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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-16, 18-20 and 24-26 are 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. Regarding claims 1, 9 and 15, the claims state: “wherein the determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap is based on an excess number of user devices operating within the coverage area of the base station” was not described in the original specification. Para [0054] of the publication states: “orthogonal coding for overlapping bandwidths is a novel technique to improve spectral efficiency and minimize interference between different users”. Para [0056] states: “a system for mitigating the effects of overlapping bandwidth parts”, further a first device uses first BWP to communicate with first base station and second devices uses second BWP to communicate with first base station, where the system determines first and second BWP overlap and uses orthogonal code to solve that issue. All this indicates is that the system mitigates interference from overlapping BWPs using orthogonal code. The system does not determine overlapping BWPs based on excess user devices in the coverage area. Further Para [0071] states: the receiver in the BWP configuration engine may receive further information from user devices that indicate overlap of BWPs and Para [0073] states: the analyzer can receive information from the monitor that more than BWPs have a particular allocated spectrum and determine if those spectrums of first and second BWP overlap. Para [0076] states the cell site may “intentionally overlap bandwidth parts to more effectively use the entire overall band”. Para [0078] states: “the cell site may intentionally assign overlapping BWPs based on an excess number of user devices”. In the limitation: the phrase “determining that” appears to use the definition as “to ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation”, meaning the base station discovers or ascertains the BWPs are overlapping based on excess users. The specification makes it clear the cell site intentionally overlaps the BWP based on excess users and does not later on discover the overlap based on the excess users. The correct phrasing would be “determining to overlap a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP, wherein the determining to overlap at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP is based on an excess number of user devices”. The initial determination/decision/choice to overlap the BWPs intentionally is based on excess users. A later determination/discover/ascertainment that the BWPs overlap is not based on excess users.
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, 2, 4-10, 12-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoli et al (US 2020/0267511, hereinafter Abdoli), in view of Wang et al (US 9,253,783, hereinafter Wang), in view of Salem et al (US 2019/0253200, hereinafter Salem) and in view of Xu et al (US 2024/0259137, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Abdoli discloses a system (Fig. 1) comprising: a base station comprising a first antenna (base station, inherent antenna, Fig. 1); and one or more computer processor (inherent processor) components configured to perform operations comprising: determining that a first wireless device is communicating a first uplink signal to the first base station using a first bandwidth part (BWP) and determining that a second device is communicating a second uplink signal to the first base station using a second BWP (first BWP is assigned to first UE, Para [0076], second BWP is assigned to second UE, Para [0076], BS schedules UEs to transmit data in the PUSCH on UL resources, Para [0066], UL BWPs, Para [0073]); determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap (first BWP at least partially overlaps with second BWP, Para [0076]); wherein the first BWP and second BWP are intentionally overlapped (base station allocates the resource range to the UEs, Para [0006], if the BWPs overlap, Para [0076] it would be done knowingly by the base station); but does not disclose in response to determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and second BWP overlap, instructing the first wireless device to encode the first uplink signal using an orthogonal code. Wang discloses a base station can schedule a mobile terminal assigned to first carrier to transmit using code-division multiplexing, claim 8. Salem discloses if PUCCHs transmitted on different BWPs are overlapping, then orthogonal cover codes can be used to distinguish between different transmissions, Para [0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Wang and Salem in the system of Abdoli in order to reduce collisions of uplink transmissions through the use of orthogonal cover codes; but not wherein the determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap is based on an excess number of user devices operating within the coverage area of the base station. Xu discloses the set of available resources can be expanded by using overlapping frequency resources with orthogonal codes, Para [0108], obvious to one of ordinary skill an excess number of users would need expanded resources to communicate while reducing possible collisions; and does not does overlapping BWPs to alleviate congestion when multiple users attempt to use a limited number of portions of a band within a coverage area of the base station. Xu discloses the set of available resources can be expanded and reduce collisions among users by using orthogonal codes, where two users can choose overlapping resources in the frequency and time domain by using different codewords, Para [0108]. Further this limitation is intended use of the overlapping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Xu in the system of Abdoli in view of Wang and Salem in order to expand the set of available resources and reduce collisions.
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 16, Abdoli discloses the system/method/media of claim 1/9/15, but not further comprising instructing the base station to encode a first downlink signal to the first wireless device using the orthogonal code (obvious variation to one of ordinary skill the DL signals can use orthogonal codes for similar reasons as the uplink).
Regarding claims 4, 12 and 18, Abdoli discloses the system/method/media of claim 1/9/15, but not wherein the encoding of the first uplink signal is done by multiplexing the first uplink signal using the orthogonal code. Salem discloses orthogonal cover codes are used to distinguish between different transmissions, Para [0090] and Wang discloses code-division multiplexing, claim 8.
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 19, Abdoli discloses the system/method/media of claim 1/9/15, but not wherein the first BWP and the second BWP have a same and a same carrier. Salem discloses there can be different BWPs on the same CC and UEs can use different BWPs of the same CC, Para [0057].
