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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogami US 20190150123 in view of Jiang US 20190223227
1. A user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive radio resource control (RRC) signaling indicating a set of bandwidth parts () using a single identifier that refers to a first BWP and a BWP, wherein the RRC signaling indicates a serving cell configuration that configures up to four bandwidth parts (Nogami: [0100] A UE 102 configured for operation in bandwidth parts (BWPs) of a serving cell, is configured by higher layers (i.e., RRC [0057]) for the serving cell a set of at most four bandwidth parts (BWPs) for receptions by the UE (DL BWP set) in a DL bandwidth by parameter DL-BWP-index (i.e., single identifier) and a set of at most four BWPs for transmissions by the UE 102 (UL BWP set) in an UL bandwidth by parameter UL-BWP-index (i.e., single identifier) for the serving cell)
Nogami merely discloses random access procedure
Jiang further teaches transmit a random access message of a random access procedure on the first BWP (Jiang; fig. 2, unit 203 UE transmits msg1 to the gNB [0110-0113, 0097] - msg.1 may carry the indication information indicating the DL BWPs transmitting msg.2, the indication information may be bit information, and in a case where the network device configures or indicates the DL BWPs that may be used for transmitting msg.2, the UE may inform the network device of the DL BWPs transmitting msg.2 via the indication information carried by msg.1 (such as a DL BWP index, or an identification of the UE (UE_ID), such as C-RNTI)…); and
receive a random access response message of the random access procedure on the second BWP, wherein the second bandwidth part is different than the first BWP (Jiang; fig. 2, unit 203 UE transmits msg1 to the gNB [0095-0097, 0110-0113] - after receiving msg.1, the network device may determine the DL BWPs transmitting msg.2 directly according to the indication information carried by msg.1…) and wherein the second BWP for receiving the random access response message is indicated as the BWP for random access response message in the received RRC signaling prior to transmitting the random access message (Jiang; [0074, 0077, 0093-0097] - In an implementation, the network device may further indicate a second DL BWP and at least one preamble corresponding to the second DL BWP (Note: this configuration/indication is done by the network at step 201-202 of fig. 2, prior the UE sends msg1)… the network device may perform the above indication via broadcast information (PBCH), or system information and/or RRC signaling (such as group-specific RRC and/or UE-specific RRC); however, it is not limited thereto. [0094] If DL BWPs that may be used for transmitting msg.2 (i.e., RAR) are indicated in PBCHs, the network device may transmit one or more synchronization signal PBCH blocks (SSBs) that are at different frequency-domain positions, indicate respectively DL BWPs used for transmitting msg.2 in PBCHs of each SSB, and indicate a time-frequency resource and/or a preamble that may be used for transmitting msg.1 and corresponding to the DL BWPs in a system message).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include the above recited limitation into Nogami’s invention in order to handling a Random Access (RA) procedure in the Bandwidth Part (BWP) switching operation, as taught by Jiang.
3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first bandwidth part comprises an uplink bandwidth part, and wherein the second bandwidth part comprises a downlink bandwidth part (Jiang; [0095-0113]).
4, The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the uplink bandwidth part or the downlink bandwidth part, or both, are associated with a serving cell (Jiang; [0095-0113]).
5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to receive the RRC signaling, the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a radio resource control (RRC) message indicating the set of bandwidth parts (Jiang; [0006, 0095-0113]).
6. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to receive the RRC signaling, the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) indicating the set of bandwidth parts (Nogami: [0057]).
7. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to receive the RRC signaling, the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a downlink control information (DCI) indicating the set of bandwidth parts (Jiang; [0099]).
Regarding claims 8-14, 16-20, the independent claim and each dependent claim are related to the same limitation set for hereinabove in claims 1, 3-7, where the difference used is a “apparatus” with a processor and a memory (Jiang: Referring to FIG. 13-14, unit 1400 includes a processor 1401, a memory 1402) and the wordings of the claims were interchanged within the claim itself or some of the claims were presented as a combination of two or more previously presented limitations. This change does not affect the limitation of the above treated claims. Adding these phrases to the claims arid interchanging the wording did not introduce new limitations to these claims. Therefore, these claims were rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-14, 16-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Remark(s):
The examiner stresses that the claims are too broad and require detail or specialization of the steps as recited in the claims. Alone and as claimed, the limitations are too open.
Examiner has cited particular portions of the references as applied to each claim limitation for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Regarding all other arguments presented by applicant, the arguments are substantially the same as those which have already been addressed above and in the interest of brevity; the Examiner directs the applicant to those responses above.
In addition, an interview could expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sulaiman Nooristany whose telephone number is 571-270-1929. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday: 8:30am to 5:00pm (EST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeff Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone 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. 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.
/SULAIMAN NOORISTANY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415