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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4-13-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112 rejections, the specification recites: “At 402, UE 410 may determine PUSCH resources based on reduced bandwidth, and an indication received from NE 420, on a predefined rule known to UE 410 (e.g., using the first 25 PRBs of the PRB allocation, or otherwise), and/or the like.”; there will be a subset, if the PRB allocation is more than 25 PRBs. Please indicate where in the specification can be found that the PRB allocation is more than 25 PRBs.
Applicant submits: “Rastegardoost fails to disclose or suggest that the wireless device is configured to "adjust at least one characteristic of a physical resource block allocation based on the subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission and the reduced bandwidth, the adjustment of the at least one characteristic being based on a number of preambles mapped to the subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources," (emphasis added) as required by claim 1. As discussed above, Rastegardoost only discloses that the BS provides the configuration to the wireless device, including the preamble configuration, and Rastegardoost fails to disclose or suggest that the wireless device itself adjusts at least one characteristic of a PRB allocation based on a number of preambles mapped to the subset of the PUSCH resources, as required by claim 1.”; the examiner’s position is that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the instant case, Kim discloses to adjust at least one characteristic of a physical resource block allocation based on the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission and the reduced bandwidth (see par. 0436-0440). Guo discloses to determine a subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission(see par. 0016,0025-0026). Rastegardoost configuration to the wireless device allows the wireless device to adjust at least one characteristic of a PRB allocation based on a number of preambles mapped to the subset of the PUSCH resources (see par. 0245). Thereby, when combined the references teach the argued limitations.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above.
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, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18 and 20 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. Parent claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation: “determining, by the UE, a subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission based on a reduced bandwidth supported by the UE”; the examiner was unable to find support for the limitation in the specification for the above-mentioned limitation. Paragraphs 0033-0036 of the specification UE 410 may determine PUSCH resources based on reduced bandwidth, but fails to mention determining a subset. Please indicate where the support can be found. The rest of the claims they share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12, 14-18 and 20 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Parent claims 1 and 12 recite the limitation: “determining, by the UE, a subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission based on a reduced bandwidth supported by the UE”, since the examiner was unable to find support for the limitation in the specification. It is unclear the scope of the claim. Please clarify. For examination purposes a subset is going to be interpreted such as a PRB. The rest of the claims they share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
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.
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) 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 14-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim 20230292322 in view of Guo 20230058672 and further in view of Rastegardoost 20240032103.
As to claim 1, Kim discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one processor [102, 202] (see par. 0524); and at least one memory [104, 204] storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see par. 0018, 0524), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network entity, a configuration indicating physical uplink shared channel resources [The random access response may include a frequency hopping flag for the Msg3 PUSCH, and the frequency hopping flag may be set to ‘0’] (see par. 0014, 0524);
determine physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission based on a reduced bandwidth or reduced physical resource blocks supported by the apparatus, the reduced bandwidth being smaller than a bandwidth associated with the physical uplink shared channel resources configured for the apparatus [the PUCCH is transmitted without a frequency hopping based on an initial uplink bandwidth being greater than a bandwidth of the RedCap UE] (see par. 0010, 0436);
adjust at least one characteristic of a physical resource block allocation based on the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission and the reduced bandwidth (see par. 0436-0440); and
perform data communication based on the adjusted at least one characteristic of the physical resource block allocation (see par. 0436-0438). Kim fails to explicitly recite a subset of the channel resources. In an analogous art, Guo discloses to determine a subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission [the TBS is determined] (see par. 0015, 0025-0026), adjust at least one characteristic of a physical resource block allocation based on the subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission and the reduced bandwidth [modifying the TBS] (see par. 0016,0025-0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to determine subset of the channel resources for the simple purpose of maximizing the finite wireless resources. The previous references fail to disclose wherein the adjustment of the at least one characteristic is based on a number of preambles mapped to physical uplink shared channel resources.
In an analogous art, Rastegardoost disclose wherein the adjustment of the at least one characteristic is based on a number of preambles mapped to physical uplink shared channel resources (see par. 0236, 0245); apply an offset to a starting physical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of supporting legacy devices with reduced capabilities and improving user satisfaction for the owners of legacy devices.
As to claim 3, Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration is received via system information block (see par. 0173), a radio resource control configuration (see par. 0070, 0077, 0148), or a radio resource control release message (see par. 0188, 0193).
As to claim 4, Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data transmission comprises random access procedure (see par. 0010-0026).
As to claim 5, 7, 9, 16, 18 and 20 Kim fails to explicitly recite a subset of the channel resources. In an analogous art, determine a subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission [the TBS is determined] (see par. 0015, 0025-0026), adjust at least one characteristic of a physical resource block allocation based on the subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources to be used for data transmission and the reduced bandwidth [modifying the TBS] (see par. 0016,0025-0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to determine subset of the channel resources for the simple purpose of maximizing the finite wireless resources. Kim fails to disclose wherein the data transmission comprises small data transmission. In an analogous art, Rastegardoost disclose wherein the data transmission comprises small data transmission (see par. 0311), wherein the adjustment of the at least one characteristic is based on a predetermined number of physical resource blocks (0232-0234, 0244); apply an offset to a starting physical resource block of the physical resource block allocation based on a preamble index (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of supporting legacy devices with reduced capabilities and improving user satisfaction for the owners of legacy devices.
As to claim 6, Kim discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration indicating the physical uplink shared channel resources is based on the reduced bandwidth (see par. 0010).
Regarding claims 12, 14-15 and 17, they are the corresponding method claims of device claims 1, 3-4 and 6. Therefore, claims 12, 14-15 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
As to claims 21-22, Kim discloses everything as explained above except for wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a transport block size of the physical resource block allocation. In an analogous art, Guo discloses wherein the at least one characteristic comprises a transport block size of the physical resource block allocation (see par. 0015, 0026); wherein the determination of the subset of the physical uplink shared channel resources is based on a predetermined rule known to the apparatus (see par. 0193). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to determine subset of the channel resources for the simple purpose of maximizing the finite wireless resources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights