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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Awadin.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss et al. (US 2024/0259853 as supported by the corresponding figures and passages of U.S. Provisional application No. 63/334,826) in view of Rastegardoost et al. (US 2023/0223985) and Awadin et al. (US 2023/0140213). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, El Hamss discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (fig. 1D, item 102x), the method comprising: receiving information related to a plurality of first bandwidth parts (BWPs) (paras. 167-168; figs. 3 and 7; note: configuration for BWPs for positioning); and transmitting sounding reference signals (SRSs) for positioning on a plurality of second BWPs included in the plurality of first BWPs sequentially (fig. 7; paras. 136, 142 and 166-168; note: BWPs for SRSp transmission; note: receive configuration for N BWPs and use up to N BWPs; note: hopping patterns with sequential SRSp transmissions over the hops), wherein active BWPs, on which the SRSs are transmitted sequentially, are switched within the plurality of second BWPs based on BWP switching order information (paras. 123, 136, 142, 153, 166-168 and 170; note: SRS/PRS resource set information including resource information for BWPs and patterns).
However, El Hamss fails to disclose active BWPs are switched upon expiration of timers related to the plurality of second BWPs. Rastegardoost discloses expiring timers are used to switch BWPs (figs. 19-20; para. 286, especially the first two sentences; para. 288, especially the third and fifth sentences; paras. 294-295; note: “timers” in the broadest reasonable interpretation is one timer repeatedly reset at the expiration of the BWP hop interval to switch to a new active BWP among the BWPs - specification of the instant application, para. 356, especially the third sentence). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have active BWPs switched upon expiration of timers related to the plurality of second BWPs in the invention of El Hamss. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, facilitating BWP switching as is known in the art (Rastegardoost, figs. 19-20 and paras. 286, 288 and 294-295; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, El Hamss in view of Rastegardoost fails to teach and make obvious wherein the BWP switching order information is identified based on predefined rules related to a plurality of BWP identifiers (IDs) of the plurality of second BWPs; and wherein the predefined rules compriseBWPs is identified by an order of the plurality of BWP IDs included in the first permutation information
However, Awadin discloses BWP switching order information based on predefined rules related to BWP IDs (figs. 19-21 and 23; paras. 158, 161-165; note: various pattern rules) comprising a first rule for configuring permutation information of the BWP IDs, wherein based on the rule, the switching order between the BWPs is identified by an order of BWP IDs included in the permutation information (para. 168-175; note: the specification of the instant application describes an BWP ID sequence order as a permutation (para. 358)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the BWP switching order information is identified based on predefined rules related to a plurality of BWP identifiers (IDs) of the plurality of second BWPs; and wherein the predefined rules comprise
Regarding claim 2, El Hamss in view of the embodiment of Rastegardoost and Awadin fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein a time duration gap in which switching of the active BWPs is allowed is configured, wherein the active BWPs BWP are switched during switching is performed within the time gap duration, and wherein the plurality of second BWPs are included in the time duration in a time domain. However, an alternate embodiment of Rastegardoost discloses this feature (para. 269, especially the last sentence; note: time interval where a BWP hopping pattern is allowed; figs. 21-26 and paras. 303-308; note: intervals for activation and deactivation of BWP hopping; para. 288, third sentence; note: “BWP” is interchangeable with “subband”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a time duration gap in which switching of the active BWPs is allowed is configured, wherein the active BWPs BWP are switched during switching is performed within the time gap duration, and wherein the plurality of second BWPs are included in the time duration in a time domain in the invention of El Hamss and the embodiment of Rastegardoost and Awadin. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, provide time periods for hopping or no hopping as is known in the art (Rastegardoost, figs. 21-26 and paras. 269 and 303-308; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 3, El Hamss in view of Rastegardoost and Awadin teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of first BWPs include a default BWP, wherein before the time gap, the UE is configured to operate in the default BWP before the time gap, and wherein after the time gap, the UE is configured to switch from the active BWP perform BWP switching to the default BWP (Rastegardoost, figs. 21-26; note: anchor BWP as the default BWP - para. 300, second sentence).
Regarding claims 8, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim. In addition, El Hamss discloses the UE comprising (fig. 1B): at least one processor, at least one computer and at least one computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the UE to perform operations (para. 195) of the method of claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 11, El Hamss in view of Rastegardoost and Awadin teaches and makes obvious the UE of claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with at least one of a mobile UE, a network, or an autonomous vehicle other than a vehicle including the UE (El Hamss, fig. 1D; note: communication with a network).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 1 from the perspective of a base station (El Hamss, fig. 1D) for transmitting the configuration information and receiving the SRS according claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El Hamss in view of Rastegardoost and Awadin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al. (US 2023/0269712).
El Hamss in view of Rastegardoost and Awadin teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the UE is a reduced capability (RedCap) UE (El Hamss, paras. 144-148 and fig. 7; Rastegardoost, para. 269), but fails to teach and make obvious wherein a number of the plurality of first BWPs corresponds to a maximum number of uplink (UL) BWPs supportable by the RedCap UEs. However, He discloses assigning a maximum number of UL BWPs based on a supported bandwidth (paras. 10 and 225). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein a number of the plurality of first BWPs corresponds to a maximum number of uplink (UL) BWPs supportable by the RedCap UEs in the invention of El Hamss in view of Rastegardoost and Awadin. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing an appropriate number of BWPs to reduced capacity devices as is known in the art (He, para. 10; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights