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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose ‘…the first capability item is a featureSetCombinationDAPS field and the second capability item is a featureSetCombinationID field…’ Examiner disagrees. Although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the Specification, In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the Specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The specification does not explicitly define ‘featureSetCombinationDAPS’ and ‘featureSetCombinationID’. Therefore the terms must be given their plain meaning. Wu discloses UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item) and Intra-RAT DAPS handover. (See Wu para. 89, 91, 95, 85) That is, featureSetCombinationDAPs field is parts of UE capability IE including a field or fields which provide DAPS capability per band combinations. Likewise, Wu discloses UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item) (See Wu para. 89) That is, featureSetCombinationID is parts of UE capability IE including field or fields which provide CA band combinations which have an ID. Essentially, Applicant has merely labeled parts that are already present in the UE capability information element.
Further Applicant argues ‘…Neither Wu nor Ewe, therefore, discloses using separate, distinct fields to independently report DAPS and CA capabilities within a single capability information message…’ Examiner disagrees. Application claims are interpreted as broadly as is reasonable and consistent with the specification, In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2002), while “taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's specification,” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and without reading limitations from examples given in the specification into the claims, In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Wu discloses a first capability item that identifies dual active protocol stack (DAPS) capability information supported by the terminal; and (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) and a second capability item that identifies carrier aggregation (CA) capability information supported by the terminal, (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item)) That is, the specific fields which represents DAPS and CA capability in Wu map to the claim language of the claims. Applicant is reading limitations into the claims. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues similarly to claim 1. See claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues similarly to claim 1. See claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant argues similarly to claim 1. See claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20, Applicant argues based upon dependency. See claim 1 rejection above.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2023/0083266; citations are to Provisional 63/004,825; 3 April 2020), and further in view of Ewe (2009/0046596).
Regarding claim 1, Wu disclose an information transmission method, comprising:
sending first capability information of a terminal to the network device, wherein the first capability information comprises: (See Wu para. 85; BS (e.g. network device) receives UE capability info from UE (e.g. terminal))
a first capability item that identifies dual active protocol stack (DAPS) capability information supported by the terminal; and (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85)
a second capability item that identifies carrier aggregation (CA) capability information supported by the terminal, (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
wherein the first capability item is a featureSetCombinationDAPS field (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85; featureSetCombinationDAPs field is parts of UE capability IE including a field or fields which provide DAPS capability per band combinations)
and the second capability item is a featureSetCombinationID field. (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item); featureSetCombinationID is parts of UE capability IE including field or fields which provide CA band combinations which have an ID)
Wu does not explicitly disclose receiving capability enquiry signaling from a network device. However, Ewe does disclose receiving capability enquiry signaling from a network device. (See Ewe para. 5; RATs query UE for capability information) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Wu to include the teaching of receiving capability enquiry signaling from a network device of Ewe with the motivation being to maximize limited wireless resources by only knowing what the UE is capable of to schedule resources accordingly and further to match end user requirements with network capabilities and thereby reducing delay, jitter, and increasing overall connectivity and further to allow for updated parameters due to changing network conditions and further to make adjustments during changing resource availability.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 1, wherein
the first capability information comprises a specific parameter of each band in multiple band combinations; (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE)
the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations; and/or (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; DAPS capability included on a per band combinations)
the CA capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations. (Optional)
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 2, the first capability item and the second capability item correspond to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities))
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 2,
the first capability item and the second capability item correspond to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities)).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal comprises one or more of an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per band granularity, or an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per carrier granularity. (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE; para. 13, 50, 77; uplink and downlink)
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2023/0083266; citations are to Provisional 63/004,825; 3 April 2020), and further in view of Ewe (2009/0046596).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses an information transmission method, comprising:
receiving first capability information from the terminal, wherein the first capability information comprises: (See Wu para. 85; BS (e.g. network device) receives UE capability info from UE (e.g. terminal))
a first capability item that identifies dual active protocol stack (DAPS) capability information supported by the terminal; and (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85)
a second capability item that identifies carrier aggregation (CA) capability information supported by the terminal, (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
wherein the first capability item is a featureSetCombinationDAPS field (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85; featureSetCombinationDAPs field is parts of UE capability IE including a field or fields which provide DAPS capability per band combinations)
and the second capability item is a featureSetCombinationID field. (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item); featureSetCombinationID is parts of UE capability IE including field or fields which provide CA band combinations which have an ID)
Wu does not explicitly disclose sending capability enquiry signaling from a network device. However, Ewe does disclose sending capability enquiry signaling from a network device. (See Ewe para. 5; RNC via eNodeB queries UE for capability information) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Wu to include the teaching of sending capability enquiry signaling from a network device of Ewe with the motivation being to maximize limited wireless resources by only knowing what the UE is capable of to schedule resources accordingly and further to match end user requirements with network capabilities and thereby reducing delay, jitter, and increasing overall connectivity and further to allow for updated parameters due to changing network conditions and further to make adjustments during changing resource availability.
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 6, wherein
the first capability information comprises a specific parameter of each band in multiple band combinations; (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE)
the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations; and/or (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; DAPS capability included on a per band combinations)
the CA capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations. (Optional)
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Ewe in view of Wiemann discloses the information transmission method according to claim 7. The first capability item and the second capability item corresponding to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities))
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 7. The first capability item and the second capability item corresponding to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities)).
Regarding claim 10, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the information transmission method according to claim 6, wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal comprises one or more of an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per band granularity, or an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per carrier granularity. (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE; para. 13, 50, 77; uplink and downlink)
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 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2023/0083266; citations are to Provisional 63/004,825; 3 April 2020), and further in view of Ewe (2009/0046596).
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses a communication apparatus, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: (See Wu para. 431-432; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
send first capability information of a terminal to the network device, wherein the first capability information comprises: (See Wu para. 85; BS (e.g. network device) receives UE capability info from UE (e.g. terminal))
a first capability item that identifies dual active protocol stack (DAPS) capability information supported by the terminal; and (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85)
a second capability item that identifies carrier aggregation (CA) capability information supported by the terminal, (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
wherein the first capability item is a featureSetCombinationDAPS field (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85; featureSetCombinationDAPs field is parts of UE capability IE including a field or fields which provide DAPS capability per band combinations)
and the second capability item is a featureSetCombinationID field. (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item); featureSetCombinationID is parts of UE capability IE including field or fields which provide CA band combinations which have an ID)
Wu does not explicitly disclose receiving capability enquiry signaling from a network device. However, Ewe does disclose receiving capability enquiry signaling from a network device. (See Ewe para. 5; RATs query UE for capability information) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Wu to include the teaching of receiving capability enquiry signaling from a network device of Ewe with the motivation being to maximize limited wireless resources by only knowing what the UE is capable of to schedule resources accordingly and further to match end user requirements with network capabilities and thereby reducing delay, jitter, and increasing overall connectivity and further to allow for updated parameters due to changing network conditions and further to make adjustments during changing resource availability.
Regarding claim 12, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 11, wherein
the first capability information comprises a specific parameter of each band in multiple band combinations; (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE)
the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations; and/or (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; DAPS capability included on a per band combinations)
the CA capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations. (Optional)
Regarding claim 13, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 12.
the first capability item and the second capability item correspond to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities))
Regarding claim 14, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 12.
the first capability item and the second capability item correspond to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities)).
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal comprises one or more of an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per band granularity, or an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per carrier granularity. (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE; para. 13, 50, 77; uplink and downlink)
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (2023/0083266; citations are to Provisional 63/004,825; 3 April 2020), and further in view of Ewe (2009/0046596).
Regarding claim 16, Wu discloses a communication apparatus, comprising:
a processor, and
a memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to: (See Wu para. 432-433; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receiving first capability information from the terminal, wherein the first capability information comprises: (See Wu para. 85; BS (e.g. network device) receives UE capability info from UE (e.g. terminal))
a first capability item that identifies dual active protocol stack (DAPS) capability information supported by the terminal; and (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85)
a second capability item that identifies carrier aggregation (CA) capability information supported by the terminal, (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
wherein the first capability item is a featureSetCombinationDAPS field (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85; featureSetCombinationDAPs field is parts of UE capability IE including a field or fields which provide DAPS capability per band combinations)
and the second capability item is a featureSetCombinationID field. (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item); featureSetCombinationID is parts of UE capability IE including field or fields which provide CA band combinations which have an ID)
Wu does not explicitly disclose sending capability enquiry signaling from a network device. However, Ewe does disclose sending capability enquiry signaling from a network device. (See Ewe para. 5; RNC via eNodeB queries UE for capability information) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Wu to include the teaching of sending capability enquiry signaling from a network device of Ewe with the motivation being to maximize limited wireless resources by only knowing what the UE is capable of to schedule resources accordingly and further to match end user requirements with network capabilities and thereby reducing delay, jitter, and increasing overall connectivity and further to allow for updated parameters due to changing network conditions and further to make adjustments during changing resource availability.
Regarding claim 17, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 16, wherein
the first capability information comprises a specific parameter of each band in multiple band combinations; (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE)
the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations; and/or (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; DAPS capability included on a per band combinations)
the CA capability information supported by the terminal is a specific parameter of each band in one band combination of the multiple band combinations. (Optional)
Regarding claim 18, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 17. The first capability item and the second capability item corresponding to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is different from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities))
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 17.
The first capability item and the second capability item corresponding to a specific parameter of each band in different band combinations. (See Wu para. 89, 91; UE Capability IE includes DAPS handover capability (e.g. DAP capability info) and/or FDD-TDD handover capability field/IE and per band combination (e.g. first capability item); see also para. 95; Intra-RAT DAPS handover; para. 85) (See Wu para. 89; UE capability IE includes DC/CA band combination fields to designate respective CA band combinations (e.g. second capability item))
Wu in view of Ewe does not explicitly disclose wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art possessing ordinary creativity to modify the method of Wu in view of Ewe to include wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal is identical from the CA capability information supported by the terminal with the motivation being it is common sense (e.g. in that, Wu in view of Ewe listing the capabilities for CA and DAPs for each band combination; It is common sense that some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability; these are the only options and there are no unexpected results) and further it is obvious to try ((in that in at the time of the invention, there was a need to determine capabilities; there are a finite identified, and predictable solutions (e.g. some bands may have CA capability but not DAPs; some may have DAPs capability but not CA capability; some band combinations may have both capabilities; and some band combinations may have neither CA capability nor DAPs capability); one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with reasonable success; there are no unexpected results in these 4 possibilities)).
Regarding claim 20, Wu in view of Ewe discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the DAPS capability information supported by the terminal comprises one or more of an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per band granularity, or an uplink DAPS capability and a downlink DAPS capability at a per carrier granularity. (See Wu para. 89, 93, 258; one or more frequency bands for DAPs; one or more band combination fields/IE; para. 13, 50, 77; uplink and downlink)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461