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20, Abdoli discloses the system/method/media of claim 1/9/15, but not wherein the orthogonal code is a code division multiplexing code. Wang discloses using code-division multiplexing, claim 8.
Regarding claim 7, Abdoli discloses the system of claim 1, but not wherein the second BWP is encoded using a second orthogonal code (obvious variation to one of ordinary skill to also encode second UL signal on second BWP, as it overlaps with first BWP).
Regarding claim 8, Abdoli discloses the system of claim 1, but not wherein the second wireless device is instructed to leave any uplink signals un-encoded (obvious variation to one of ordinary skill in the art to explicitly instruct the second UE using the second BWP to not using orthogonal codes).
Regarding claim 9, Abdoli discloses a method comprising: determining that a first wireless device is communicating a first uplink signal to the first base station using a first bandwidth part (BWP) and determining that a second device is communicating a second uplink signal to the first base station using a second BWP (first BWP is assigned to first UE, Para [0076], second BWP is assigned to second UE, Para [0076], BS schedules UEs to transmit data in the PUSCH on UL resources, Para [0066], UL BWPs, Para [0073]); determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap (first BWP at least partially overlaps with second BWP, Para [0076]); wherein the first BWP and second BWP are intentionally overlapped (base station allocates the resource range to the UEs, Para [0006], if the BWPs overlap, Para [0076] it would be done knowingly by the base station); but does not disclose instructing the first wireless device to encode the first uplink signal using an orthogonal code. Wang discloses a base station can schedule a mobile terminal assigned to first carrier to transmit using code-division multiplexing, claim 8. Salem discloses if PUCCHs transmitted on different BWPs are overlapping, then orthogonal cover codes can be used to distinguish between different transmissions, Para [0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Wang and Salem in the system of Abdoli in order to reduce collisions of uplink transmissions through the use of orthogonal cover codes; but not wherein the determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap is based on an excess number of user devices operating within the coverage area of the base station. Xu discloses the set of available resources can be expanded by using overlapping frequency resources with orthogonal codes, Para [0108], obvious to one of ordinary skill an excess number of users would need expanded resources to communicate while reducing possible collisions; and does not does overlapping BWPs to alleviate congestion when multiple users attempt to use a limited number of portions of a band within a coverage area of the base station. Xu discloses the set of available resources can be expanded and reduce collisions among users by using orthogonal codes, where two users can choose overlapping resources in the frequency and time domain by using different codewords, Para [0108]. Further this limitation is intended use of the overlapping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Xu in the system of Abdoli in view of Wang and Salem in order to expand the set of available resources and reduce collisions.
Regarding claim 15, Abdoli discloses one or more computer-readable media (computer readable medium, Para [0009]) having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed, perform a method comprising: determining that a first wireless device is communicating a first uplink signal to the first base station using a first bandwidth part (BWP) and determining that a second device is communicating a second uplink signal to the first base station using a second BWP (first BWP is assigned to first UE, Para [0076], second BWP is assigned to second UE, Para [0076], BS schedules UEs to transmit data in the PUSCH on UL resources, Para [0066], UL BWPs, Para [0073]); determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap (first BWP at least partially overlaps with second BWP, Para [0076]); wherein the first BWP and second BWP are intentionally overlapped (base station allocates the resource range to the UEs, Para [0006], if the BWPs overlap, Para [0076] it would be done knowingly by the base station); but does not disclose instructing the first wireless device to encode the first uplink signal using an orthogonal code. Wang discloses a base station can schedule a mobile terminal assigned to first carrier to transmit using code-division multiplexing, claim 8. Salem discloses if PUCCHs transmitted on different BWPs are overlapping, then orthogonal cover codes can be used to distinguish between different transmissions, Para [0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Wang and Salem in the system of Abdoli in order to reduce collisions of uplink transmissions through the use of orthogonal cover codes; but not wherein the determining that at least a portion of the first BWP and the second BWP overlap is based on an excess number of user devices operating within the coverage area of the base station. Xu discloses the set of available resources can be expanded by using overlapping frequency resources with orthogonal codes, Para [0108], obvious to one of ordinary skill an excess number of users would need expanded resources to communicate while reducing possible collisions; and does not does overlapping BWPs to alleviate congestion when multiple users attempt to use a limited number of portions of a band within a coverage area of the base station. Xu discloses the set of available resources can be expanded and reduce collisions among users by using orthogonal codes, where two users can choose overlapping resources in the frequency and time domain by using different codewords, Para [0108]. Further this limitation is intended use of the overlapping. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the techniques taught by Xu in the system of Abdoli in view of Wang and Salem in order to expand the set of available resources and reduce collisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amends the limitations in the claim and argues the references do not disclose the amended limitations. Applicant states there is support for the amendments in Para [0044, 46]. Applicant argues Xu does not disclose detecting an excess number of user devices in order to determine the BWP overlap. Applicant makes similar argument for new dependent claims 24-26 as well. In response, the amendments have 112 issues and is not supported by the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN CUNNINGHAM whose telephone number is (571) 272-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:30-18:00 (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Vu can be reached on (571) 272-3155. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN M CUNNINGHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights