 10 have been amended. No claim has been cancelled or newly added. The status of claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on Jan 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged that the combination of Fang et al (US20230009307A1, PCT Priority Date: Aug 05, 2020), MU et al (US20230292364A1, Priority Date: Jul 31, 2020), and CHIEN et al (US20220377798A1, PCT Pro 63061223 Priority Date: Aug 05, 2020) failed to disclose: “transmit a third initial uplink BWP configuration shared by a reduced capability terminal and a first terminal, wherein the third initial uplink BWP configuration comprises:
uplink common BWP configuration of the first terminal, the uplink common BWP configuration comprising:
a first random access configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal, or
two-step random access common RACH configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal” in claim 1.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because MU’364 discloses: “In step S210, a resource configuration parameter is sent, a resource indicated by the resource configuration parameter is configured for bandwidth resource multiplexing of a first type of UE and a second type of UE, and the bandwidth resource multiplexing includes at least one of: … initial uplink (UL) bandwidth parts (BWPs) of the first type of UE and the second type of UE … fully overlapping” (par 0034); “the second type of UE may be a normal UE, and the first type of UE may be a reduced capability UE” (par 0040).
Therefore MU’364 teaches: “sending resource configuration parameter including initial UL BWPs fully overlapped for normal UE and reduced capability UE”, and thus MU’364 discloses: “transmit a third initial uplink BWP configuration shared by a reduced capability terminal and a first terminal”. Here fully overlapped can be equated to shared, and configured parameter can be equated to configuration.
MU’364 further discloses: “ the resource configuration parameter includes one or more sets of configuration parameters, in which any set of configuration parameters may include at least one of the following parameters: … resource parameters for the initial UL BWPs, the initial UL BWPs corresponding to the first type of UE and the second type of UE at least partially overlapping”(par 0057); “The resource parameters for the initial UL BWPs may indicate resources for the corresponding UE to perform initial access, including at least one of the following resources: a time domain resource, a frequency domain resource, or a code domain resource” (par 0064). Therefore MU’364 teaches: resource configuration parameter including resource parameters for the initial UL BWPs fully overlapped for second type of UE (normal UE) and first type of UE (reduced capability UE) to perform initial access. Here resource configuration parameters for the initial UL BWPs fully overlapped for normal UE and reduced capability UE to perform initial access can be equated to both uplink common BWP configuration of the first terminal (as initial UL BWPs is common for second type of UE (normal UE)) and a first random access configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal (equated by resource configuration parameter including resource parameters to perform initial access by reduced capability UE).
And thus MU’364 discloses:
“transmit a third initial uplink BWP configuration shared by a reduced capability terminal and a first terminal, wherein the third initial uplink BWP configuration comprises:
uplink common BWP configuration of the first terminal, the uplink common BWP configuration comprising:
a first random access configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal, or
two-step random access common RACH configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal” (noted, the examiner picks an option to reject).
Another way to interpret the claim limitation: first terminal can be any terminal and thus it can be equated by another reduced capability UE. Broadly speaking, “resource configuration parameter including resource parameters on the initial UL BWPs for first type of UE (reduced capability UE) to perform random access” can be equated to both uplink common BWP configuration of the first terminal and a first random access configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal. Since this resource configuration parameter is for first type of UE (reduced capability UE), and thus it’s configuration for both first reduced capability UE and second reduced capability UEs (equated to first terminal).
The Applicant alleged that the combination of Fang et al (US20230009307A1, PCT Priority Date: Aug 05, 2020), MU et al (US20230292364A1, Priority Date: Jul 31, 2020), and CHIEN et al (US20220377798A1, PCT Pro 63061223 Priority Date: Aug 05, 2020) failed to disclose: “wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to identify the reduced capability terminal according to a resource indicated by the first random access configuration” in claim 1.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because CHIEN’798 discloses: network can distinguish RedCap UE and performs relaxed scheduling and DL/UL data transmission during cell access and random-access procedure for RedCap UEs.
Cell-specific resources for RedCap UEs including:
a) Initial access resource;
b) Paging resource; and/or
c) System information block (SIB) with index one (SIB1) or other system information (OSI) (par 0016);
“The UE provides device type related information of an extended device type UE (S1). The gNB receives device type related information of an extended device type UE (S2) and provides resource configuration for the extended device type UE based on the device type related information of the extended device type UE (S3). The gNB performs an initial access procedure with the extended device type UE according to the resource configuration for the extended device type UE (S4). The UE performs an initial access procedure with the gNB according to the resource configuration for the extended device type UE (S5)” (par 0042), “The extended device type UE comprises a reduced capability user equipment (RedCap UE). …The device type related information may comprise a predefined preamble, predefined physical random access channel (PRACH) resources, a predefined initial DL or UL BWP for the extended device type UE, so that the extended device type UE can implicitly signal the device type or UE capability to the network, and the network can identify the device type or UE capability of the extended device type UE based on the device type related information” (par 0043). Therefore CHIEN’798 discloses: network can distinguish device type of the extended device type UE (RedCap UE) based on device type related information including predefined preamble and predefined PRACH resources during cell access (with initial access resource), and resource configuration for initial access configured according to device type related information. And thus CHIEN’798 teaches: identify the reduced capability terminal according to a resource indicated by the first random access configuration. Here predefined preamble and predefined PRACH resources for initial access can be equated to resource indicated by the first random access configuration.
Therefore, the cited references teach the claimed limitations in question with adequate reasons and suggestions of combining the teachings. The same conclusion applies to claim 8.
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 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 col. 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang et al (US20230009307A1, PCT Priority Date: Aug 05, 2020) in view of MU et al (US20230292364A1, Priority Date: Jul 31, 2020), and further in view of CHIEN et al (US20220377798A1, PCT Pro 63061223 Priority Date: Aug 05, 2020).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Fang’307 discloses an apparatus for transmission and reception of a signal, applicable to a network device (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates with UE through cells in wireless communication network, par 0020), the apparatus comprising:
a transmitter (see, Fig. 2, BS transceiver module, par 0023) configured to:
transmit a third initial uplink BWP configuration shared by the reduced capability terminal and a first terminal (see, Fig. 3 and 5D, BS transmits PRACH configuration including starting position of initial UL bandwidth parts and PRACH transmission occasions, PRACH transmission occasion for reduced capability UEs in the same UL bandwidth part as legacy UEs and overlapped, par 0038, 0044, 0069. Noted, factor of association pattern in response to different PRACH transmission occasions for reduced capability UEs compared to legacy UEs can be configured the same by factor = 1, par 0018, 0075-0076);
a receiver (see, Fig. 2, BS transceiver module, par 0023) configured to receive a message transmitted by the reduced capability terminal according to the first random access configuration (see, BS receives RAR message from reduced capability UE configured with dedicated PRACH configuration for reduced capability UE, par 0036-0037); and
a processor (see, Fig. 2, BS processor module, par 0023) configured to,
wherein the processor circuitry (see, Fig. 2, BS processor module, par 0023) is further configured to.
Fang’307 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
transmit a third initial uplink BWP configuration shared by a reduced capability terminal and a first terminal, wherein the third initial uplink BWP configuration comprises:
uplink common BWP configuration of the first terminal, the uplink common BWP configuration comprising:
a first random access configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal, or
two-step random access common RACH configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal;
perform data transmission with the reduced capability terminal by using a reduced capability transmission mode,
wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to identify the reduced capability terminal according to a resource indicated by the first random access configuration.
However MU’364 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig.1, telecommunication system comprises UEs, BSs and CN entities, par 0038) discloses:
transmit a third initial uplink BWP configuration shared by a reduced capability terminal and a first terminal (see, configured resource configuration parameter of initial UL BWPs full overlapped for first type of UE (reduced capability UE) and second type of UE (normal UE), par 0034, 0040), wherein the third initial uplink BWP configuration (see, configured resource configuration parameter of initial UL BWPs, par 0034) comprises:
uplink common BWP configuration of the first terminal (see, configured resource configuration parameter of initial UL BWPs for second type of UE, par 0034), the uplink common BWP configuration comprising:
a first random access configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal (see, resource configuration parameter of initial UL BWPs including resource parameters for first type of UE (reduced capability UE) to perform random access, par 0040, 0057, 0064), or
two-step random access common RACH configuration for performing random access by the reduced capability terminal (note, the examiner picks an option to reject. Noted further, first terminal taken as normal UE in the rejection above. Discussion part also further explains it could be interpreted by another reduced capability UE);
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the apparatus as taught by MU’364 into that of Fang’307. The motivation would have been to reduce unnecessary waste of resources and reduce communication capacity (par 0004).
The combination of Fang’307 and MU’364 discloses all the claim limitations but fails to explicitly teach:
perform data transmission with the reduced capability terminal by using a reduced capability transmission mode,
wherein the processor circuitry is further configured to identify the reduced capability terminal according to a resource indicated by the first random access configuration.
However CHIEN’798 from the same field of endeavor (see, Fig.1, telecommunication system comprises UEs, BSs and CN entities, par 0038) discloses:
perform data transmission (see, DL/UL data transmission, par 0320) with the reduced capability terminal (see, RedCap UE, par 0320) by using an reduced capability transmission mode (see, network performs relaxed scheduling and DL/UL data transmission during random-access procedure for RedCap UE by avoiding unnecessary network access attempt of the RedCap UEs, reducing UE power consumption and balancing network load, par 0320. Noted, scheduled DL/UL data transmission with RedCap UE can be equated to reduced capability transmission mode),
identify the reduced capability terminal (see, RedCap UE, par 0043) according to a resource (see, predefined preamble and predefined PRACH resources, par 0043) indicated by the first random access configuration (see, network distinguishes device type of the extended device type UE (RedCap UE) based on device type related information including predefined preamble and predefined PRACH resources during cell access (with initial access resource), and resource configuration for initial access configured according to device type related information can be equated to resource indicated by the first random access configuration, par 0016, 0042-0043).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to implement the apparatus as taught by CHIEN’798 into that of Fang’307 modified by MU’364. The motivation would have been to provide advantageous effects of maintaining coexistence performance for NR RedCap UEs and NR legacy UEs (par 0025).
Regarding claim 2 (Original), Fang’307 discloses the apparatus according to claim 1 (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates with UE through cells in wireless communication network, par 0020), wherein,
the first random access configuration (see, PRACH configuration, par 0038) comprises at least one of the following configurations:
random access channel (RACH) configuration of a first message (msg 1) (see, PRACH configuration considers starting position of PRACH transmission occasion, the starting position of initial UL bandwidth parts, the number of PRACH transmission occasions, the PRACH transmission occasions in time domain, the PRACH configuration index, par 0038);
physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) configuration of a third message (msg 3);
random access channel (RACH) configuration of a second message (Msg A) of two-step random access; PUSCH configuration of the second message (Msg A);
physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) configuration performing HARQ feedback on a fourth message (msg 4); and
physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) configuration performing HARQ feedback on a fifth message (Msg B) (Note, the examiner picks an option to reject).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Fang’307 discloses the apparatus according to claim 2 (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates with UE through cells in wireless communication network, par 0020),
wherein the reduced capability transmission mode comprises at least one of the following:
being lower than a bandwidth supported by the first terminal (see, a reduction of the minimum required device bandwidth, par 0004), being less than the number of antennas supported by the first terminal (see, reduced number of transmission and/or reception antennas, par 0004), being less than the number of HARQ processes supported by the first terminal, being lower than a modulation and coding scheme supported by the first terminal, a half-duplex frequency-division duplex mode (see, Fig. 5A, half-duplex frequency-division, par 0004, 0040), being smaller than a transport block size supported by the first terminal (note, the examiner picks options to reject).
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Fang’307 discloses the apparatus according to claim 2 (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates with UE through cells in wireless communication network, par 0020),
wherein a second random access configuration (see, legacy PRACH configuration, par 0035) for the first terminal (see, legacy UE, par 0035) is comprised in the third initial uplink BWP (see, PRACH configuration information for legacy UE included starting position legacy UE UL initial bandwidth part with offset from reduced capability UE UL initial bandwidth part, par 0040-0042. Noted, reduced capability UE UL initial bandwidth part can be equated to third initial uplink BWP).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Fang’307 discloses the apparatus according to claim 5 (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates with UE through cells in wireless communication network, par 0020), wherein,
the first random access and the second random access share a random access opportunity (RO); or
a random access opportunity (RO) of the first random access is independent of a random access opportunity (RO) of the second random access (see, PRACH transmission occasions of first random access and RO second random access respectively in FR1 and FR2 are independent due to different frequency range, par 0003, 0030-0033, 0041. Noted, the examiner picks an option to reject).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended), Fang’307 discloses the apparatus according to claim 6 (see, Fig. 1, BS communicates with UE through cells in wireless communication network, par 0020), wherein, the first random access configuration (see, PRACH configuration, par 0061) further comprises the number of preambles (see, number of PRACH preambles sent from the reduced capability UE, par 0060) that are able to be used by the reduced capability terminal in the random access opportunity (RO) (see, BS determines repetition requirement indicating number of PRACH preambles sent from the reduced capability UE in consecutive PRACH transmission occasions associated with the same SSB block(s) to the BS, par 0060).
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), Claim 8 recites an apparatus for transmission and reception of a signal applicable to a reduced capability terminal equipment performing the steps recited in claim 1 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9 (Original), Claim 9 recites an apparatus for transmission and reception of a signal, applicable to a reduced capability terminal equipment performing the steps recited in claim 2 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Claim 10 recites an apparatus for transmission and reception of a signal, applicable to a reduced capability terminal equipment performing the steps recited in claim 5 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), Claim 11 recites an apparatus for transmission and reception of a signal, applicable to a reduced capability terminal equipment performing the steps recited in claim 6 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 12 (Original), Claim 12 recites an apparatus for transmission and reception of a signal, applicable to a reduced capability terminal equipment performing the steps recited in claim 7 and thereby, is rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 7.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-2844. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:30pm.
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, KWANG YAO can be reached on (571)272-3182. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XUAN LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights