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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 March 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 6 March 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16-18 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 7-9, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1 and 18.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 12 and 18. It is noted that the rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claim for the reasons set forth below.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 13 and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Claims 3, 4, 9-11, 14, 15 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 12 and 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 13 and 16-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Office notes, however, that Applicant’s statement that “Li fails to describe or disclose determining per-carrier bandwidth-times-layers values or enforcing a summed layers-bandwidth constraint across multiple carriers based on a single maximum supported layers bandwidth reported by the user equipment” is not commensurate with the scope of the amended claims, which do not require a “bandwidth-times-layers value” or “enforcing” a constraint.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The previous claim language “how busy a carrier is” has been replaced with the phrase “carrier load”. However, while the former phrase appears in both paragraphs 0035 and 0049 of Applicant’s specification, as originally filed, the term “carrier load” finds no support in the originally filed disclosure. Therefore, this phrase is considered new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 12, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0229175), hereinafter Li175, in view of Li et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0211865), hereinafter Li865.
Regarding Claim 1, Li175 discloses a method for utilizing channel bandwidth and communication layers to indicate baseband processing capacity, the method comprising:
receiving carrier aggregation capability information from a user equipment (UE), wherein the carrier aggregation capability information comprises a maximum supported layers bandwidth, the maximum supported layers bandwidth based on the maximum supported bandwidth multiplied by a number of communication layers with which the UE can be configured (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0075-0076 - the terminal device determines carrier aggregation capability and baseband capabilities and sends this to a network device; Figure 6 – the network device sends MIMO capabilities indicating a number of layers (“carrier capability” = 8), capability of the carrier aggregation group = 20, and a total bandwidth = 160); and
configuring a carrier-aggregation configuration for the UE based on the maximum supported layers bandwidth and one or more network resource parameters, wherein the configuring comprises a total-layers bandwidth for the carrier-aggregation wherein the total layers bandwidth does not exceed the maximum supported layers bandwidth (Figure 2, steps s230-s240 and paragraph 0077-0078 – the network device determines configuration information of the terminal based on the received carrier aggregation capability and baseband capabilities, and sends the configuration information to the terminal device; paragraphs 0088-0094 and Figure 6 – the carrier aggregation capability of the terminal device indicates that the terminal device supports a carrier aggregation group including four carriers, with a corresponding bandwidth for each carrier).
However, Li175 does not disclose determining, for each carrier of the carrier-aggregation configuration, a per-carrier layers bandwidth based on a bandwidth assigned to the carrier and a number of communication layers assigned to the carrier or a sum of the per-carrier layers bandwidth values over the carriers of the carrier-aggregation configuration. In an analogous art, Li865 discloses this. Specifically, Li865 discloses a schematic structural diagram of a carrier aggregation capability, where each band combination is separated into separate bands/carrier combinations including a quantity of carriers, carrier bandwidth, and MIMO layers (Figure 1 and paragraph 0094). The maximum transmission bandwidth is 100MHz for the combination (i.e., sum) of component carriers (paragraph 0094). Additionally, capability information is divided into feature sets that specify a number of carriers in the band combinations as well as the per-carrier bandwidth (paragraph 0164). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li175 and Li865. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce reporting delays for terminal capability information (refer to paragraphs 0006-0007 of Li865).
Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage media that performs the same steps as claimed in Claim 1. Li175 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Figure 13 – the terminal device comprises memory 1330). The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Li175 discloses a method for utilizing channel bandwidth and communication layers to indicate baseband processing capacity, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a user equipment (UE), carrier aggregation capability information to an access point, wherein the carrier aggregation capability information comprises a maximum supported layers bandwidth based on a maximum supported aggregated bandwidth multiplied by a number of communication layers supported by the UE (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0075-0076 - the terminal device determines carrier aggregation capability and baseband capabilities and sends this to a network device; Figure 6 – the network device sends MIMO capabilities indicating a number of layers (“carrier capability” = 8), capability of the carrier aggregation group = 20, and a total bandwidth = 160); and
receiving, by the UE, instructions to configure carrier aggregation on the UE based on the maximum supported layers bandwidth and one or more network resource parameters, wherein configuring carrier aggregation comprises determining a total layers bandwidth that does not exceed the maximum supported layers bandwidth (Figure 2, steps s230-s240 and paragraph 0077-0078 – the network device determines configuration information of the terminal based on the received carrier aggregation capability and baseband capabilities and transmits the configuration information to the terminal device; paragraphs 0088-0094 and Figure 6 – the carrier aggregation capability of the terminal device indicates that the terminal device supports a carrier aggregation group including four carriers, with a corresponding bandwidth for each carrier).
However, Li175 does not disclose determining, for each carrier of the carrier-aggregation configuration, a per-carrier layers bandwidth based on a bandwidth assigned to the carrier and a number of communication layers assigned to the carrier or a sum of the per-carrier layers bandwidth values over the carriers of the carrier-aggregation configuration. In an analogous art, Li865 discloses this. Specifically, Li865 discloses a schematic structural diagram of a carrier aggregation capability, where each band combination is separated into separate bands/carrier combinations including a quantity of carriers, carrier bandwidth, and MIMO layers (Figure 1 and paragraph 0094). The maximum transmission bandwidth is 100MHz for the combination (i.e., sum) of component carriers (paragraph 0094). Additionally, capability information is divided into feature sets that specify a number of carriers in the band combinations as well as the per-carrier bandwidth (paragraph 0164). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li175 and Li865. One would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce reporting delays for terminal capability information (refer to paragraphs 0006-0007 of Li865).
Regarding Claim 2, Li175 discloses the carrier aggregation capability information received from the UE comprises at least one of a UE supported maximum aggregated bandwidth multiplied by layers (Figure 6, the capability information comprises total bandwidth of the carrier aggregation group, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), supported bandwidths per band, a maximum bandwidth per band, supported band combinations, supported bandwidth combination sets per band combination, or a maximum bandwidth per band in each of the supported band combinations.
Regarding Claim 5, Li175 discloses the one or more network resource parameters comprise signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR), carrier load, or availability of frequency bands (paragraph 0136 – the terminal device can provide information about a requested band in which the carrier in the carrier aggregation group is located or a maximum quantity of carriers in the carrier aggregation group, thereby meeting the claimed alternative limitation).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Li175 discloses the communication layers are/comprise multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) layers (Figure 6 – the MIMO capability comprises a carrier capability field (number of layers).
Regarding Claim 7, Li175 discloses configuring the carrier aggregation on the UE further comprises assigning for processing to the UE less bandwidth than the UE is capable of processing on each communication layer (paragraph 0089 – a terminal device indicates support for a carrier aggregation group including four carriers, each with bandwidth of 20M (80M total); paragraphs 0091-0094 – possible carrier aggregation group configurations do not utilize the total bandwidth (e.g., paragraph 0092 – utilizing 40M (two carriers at 20M each)).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Li175 discloses assigning a primary band and a secondary band to the UE (Figure 5 – interband carrier aggregation where component carrier 1 is in Band A and component carrier 2 is in Band B).
Regarding Claim 13, Li175 discloses the carrier aggregation capability information transmitted by the UE comprises at least one of the maximum supported layers bandwidth (Figure 6, the capability information comprises total bandwidth of the carrier aggregation group, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), supported bandwidths per band, a maximum bandwidth per band, supported band combinations, supported bandwidth combination sets per band combination, or a maximum bandwidth per band in each of the supported band combinations.
Regarding Claim 17, Li175 discloses configuring the carrier aggregation on the UE further comprises assigning a layers bandwidth that is less than or equal to the maximum supported layers bandwidth indicated in the carrier aggregation capability information (paragraph 0089 – a terminal device indicates support for a carrier aggregation group including four carriers, each with bandwidth of 20M (80M total); paragraphs 0091-0094 – possible carrier aggregation group configurations do not utilize the total bandwidth (e.g., paragraph 0092 – utilizing 40M (two carriers at 20M each)).
Claims 3, 4, 9-11, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li175 in view of Li865, as applied to Claims 1, 12 and 18 above, and further in view of Santhanam et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0217042), hereinafter Santhanam.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, the combination of Li175 and Li865 discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the carrier aggregation capability information corresponds to downlink communications. In an analogous art, Santhanam discloses this. Specifically, at paragraphs 0098-0099, Santhanam discloses reporting assistance information related to downlink MIMO layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li175 / Li865 and Santhanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE to request communication parameter adjustments when entering a power-saving mode (paragraph 0046 of Santhanam).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, the combination of Li175 and Li865 discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 12, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the carrier aggregation capability information corresponds to uplink communications. In an analogous art, Santhanam discloses this. Specifically, at paragraphs 0098-0099, Santhanam discloses reporting assistance information related to uplink MIMO layers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li175 / Li865 and Santhanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE to request communication parameter adjustments when entering a power-saving mode (paragraph 0046 of Santhanam).
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, the combination of Li175 and Li865 discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 18, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose assigning a primary cell to the UE for use when traffic to or from the UE is lower than a threshold, and a second/secondary cell to the UE for use with the primary cell when traffic to or from the UE is higher than the threshold. In an analogous art, Santhanam discloses this. Specifically, Santhanam discloses determining whether traffic conditions, either in the uplink (Figure 3) or downlink (Figure 4), trigger a condition or threshold. If the threshold condition is satisfied (e.g., there is a high latency issue or there is a low volume of packets in a buffer), then the UE requests a reduction in the MIMO layers from two (“secondary” cell utilizing carrier aggregation for higher traffic scenario) to one (“primary” cell not using carrier aggregation for lower traffic scenario) (paragraphs 0114-0115). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li175 / Li865 and Santhanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE to request communication parameter adjustments when entering a power-saving mode (paragraph 0046 of Santhanam).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Li175, Li865 and Santhanam further discloses the primary cell is used alone without carrier aggregation (Santhanam discloses determining whether traffic conditions, either in the uplink (Figure 3) or downlink (Figure 4), trigger a condition or threshold. If the threshold condition is satisfied (e.g., there is a high latency issue or there is a low volume of packets in a buffer), then the UE requests a reduction in the MIMO layers from two to one (“primary” cell not using carrier aggregation for lower traffic scenario) (paragraphs 0114-0115)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Li175 / Li865 and Santhanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE to request communication parameter adjustments when entering a power-saving mode (paragraph 0046 of Santhanam).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Li175, Li865 and Santhanam further discloses the primary cell and the secondary cell are used together with carrier aggregation (Santhanam discloses determining whether traffic conditions, either in the uplink (Figure 3) or downlink (Figure 4), trigger a condition or threshold. If the threshold condition is satisfied (e.g., there is a high latency issue or there is a low volume of packets in a buffer), then the UE requests a reduction in the MIMO layers, but still utilizing multiple MIMO layers (utilizing carrier aggregation for higher traffic scenario) (paragraphs 0113-0115)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Li175 / Li865 and Santhanam. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a UE to request communication parameter adjustments when entering a power-saving mode (paragraph 0046 of Santhanam).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights