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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 24-36 in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHODS AND DEVICE FOR COMMUNICATING BWP SWITCHING
Claim Objections
Claims 33, 48 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations written in the alternative are the same, i.e. both pertain to scheduling a PDSCH. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
None of the instant claims invoke U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24, 31-33, 35-36, 44, 46-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/041182 A1 to ZHOU et al. (“Zhou”) [provided by Applicant].
As to claim 24, see similar rejection to claim 50. The apparatus teaches the method.
As to claim 31, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the delay offset is in units of slots or symbols (page 15, first paragraph, offset by a timing advance (TA) value with respect to UL slots).
As to claim 32, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the scheduling delay is a predefined value or semi-statically configured in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message or dynamically signaled in a downlink control channel between the wireless device and the network node (page 5, lines 30-31, dynamic radio resource management and data packet scheduling; page 15, first paragraph, PDCCH carrying the active BWP switch DCI in the DL; calculating a transmission time no later than slot m+Y, where Y is a BWP switching delay and DL slots are offset by a TA).
As to claim 33, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the message is a Downlink Control Information (DCI) to signal a scheduling of a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) or a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (page 15, first paragraph, PDCCH carrying the active BWP switch DCI in the DL; calculating a transmission time no later than slot m+Y, where Y is a BWP switching delay and DL slots are offset by a TA; page 15, 2nd para, receive a PDSCH on the new BWP).
As to claim 35, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the subsequent wireless data transmission between the wireless device and the network node includes the wireless device receiving a data packet from the network node (page 15, 2nd para, receive a PDSCH on the new BWP on the serving cell).
As to claim 36, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the subsequent wireless data transmission between the wireless device and the network node includes the wireless device transmitting a data packet to the network node (page 15, 1st para, transmit a PUSCH in the UL on a new BWP on the serving cell at a time no later than slot m+Y).
As to claim 44, Zhou discloses a method for wireless communications comprising: transmitting, at a network node, an indication of a bandwidth part (BWP) switch in a message to a wireless device, wherein the indication of the BWP switch is used for switching the wireless device from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth part for communications between the wireless device and the network node (page 15, 1st para, a UE receiving a BWP switching request from a serving cell); performing, by the network node, a subsequent wireless data transmission between the network node and the wireless device based on an effective scheduling delay (page 15, 1st para, transmit a PUSCH in the UL on a new BWP on the serving cell at a time no later than slot m+Y ), wherein the effective scheduling delay is calculated as a sum of a scheduling delay and a delay offset, wherein the delay offset is a time duration dedicated for the wireless device (page 15, 1st para, calculating a transmission time no later than slot m+Y, where Y is a BWP switching delay and DL slots are offset by a TA).
As to claim 46, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 44, wherein the delay offset is in units of slots or symbols (page 15, first paragraph, offset by a timing advance (TA) value with respect to UL slots).
As to claim 47, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 44, wherein the scheduling delay is a predefined value or semi-statically configured in a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message or dynamically signaled in a downlink control channel between the wireless device and the network node (page 5, lines 30-31, dynamic radio resource management and data packet scheduling; page 15, first paragraph, PDCCH carrying the active BWP switch DCI in the DL; calculating a transmission time no later than slot m+Y, where Y is a BWP switching delay and DL slots are offset by a TA).
As to claim 48, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 44, wherein the message is a Downlink Control Information (DCI) to signal a scheduling of a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) or a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) (page 15, first paragraph, PDCCH carrying the active BWP switch DCI in the DL; calculating a transmission time no later than slot m+Y, where Y is a BWP switching delay and DL slots are offset by a TA; page 15, 2nd para, receive a PDSCH on the new BWP).
As to claim 49, Zhou further discloses the method of claim 44, wherein the subsequent wireless data transmission between the wireless device and the network node includes: the network node transmitting a data packet to the wireless device page 15, 2nd para, receive a PDSCH on the new BWP on the serving cell); or the network node receiving a data packet from the wireless device (page 15, 1st para, transmit a PUSCH in the UL on a new BWP on the serving cell at a time no later than slot m+Y).
As to claim 50, Zhou discloses a wireless device (page 15, 1st para, UE) comprising: a memory storing a plurality of instructions (page 9, lines 22-27, functionality of baseband processors…included in modules stored in the memory); and at least one processor configured to execute the plurality of instructions, wherein upon execution of the plurality of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to cause the wireless device to (page 9, lines 22-27, functionality of baseband processors…included in modules stored in the memory…executed via a Central Processing Unit (CPU)): receiving an indication of a bandwidth part (BWP) switch in a message from a network node, wherein the indication of the BWP switch is used for switching the wireless device from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth part for communications between the wireless device and the network node (page 15, 1st para, a UE receiving a BWP switching request from a serving cell); calculate an effective scheduling delay as a sum of a scheduling delay and a delay offset, wherein the delay offset is a time duration dedicated for the wireless device (page 15, 1st para, calculating a transmission time no later than slot m+Y, where Y is a BWP switching delay and DL slots are offset by a TA);
and use the effective scheduling delay for a subsequent wireless data transmission between the network node and the wireless device (page 15, 1st para, transmit a PUSCH in the UL on a new BWP on the serving cell at a time no later than slot m+Y ).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 25-26, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/041182 A1 to ZHOU et al. (“Zhou”) [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0072549 A1 to DAI et al. (“Dai”).
As to claim 25, Zhou does not expressly disclose the method of claim 24, wherein the delay offset is determined according to a frequency gap between the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part.
Dai discloses at para. 0005: the base station may schedule the frequency-hopping (i.e. different frequencies) transmissions with an intervening scheduling gap (i.e. therefore a frequency gap) that provides time for a receiver to retune radio frequency components, such as an antenna.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the scheduling gap of Dai into the invention of Zhou. The suggestion/motivation would have been for defining portions of bandwidth parts within an operating bandwidth to be used for scheduling frequency-hopping transmissions (Dai, para. 0001). Including the scheduling gap of Dai into the invention of Zhou was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Dai.
As to claim 26, Zhou does not expressly disclose the method of claim 25, wherein the frequency gap is defined as a difference of center subcarrier frequencies in the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part.
Dai discloses at fig. 6, para. 0089: FIG. 6 illustrates a first resource block grid 600 for conventional intra-BWP frequency hopping PUSCH and/or PUCCH. A wide UL PWP 616 includes a first set of RBs 602 that is offset in frequency from a second set of RBs 602, and where hops 606, 608 occur between RBs of successive slots 610, 612, 614. Each hop 606, 608 is associated with RF retuning in which, for example, the UE tunes its antenna to the center frequency used by the current set of RBs [para. 0058, RB may include 12 subcarriers] 602, 604 (i.e. retuning center frequencies during hopping implies a difference in the sets of RBs).
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the hopping of Dai into the invention of Zhou. The suggestion/motivation would have been for defining portions of bandwidth parts within an operating bandwidth to be used for scheduling frequency-hopping transmissions (Dai, para. 0001). Including the hopping of Dai into the invention of Zhou was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Dai.
As to claim 45, Zhou does not expressly disclose the method of claim 44, wherein the delay offset is determined according to a frequency gap between the first bandwidth part and the second bandwidth part.
Dai discloses at para. 0005: the base station may schedule the frequency-hopping (i.e. different frequencies) transmissions with an intervening scheduling gap (i.e. therefore a frequency gap) that provides time for a receiver to retune radio frequency components, such as an antenna.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the scheduling gap of Dai into the invention of Zhou. The suggestion/motivation would have been for defining portions of bandwidth parts within an operating bandwidth to be used for scheduling frequency-hopping transmissions (Dai, para. 0001). Including the scheduling gap of Dai into the invention of Zhou was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Dai.
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/041182 A1 to ZHOU et al. (“Zhou”) [provided by Applicant] in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0104543 A1 to PARK.
As to claim 34, Zhou does not expressly disclose the method of claim 33, wherein the BWP switch is indicated in a bandwidth part indicator field included in the Downlink DCI.
PARK discloses at para. 0007: according to an aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a method of switching bandwidth part (BWP) by a UE, the method including: transmitting information on physical layer capability including information on a BWP switching delay type, receiving downlink control information (DCI) including a BWP indication field that indicates one BWP different from an active BWP among BWPs included in a BWP set configured for the UE, and scheduling control information for a data channel, activating the BWP indicated by the value of the BWP indication field in consideration of a transition time determined by the information on the BWP switching delay type, and transceiving the data channel according to the scheduling control information.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the DCI of PARK into the invention of Zhou. The suggestion/motivation would have been for support a user equipment (UE) using various bandwidth parts (BWPs) in a next-generation radio access network (PARK, para. 0002). Including the DCI of PARK into the invention of Zhou was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of PARK.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230064881 A1 discloses at para. [0048] In some embodiments of the present disclosure, when the SCS of a BWP before a BWP switch is different from the SCS of another BWP after a BWP switch, the BWP switch delay may be determined according to the number of slots corresponding to the larger SCS between the SCS before a BWP switch and the another SCS after a BWP switch. For example, according to the above table, if a type 2 UE switches from a BWP corresponding to SCS.sub.0 to a BWP corresponding to SCS.sub.1, the BWP switch delay may be 5 slots (i.e., the larger one between 3 slots and 5 slots) with respect to SCS.sub.1. If a type 2 UE switches from a BWP corresponding to SCS.sub.1 to another BWP corresponding to SCS.sub.0, the BWP switch delay may be 5 slots (i.e., the larger one between 3 slots and 5 slots) with respect to SCS.sub.1.
U.S. Patent No. 12,150,183 B2 discloses at col. 8, lines 28-47: In some exemplary embodiments, when the corresponding Type1-PDCCH CSS set is located in a different DL BWP than the selected PRACH resource as shown with PRACH resources 513 and 514 and Type1-PDCCH CSS set 523, the UE will monitor the Type1-PDCCH CSS set 523 for which there is a time gap between the last symbol of the PRACH transmission and the first symbol of the associated Type1-PDCCH CSS transmission. This time gap may be referred to as Δ.sub.switching.sup.sub-band as is shown by the switching gap 530 in FIG. 5. This time gap may be larger than or equal to a predefined threshold to allow the UE to monitor the different BWP for the Type1-PDCCH CSS transmission. The predefined threshold may be based on, for example, a sub-carrier spacing. If the bandwidth part being monitored does not change compared to the PRACH transmission, e.g., the UE is monitoring the Type1-PDCCH CSS set 521 in sub-band 510 corresponding to PRACH resources 511 and 512, no bandwidth switch will occur and the switching gap may be set to 0.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights