DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment submitted on 07/27/2026 has been received and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 15, 19, and 21 were amended, claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 were cancelled, and claims 27-34 are newly added. Claims 4-5, 10-11, 16-17, 22-23, and 25-26 were previously cancelled, and claims 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, and 27-34 remain pending.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, and 27-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 13-15, 19-21, and 27-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Futaki et al. (US 2022/0287102 A1, hereinafter “Futaki”) in view of Sakhnini et al. (US 2021/0258963 A1, hereinafter “Sakhnini”) and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. (US 2023/0189232 A1, hereinafter “Rastegardoost”).
As to Claim 1, 7, 13, and 19:
Futaki describes a method to broadcast different bandwidth part configurations to a user device and choose between them based on the device’s capability.
Specifically, Futaki teaches:
Sending configuration information to a terminal device
Futaki describes a method to “broadcast a first initial bandwidth part (BWP) configuration via system information. Further, the at least one processor is configured to broadcast a second initial BWP configuration via the system information ... The first initial BWP is used by at least a first type of radio terminal that performs contention-based random access in the cell. Meanwhile, the second initial BWP is not used by the first type of radio terminal, but is used by a second type of radio terminal” (Futaki, 0018).
The configuration information is carried in a system information block 1 (SIB1)
Futaki further clarifies that the “system information” that broadcasts two types of initial BWPs (Futaki, 0018) is “SIB1” which “includes an initial Downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) configuration ... and an initial UL BWP configuration” (Futaki, 0010).
The configuration information comprises configuration information of two frequency domain resources
Futaki describes “system information” that contains “a first initial bandwidth part” and “a second initial BWP” (Futaki, 0018).
The two frequency domain resources comprise a first-type frequency domain resource and a second-type frequency domain resource
Futaki describes a method to “broadcast a first initial bandwidth part (BWP) configuration via system information. Further, the at least one processor is configured to broadcast a second initial BWP configuration via the system information ... The first initial BWP is used by at least a first type of radio terminal that performs contention-based random access in the cell. Meanwhile, the second initial BWP is not used by the first type of radio terminal, but is used by a second type of radio terminal” (Futaki, 0018).
The first-type frequency domain resource is for at least one of a first-type terminal device to communicate with a network device, or for a first-type terminal device and a second-type terminal device to communicate with the network device
Futaki describes a method to “broadcast a first initial bandwidth part (BWP) configuration via system information. Further, the at least one processor is configured to broadcast a second initial BWP configuration via the system information ... The first initial BWP is used by at least a first type of radio terminal that performs contention-based random access in the cell. Meanwhile, the second initial BWP is not used by the first type of radio terminal, but is used by a second type of radio terminal” (Futaki, 0018).
The second-type frequency domain resource is for the second-type terminal device to communicate with the network device
Futaki describes a method to “broadcast a first initial bandwidth part (BWP) configuration via system information. Further, the at least one processor is configured to broadcast a second initial BWP configuration via the system information ... The first initial BWP is used by at least a first type of radio terminal that performs contention-based random access in the cell. Meanwhile, the second initial BWP is not used by the first type of radio terminal, but is used by a second type of radio terminal” (Futaki, 0018).
The first-type frequency domain resource is a first initial downlink bandwidth part (BWP), and the second-type frequency domain resource is a second initial downlink BWP
Futaki describes a method to “broadcast a first initial bandwidth part (BWP) configuration via system information” and “broadcast a second initial BWP configuration via the system information” (Futaki, 0018).
A maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device is less than a maximum bandwidth of the first-type terminal device
Futaki teaches that “[a] bandwidth of the second initial BWP is equal to or narrower than a bandwidth of the first initial BWP ... The second type of UEs may have limited RF capability compared to the first type of UEs. In other words, the second type of UEs may support a limited UE bandwidth” (Futaki, 0019, 0047).
The second-type terminal device is a reduced capability (REDCAP)-type terminal device
Futaki describes a reduced capability terminal, stating, “Release 17 [of 3GPP] plans to support a new device type called reduced capability New Radio (NR) devices” (Futaki, 0002).
Communicating with the terminal device by one of the at least two frequency domain resources
Futaki teaches that “the at least one processor is configured to receive a second initial BWP configuration via the system information ... and to use the received second initial BWP configuration” (Futaki, 0019).
Communicating with the terminal device by one of two initial downlink BWPs comprising the first initial downlink BWP and the second initial downlink BWP
Futaki teaches that “[t]he first initial BWP is used by at least a first type of radio terminal that performs contention-based random access in the serving cell” (Futaki, 0019).
Futaki does not explicitly disclose:
The second-type terminal device supports two receive antennas and one transmit antenna, or the second type terminal device supports one receive antenna and one transmit antenna
The first-type terminal device supports four receive antennas and two transmit antennas
However, Sakhnini does describe a method for implementing narrow bandwidth parts (NBWPs) to support reduced capability user equipment.
Specifically, Sakhnini teaches:
The second-type terminal device supports two receive antennas and one transmit antenna, or the second type terminal device supports one receive antenna and one transmit antenna
Fig. 9 in Sakhnini depicts a “reduced capability device” such as “UE 115” that “may include a single antenna 925” (Sakhnini, 0124, 0128), which would function as both the “one receive antenna and one transmit antenna”.
The first-type terminal device supports four receive antennas and two transmit antennas
Sakhnini states that “a single UE may include two, four, or more antenna arrays for transmitting or receiving signals at different physical locations on the UE or in different locations” (Sakhnini, 0099). Here, for example, a UE with four antennas for receiving and transmitting would quality as having “four receive antennas” and at least “two transmit antennas”.
Sakhnini’s disclosure of alternately using four or two antennas would also render a single device with four receive antennas and two transmit antennas as an obvious combination of known prior art elements per MPEP 2144.04.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the antenna counts for normal capability UEs and reduced capability UEs described in Sakhnini into Futaki’s method for configuring separate bandwidth parts. These antenna counts are standard values that would be obvious to accommodate because Futaki and Sakhnini both relate to configuring bandwidth for different types of devices.
The combination of Futaki and Sakhnini also does not explicitly disclose:
A bandwidth of the first initial downlink BWP is less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device, the first initial downlink BWP or the second initial downlink BWP is able to be used for communicating with the REDCAP-type terminal device
However, Rastegardoost does describe a method for configuring a UE with various physical resource blocks that each include a BWP.
Specifically, Rastegardoost teaches:
A bandwidth of the first initial downlink BWP is less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device, the first initial downlink BWP or the second initial downlink BWP is able to be used for communicating with the REDCAP-type terminal device
Rastegardoost describes a process to allow reduced capability user equipment to use standard BWPs by disabling frequency hopping within the subbands of a BWP. Specifically, Rastegardoost states that “first configuration parameters may indicate one or more BWPs of the cell”, and for each BWP, “the UE and the network ensure that the maximum supportable bandwidth at each hop is compatible with/limited to the bandwidth of a subband, which is supportable by the reduced-bandwidth (RedCap) UE” (Rastegardoost, 0308, 0323).
Here, “the maximum supportable bandwidth” of the first of “one or more BWPs of the cell” maps to “a bandwidth of the first initial downlink BWP”, and
the fact that the “maximum supportable bandwidth” of all “BWPs” is “supportable by the reduced-bandwidth (RedCap) UE” maps to “less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device, the first initial downlink BWP or the second initial downlink BWP is able to be used for communicating with the REDCAP-type terminal device”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Rastegardoost’s method for ensuring that the bandwidth of regular BWPs is compatible with a reduced capability user equipment into Futaki’s method for configuring BWPs for devices with different capabilities. As Rastegardoost states, this “may enhance a network resource allocation flexibility and/or mitigate interference within the UEs of a cell” (Rastegardoost, 0281).
Claim 7 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 from the perspective of the receiving device.
Claim 13 describes the same subject matter as Claim 1 in the form of an apparatus claim which additionally requires:
One or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program to be executed by the one or more processors, the program including instructions
Fig. 17 in Futaki shows an example user equipment which includes an “Application Processor 1704” and a “Memory 1706”.
Claim 19 describes the same subject matter as Claim 13 from the perspective of the receiving device.
As to Claim 2, 8, 14, and 20:
The combination of Futaki and Sakhnini does not explicitly disclose:
The maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device is 5MHz, 10 MHz, 20 MHz, or 40 MHz
However, Rastegardoost does teach:
The maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device is 5 MHz, 10 MHz, 20 MHz, or 40 MHz
Rastegardoost describes “[r]eduction of UE bandwidth” for “a RedCap UE” to “20 MHz or lower (e.g., 5/10/15 MHz) in FR1” (Rastegardoost, 0224-0225).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the reduced bandwidths described in Rastegardoost to the reduced capability user equipment described in Futaki. As Rastegardoost states, “this “may be beneficial in terms of UE complexity reduction” (Rastegardoost, 0224).
Claim 8 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 from the perspective of the receiving device.
Claim 14 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim 20 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the receiving device.
As to Claim 3, 9, 15, 21:
Futaki teaches:
A bandwidth of the second initial downlink BWP is less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth of the second-type terminal device
Futaki states that “[t]he second type of UEs select and use the second initial BWP” because “this embodiment allows the second type of UEs with limited capability compared to the first type of UEs to use initial BWPs suitable for their capability” (Futaki, 0058).
Claim 9 requires the same limitations as Claim 3 from the perspective of the receiving device.
Claim 15 requires the same limitations as Claim 3 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim 21 requires the same limitations as Claim 15 from the perspective of the receiving device.
As to Claims 27, 29, 31, and 33:
Futaki teaches:
Communicating with the terminal device by the first initial downlink BWP
Futaki states that “[t]he first initial BWP is used by at least a first type of radio terminal” (Futaki, 0019).
Claim 29 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 from the perspective of the receiving device.
Claim 31 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim 33 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the receiving device.
As to Claims 28, 30, 32, and 34:
The combination of Futaki and Sakhnini does not explicitly disclose:
Communicating with the terminal device by the second initial downlink BWP
However, Rastegardoost does teach:
Communicating with the terminal device by the second initial downlink BWP
Rastegardoost describes a “RedCap UE” that “may hop from a first BWP at a first slot to a second BWP at a second slot” (Rastegardoost, 0276).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Rastegardoost’s method for ensuring that the bandwidth of regular BWPs is compatible with a reduced capability user equipment into Futaki’s method for configuring BWPs for devices with different capabilities. As Rastegardoost states, this “may enhance a network resource allocation flexibility and/or mitigate interference within the UEs of a cell” (Rastegardoost, 0281).
Claim 30 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 from the perspective of the receiving device.
Claim 32 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim.
Claim 34 describes the same subject matter as Claim 2 in the form of an apparatus claim from the perspective of the receiving device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Peter Welte whose telephone number is (703)756-5965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chirag G Shah can be reached at (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
BENJAMIN PETER WELTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2477
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights