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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This communication is considered fully responsive to the amendment filed on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 10-11, 15, 18, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 4 an d18 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
(I) Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025, regarding the rejection to the claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but are rendered moot.
Applicant argues that the applied prior art fails to teach or suggest the newly amended limitation: “wherein the optimized CA list includes… an optimized setting indicating a reduced CBW value… such that the aggregate bandwidth is reduced to satisfy the maximum aggregated bandwidth.”
However, as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below, this newly added limitation lacks adequate written description support in the originally filed specification. Because Applicant is relying on a limitation that constitutes new matter and is not supported by the original disclosure to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the arguments traversing the prior art rejection based on this limitation are moot.
(II) Applicant’s arguments filed 12/22/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 1-3, 9, 15-17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered, but they are moot because the applicant’s arguments were drawn to features amended from dependent claim 4 to independent claims, which have been addressed in the instant office action with previously identified prior art, Ma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220303975, hereinafter “Ma”), thus rendering Applicant’s arguments moot.
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.
Claim 10-14 and 21-22 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.
Claim 10 has been amended to recite:
“in response to the geographic location being associated with the optimized CA list, update, based on the optimized CA list, channel bandwidths (CBWs) for bands of at least one CA combination, the at least one CA combination having an aggregate bandwidth that exceeds a maximum aggregated bandwidth supported by the UE, wherein the optimized CA list includes, for the at least one CA combination, an optimized setting indicating a reduced CBW value for at least one band such that the aggregate bandwidth is reduced to satisfy the maximum aggregated bandwidth.”
While the application describes a general concept of using an “optimized CA list” or “optimized setting,” it does not clearly convey possession of the specific claimed feature, namely: (1) the at least one CA combination having an aggregate bandwidth that exceeds a maximum aggregated bandwidth supported by the UE, and (2) an optimized setting indicating a reduced CBW value for at least one band such that the aggregate bandwidth is reduced to satisfy the maximum aggregated bandwidth.
The disclosure at paragraph [0069]-[0071] describes, at a general level, a pre-loaded or downloaded optimized CA list and states that the UE may update CBWs for bands based on that list. However, these paragraphs do not expressly describe an optimized CA list entry or a CA combination whose aggregate bandwidth exceeds the UE maximum. Furthermore, paragraphs [0069]-[0071] do not disclose that the “an optimized setting” specifically indicates a “reduced CBW value” for at least one band so that the aggregate bandwidth is reduced to satisfy the maximum aggregated bandwidth.
While the specification does disclose concepts related to reducing a CBW value to satisfy a UE’s maximum aggregated bandwidth, the closest examples are found in paragraphs [006-[0065]. However, these paragraphs related to a separate, distinct “deficit-based” embodiment, and do not relate to the “optimized CA list” embodiment described in paragraphs [0069]-[0071].
Because the specification does not link these two distinct embodiments or explicitly teach incorporating the “reduced CBW value” calculation of the deficit-based embodiment into the entries of the “optimized CA list” embodiment, the specification fails to show that the inventors were in possession of this specific combination of feature. Accordingly, the added limitation in claim 10 lacks adequate written description support in the original filed disclosure.
Claims 11-14 and 21-22 depend from independent claim 10, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. — The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 was amended to included “... wherein at least one of the indicated actual CBWs is less than a pre-determined maximum channel bandwidth for a corresponding carrier of the plurality of carriers”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this plural term in the claim.
Specifically, the claim previously introduces this limitation in the singular form as “an actual channel bandwidth (CBW).” The subsequent recitation of the plural term “actual CBWs” lacks proper antecedent basis, making it unclear whether the claim is referring back to the previously recited singular CBW, or if additional CBWs are being introduced. This grammatical inconsistency and lack of clear antecedent basis render the metes and bounds of the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 depend from the independent claim, thus carry the same issues as described above, and therefore are rejected on the same grounds discussed 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11071111, hereinafter “Kim”) in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220303975, hereinafter “Ma”).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches A user equipment (UE) (Fig. 7 of Kim, UE 405; Fig. 10 of Kim, UE), comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors (Fig. 10 of Kim, controller 1010) configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to:
receive, during an attach procedure with a network (Fig. 7 of Kim, ATTACH REQUEST 730; Col. 9 of Kim, lines 37-38: a control message ATTACH REQUEST that requests registration to the MME), a UE capability request message , the UE capability request message (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Ma) (Col. 16 of Kim, lines 28-34: Like in steps 420 to 435 of FIG. 4, after steps 720 to 735 are performed, the eNB transmits a control message called UE CAPABILITY ENQUIRY (interpreted as “a UE capability request message”) to the UE in step 740. … The control message may further include capability report restriction information that indicates that only a predetermined capability will be reported in order to restrict the size of UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION.) (Col. 16 of Kim, lines 35-64: In the eNB, or a mobile communication network that currently provides a service to the UE, capability report restriction information 1 is information that indicates that capability information related to an actually used frequency band and includes an E-UTRA frequency list (interpreted as “a plurality of carriers by a network”)…), (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Ma);
determine, (Col. 17 of Kim, lines 30-40: <When Capability Report Restriction Information 1 is Used> SupportedBandListEUTRA: includes all E-UTRA bands supported by the UE. SupportedBandCombinationList: a band combination including one band (or a band entry) of band combinations supported by the UE includes all E-UTRA bands supported by the UE, and a band combination including two or more bands (or band entries) includes only a band combination associated with the bands indicated by capability report restriction information 1 (interpreted as “determine, …, a carrier aggregation (CA) combination bandwidth for a CA combination comprising two or more of the plurality of carriers”).), (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Ma); and
in response to the CA combination bandwidth being less than or equal to a maximum bandwidth capacity of the UE (Col. 9 of Kim, lines 10-21: For example, the fact that a bandwidth class for a certain frequency band is A means that a maximum of one carrier (or one serving cell) may be set for the frequency band and the total sum of the bandwidths of the serving cells set in the frequency band is a maximum of 20 MHz.
When two or more bandwidth classes are supported in any one frequency band in a frequency band combination, they may be included in the same Information Element (hereinafter, IE). Then, frequency band combination information should be configured such that all combinations of the bandwidth classes recorded in one frequency band combination are supported by a terminal (interpreted as “the CA combination bandwidth being less than or equal to a maximum bandwidth capacity of the UE”).)(Examiner’s note: In Table 1 of Kim, the CA bandwidth class “C” notes that the added bandwidth is less than or equal to a maximum bandwidth (“40 MHz”) supported by the terminal),
signal to the network that the CA combination is supported by the UE (Col. 9 of Kim, line 67-Col. 10 of Kim, line 10: The UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION may include one or more band combination information elements for the band combinations supported by the UE. The band combination information elements are information elements that represent which CA combination is supported, and the eNB may set a suitable CA in the UE using the band combination information elements. The UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION also may include information related to a TDD-FDD CA capability of the UE. The UE transmits, in step 445, the UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION message to the eNB.) (Col. 22 of Kim, lines 50-63: In step 940, the UE selectively records only a band combination selected by the capability report restriction information for a band combination including multiple bands in SupportedBandCombinationList. … In step 950, the UE generates a UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION message that recorded the information recorded in steps 930 to 945 to transmit the generated UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION message to the eNB.).
Kim does not specifically teach about “a memory; and one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to…”, “the UE capability request message indicating an actual channel bandwidth (CBW) respectively deployed for a plurality of carriers by a network”, and “determine, based on the indicated actual CBWs deployed for the plurality of carriers, a carrier aggregation (CA) combination bandwidth for a CA combination comprising two or more of the plurality of carriers, the CA combination bandwidth being a sum of the indicated actual CBWs deployed for the CA combination.”
It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Ma.
Ma, in analogous art, teaches the limitation “a memory; and one or more processors configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to…”(paragraphs [0053-0054] of Ma: The UE capability reporting apparatus may be implemented in a form of a computer device. A third aspect provides a computer device. The computer device includes a processor and a memory. When running computer instructions stored in the memory, the processor performs the method in any one of the first aspect or the possible implementations of the first aspect.)
Ma teaches the limitation “the UE capability request message indicating an actual channel bandwidth (CBW) respectively deployed for a plurality of carriers by a network.” (para [0093] of Ma: An access network device (for example, the eNB 211) in the access network 210 may send a UE capability enquiry request message (for example, a UECapabilityEnquiry message) to the UE 221 in a coverage area of the access network device, to indicate the UE 221 to report the UE capability information of the UE 221.) (para [0109] of Ma: On one hand, a maximum quantity of band combinations reported by the UE is limited, to avoid an excessive information amount of the UE capability information; on the other hand, the UE capability enquiry request message sent by the access network device generally carries a UE capability request condition. For example, an E-UTRA request condition (for example, requestedFrequencyBands) (interpreted as “… a plurality of carriers by a network”) is used to obtain, through filtering, a band combination that is reported by the UE and supported in E-UTRA. For example, an MRDC band combination request condition (or referred to as a multi-RAT request condition, for example, requestedFreqBandsNR-MRDC) is used to obtain, through filtering, an MRDC band combination that is reported by the UE and supported in E-UTRA and NR.) (para [0110] of Ma: It is assumed that a multi-RAT request condition carried in the UE capability enquiry request message sent by the eNB 211 to the UE 221 is: The band 1, the band 3, the band 7, and the band 78 are supported (interpreted as “… a plurality of carriers by a network”), a maximum quantity of E-UTRA band combinations that are allowed to be reported by the UE is 2, and a maximum quantity of MRDC band combinations that are allowed to be reported by the UE is 2.) (paragraphs [0097-0101] of Ma: In an example, for two complete bands, namely, the band 1 (downlink 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz) and the band 3 (downlink 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz), CA band combinations allowed by a protocol may include types indicated by the following indexes: CA_1C: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth (interpreted as “an actual channel bandwidth (CBW) respectively deployed for a plurality of carriers by a network”), two carriers, and contiguous CA in the band 1; CA_1A-1A: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and non-contiguous CA in the band 1; CA_3B: a maximum of 10 MHz bandwidth, and contiguous CA in the band 3; CA_3C: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth (also interpreted as “an actual channel bandwidth (CBW) respectively deployed for a plurality of carriers by a network”), two carriers, and contiguous CA in the band 3; CA_3A-3A: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and non-contiguous CA in the band 3) (Examiner’s note: The maximum bandwidth in each band of the plurality of carriers (for example, band 1, band 2, band 3, and band 78 as indicated in UE capability enquiry request message discussed in para [0110] of Ma is interpreted as “an actual channel bandwidth (CBW) respectively deployed for a plurality of carriers by a network.” See para [0050] of the Specification of the instant application: The actual or deployed CBW may indicate the actual BW base station 322 is using for the band, which may be the same or different than either the minimum or maximum CBW.)
Ma teaches the limitation “wherein at least one of the indicated actual CBWs is less than a pre-determined maximum channel bandwidth for a corresponding carrier of the plurality of carriers.” (para [0034] of Ma: In a possible implementation, the first request condition in the multi-RAT request condition may include at least one of the following: a quantity of carriers aggregated in the first RAT, maximum carrier bandwidth supported in the first RAT, a band supported in the first RAT, intra-band contiguous CA supported in the first RAT, intra-band non-contiguous CA supported in the first RAT, a combination of inter-band CA supported in the first RAT and intra-band contiguous CA supported in the first RAT, and a combination of inter-band CA supported in the first RAT and intra-band non-contiguous CA supported in the first RAT.) (para [0086] of Ma: Carrier: A carrier allocated to the UE is a communication frequency resource that may be used for signal transmission. The carrier may occupy some bandwidth and is located in a band. Using an LTE system as an example, maximum carrier bandwidth of LTE is 20 MHz, which may be further divided into 1.4 MHz, 3 MHz, 5 MHz, or 10 MHz. For example, a UE camps on a cell whose cell ID is 0, and the cell corresponds to a carrier whose band is the band 38, center frequency is 2585 MHz, and bandwidth is 20 MHz.) (Examiner’s note: In the context of a multi-carrier system supporting Carrier Aggregation (CA) (see Ma, para [0034]: a quantity of carriers aggregated… maximum carrier bandwidth supported in the first RAT… intra-band contiguous CA… intra-band contiguous CA ). Ma discloses that a pre-determined maximum channel bandwidth for a carrier can be configured such that the actual allocated bandwidth is less than the maximum bandwidth. For example, Ma explicitly teaches that the “maximum carrier bandwidth of LTE is 20 MHz, which may be further divided into 1.4 MHz, 3 MHz, 5 MHz, or 10 MHz”(see Ma, para [0086]). In this configuration the actual channel bandwidth (e.g., 1.4, 3, 5, or 10 MHz) is clearly less than the pre-determined maximum channel bandwidth (e.g., 20 MHz) for the corresponding carrier.
Ma further teaches the limitation “a carrier aggregation (CA) combination bandwidth for a CA combination comprising two or more of the plurality of carriers, the CA combination bandwidth being a sum of the indicated actual CBWs deployed for the CA combination.” (paragraph [0102-0106] of Ma: CA_1A-3A: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and inter-band CA of the band 1 and the band 3; CA_1A-1A-3A: a maximum of 60 MHz bandwidth, three carriers, and inter-band CA of the band 1 and the band 3, where two carriers are non-contiguous in the band 1; CA_1A-3A-3A: a maximum of 60 MHz bandwidth, three carriers, and inter-band CA of the band 1 and the band 3, where two carriers are non-contiguous in the band 3; CA_1A-3C: a maximum of 60 MHz bandwidth, three carriers, and inter-band CA of the band 1 and the band 3, where two carriers are contiguous in the band 3; and CA_1A-1A-3C: a maximum of 80 MHz bandwidth, four carriers, and inter-band CA of the band 1 and the band 3, where two carriers are non-contiguous in the band 1, and two carriers are contiguous in the band 3.) (Examiner’s note: The maximum bandwidth of two bands (for example, the maximum of 80Mhz of the band 1 and the band 3 discussed in para [0106] of Ma) is interpreted as “a carrier aggregation (CA) combination bandwidth for a CA combination comprising two or more of the plurality of carriers, the CA combination bandwidth being a sum of the indicated actual CBWs deployed for the CA combination.” See Fig. 7 and para [0056] of the Specification of the instant application: examples 1 and 2 of data structure 700 may include CA combinations (e.g., CA_n25A-n41C-n66A-n77A and CA_n41(2A)-n66A-n71A-n77A) an aggregated minimum BW (e.g., 40 MHz) and an aggregated maximum BW (e.g., 380 MHz and 375 MHz.) (para [0110] of Ma: By way of example, it is assumed that CA band combinations supported by the UE 221 include CA_1A-3A, CA_1A-4A, CA_1A-5A, CA_3A-4A, and CA_3A-4C, and MRDC band combinations of E-UTRA and NR supported by the UE 221 include MRDC_1A-3A-78A, MRDC_1A-4A-77A, MRDC_3A-7A-78A, and MRDC_1A-7A-78A. A band 77 and the band 78 are bands in NR. It is assumed that a multi-RAT request condition carried in the UE capability enquiry request message sent by the eNB 211 to the UE 221 is: The band 1, the band 3, the band 7, and the band 78 are supported, a maximum quantity of E-UTRA band combinations that are allowed to be reported by the UE is 2, and a maximum quantity of MRDC band combinations that are allowed to be reported by the UE is 2 (interpreted as “determine, based on the indicated actual CBWs deployed for the plurality of carriers, a carrier aggregation (CA) combination bandwidth for a CA combination comprising two or more of the plurality of carriers, the CA combination bandwidth being a sum of the indicated actual CBWs deployed for the CA combination.”).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kim's method by using the teaching (a maximum bandwidth respectively deployed for the requested band by a network and the bandwidth division) of MA in order to report the UE CAPABILITY INFORMATION. Doing so would optimize a process of reporting UE capability information, to improve a success rate of UE rollback configuration to a CA mode, thereby helping improve transmission bandwidth of UE (see para [0007] of Ma).
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim corresponding to the user equipment claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, Kim and Ma teach The UE of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein, in response the CA combination bandwidth being not less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capacity of the UE, the one or more processors are configured to:
determine another CA combination;
determine a CA combination bandwidth for the another CA combination; and
determine whether the CA combination bandwidth is less than or equal to the maximum BW capacity of the UE.
As disclosed in Col. 10 of Kim, lines 41-60 and Fig. 5C, Kim discloses the SupportedBandCombinationList including one or more band combination parameters (BandCombinationParameters, BCPs hereafter) 510, 515, 520, and 525. The BCP is information on band combinations supported by the UE. For example, bandwidth class A may represent a capability by which one serving cell of a maximum entire bandwidth of 20 MHz may be set, bandwidth class B may represent a capability by which two serving cells may be set and a total entire bandwidth is a maximum of 20 MHz , and bandwidth class C may represent a capability by which two serving cells may be set and a total entire bandwidth is a maximum of 40 MHz). Examiner’s note: Based on the Kim’s discussion in Col. 10 and Col 22, and Fig. 9, the ‘UE selectively records only a band combination selected by the capability report restriction information for a band combination including multiple bands in SupportedBandCombinationList’ discussed in Col. 22 of Kim is interpreted as the claimed languages “in response the CA combination bandwidth being not less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capacity of the UE … determine another CA combination; determine a CA combination bandwidth for the another CA combination; and determine whether the CA combination bandwidth is less than or equal to a maximum CBW capacity of the UE”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Ma teach The UE of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein, in response to no CA combinations, of the plurality of carriers, being supported by the UE, the one or more processors are configured to:
proceed with the attach procedure without signaling support for any of the CA combinations (Col. 6 of Kim, lines 35-41: Referring to FIG. 3, one eNB generally transmits and receives multiple carriers through various frequency bandwidths. For example, when an eNB 305 transmits a carrier 315, the central frequency of which is f1, and a carrier 310, the central frequency of which is f3, a UE that does not have carrier aggregation capability can transmit and receive data using one of the two carriers 310 and 315 (interpreted as “proceed with the attach procedure without signaling support for any of the CA combinations”).
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Ma teach The UE of claim 1, Ma further teaches wherein the pre-determined maximum channel bandwidth is standard-defined per a wireless communication standard (para [0086] of Ma: Using an LTE system as an example, maximum carrier bandwidth of LTE is 20 MHz)
Regarding claim 9, Kim and Ma teach The UE of claim 1, Kim further teaches wherein the UE capability request message is received from a base station of the network, and the UE is configured to proceed with the attach procedure after signaling, to the base station, the CA combination supported by the UE (Fig. 7 of Kim, Step 730 “ATTACH REQUEST” to Step 750 “UE CAPABILITY INFO INDICATION” to Step 760 “TRANSMIT AND RECEIVE DATA”).
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 2, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 2.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 3, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 3.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 has similar limitation as of Claim(s) 5, therefore it is rejected under the same reasons as Claim(s) 5.
Regarding claim 19, Kim and Ma teach The method of claim 1, Ma teaches wherein the UE capability request message indicates the actual CBWs deployed on a per-band basis for the plurality of carriers (para [0110] of Ma: It is assumed that a multi-RAT request condition carried in the UE capability enquiry request message sent by the eNB 211 to the UE 221 is: The band 1, the band 3, the band 7, and the band 78 are supported, a maximum quantity of E-UTRA band combinations that are allowed to be reported by the UE is 2, and a maximum quantity of MRDC band combinations that are allowed to be reported by the UE is 2.) (paragraphs [0097-0101] of Ma: In an example, for two complete bands, namely, the band 1 (downlink 2110 MHz to 2170 MHz) and the band 3 (downlink 1805 MHz to 1880 MHz), CA band combinations allowed by a protocol may include types indicated by the following indexes: CA_1C: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and contiguous CA in the band 1 (interpreted as “the actual CBWs deployed on a per-band basis for the plurality of carriers”); CA_1A-1A: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and non-contiguous CA in the band 1; CA_3B: a maximum of 10 MHz bandwidth, and contiguous CA in the band 3; CA_3C: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and contiguous CA in the band 3 (also interpreted as “the actual CBWs deployed on a per-band basis for the plurality of carriers”); CA_3A-3A: a maximum of 40 MHz bandwidth, two carriers, and non-contiguous CA in the band 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 20 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claims contain the following underlined features which, when combined with other features of the claim, prior art of record failed to anticipate or render obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application was filed:
Claims 6-8 and 20 recite;
“wherein, in response to the CA combination bandwidth being less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capacity of the UE, the one or more processors are configured to:
determine a deficit β by subtracting the CA combination bandwidth from the maximum bandwidth capacity;
reduce, based on the deficit β, a bandwidth of lower priority bands until the deficit β is equal to or less than 0; and
signal to the network that the CA combination is supported by the UE.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Noh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200305134, hereinafter “Noh”) teaches a wireless communication system operating in a carrier aggregation (CA) environment comprising a plurality of component carriers (CCs) (see para [0121]-[0123] of Noh). Furthermore, to address power consumption issues when a terminal supports a very high bandwidth, Noh discloses configuring a Bandwidth Part (BWP) where the indicated actual channel bandwidth is less than a pre-determined maximum channel bandwidth for a carrier (paragraphs [0059]-[0064] of Noh: The configuration of the bandwidth parts supported in the 5G may be used for various purposes… if the terminal supports a very high bandwidth, for example, a bandwidth of 100 MHz, and it transmits and receives data always with the corresponding bandwidth, this may cause quite high power consumption… For the purpose of reducing the power consumption of the terminal, the base station may configure a bandwidth part having a relatively low bandwidth, for example, a bandwidth part of 20 MHz, to the terminal). Noh further discloses that the base station indicates this bandwidth part to the terminal (para [0064] of Noh: … in accordance with instructions of the base station).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/RAJ JAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights