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 .
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.
Abstract
The substitute abstract submitted on 22 February 2024 is acknowledged and entered into the record.
Specification
The substitute specification submitted on 22 February 2024 is acknowledged and entered into the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CMCC, “Discussion on reduced maximum UE bandwidth”, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #105-e, e-Meeting, May 10th – 27th, 2021, R1-2104616, hereafter D1.
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE), a system information block (SIB), in a first initial downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) based on a first configuration within a master information block (MIB) received by the RedCap UE (Section 2.1 first two paragraphs disclosing the MIB configured Initial DL BWP can be the same for RedCap UEs and that SIB1 can reconfigure the initial DL BWP implicitly disclosing it is also received in the MIB configured Initial DL BWP), the SIB indicating a second configuration for a second initial DL BWP (Section 2.1 second paragraph disclosing SIB1 can reconfigure initial DL BWP; end of third paragraph disclosing “the initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs can be configured differently from the MIB configured initial DL BWP), wherein the RedCap UE has a maximum bandwidth capability less than a minimum bandwidth capability for a non-RedCap UE (Section 2.1 end of second paragraph disclosing “non-RedCap UEs only with a wider bandwidth than the maximum RedCap UE bandwidth), and wherein a bandwidth of the second initial DL BWP is smaller than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capability (Section 2.1 first paragraph disclosing “Last RAN1 meeting has agreed on a working assumption that during initial access, the bandwidth of the initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs is not expected to exceed the maximum RedCap UE bandwidth”);
receiving, by the RedCap UE, first transmissions in the first initial DL BWP before an initial access procedure (Section 2.1 first paragraph disclosing MIB configured initial DL BWP used before RRC connection; second paragraph disclosing SIB 1 can reconfigure the initial DL BWP implicitly disclosing said SIB 1 received in the MIB configured initial DL BWP); and
receiving, by the RedCap UE, second transmissions in the second initial DL BWP in response to the RedCap UE transmitting a random access channel (RACH) (Section 2.1 third paragraph disclosing when SIB1 configures different initial UL BWP for RedCap devices, for offloading purpose, to keep a same central frequency for initial DL and UL BWP for RedCap devices, the bandwidth and location for initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs will also be different form the initial DL BWP of non-RedCap device for initial access (i.e., RACH procedure) to avoid frequent RF retuning during initial access; See Proposal 1).
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the SIB comprises a configuration for an initial uplink (UL) BWP (Section 2.1 disclosing Sib-1 configured separate initial UL BWP for RedCap UE), a bandwidth of the initial UL BWP being smaller than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capability (pg. 3, lines 24 and 25 disclosing “a separate initial UL BWP no wider than RedCap UE maximum bandwidth is configured/identified for RedCap UEs), the method further comprising:
transmitting, by the RedCap UE, the RACH during the initial access procedure, in resources of the initial UL BWP (Section 2.2, pg. 3 Proposal 3 and Option 2 disclosing during initial access a separate initial UL BWP no wider than RedCap UE maximum bandwidth id configured/identified for RedCap UEs; section 2.2, lines 1-7 disclosing during initial access for RACH messages).
Regarding claim 3, D1 discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a first center of the initial UL BWP is aligned to a second center of the second initial DL BWP, and wherein the RedCap UE operates with time-division duplexing (Section 2.1 third paragraph disclosing “In TDD system, the center frequency of DL BWP and UL BWP should be kept the same. When SIB1-configured separate initial UL BWP for RedCap devices…for offloading purpose, to keep a same central frequency for initial DL and UL BWP for RedCap devices”).
Regarding claim 4, D1 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the SIB comprises a configuration for an initial uplink (UL) BWP (Section 2.1 disclosing Sib-1 configured separate initial UL BWP for RedCap UE), a bandwidth of the initial UL BWP being less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capability (pg. 3, lines 24 and 25 disclosing “a separate initial UL BWP no wider than RedCap UE maximum bandwidth is configured/identified for RedCap UEs), the method further comprising:
transmitting, by the RedCap UE, uplink control information in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) during the initial access procedure in first resources of the initial UL BWP (Section 2.1, third paragraph disclosing separate UL BWP for initial access; Section 2.2, lines 1-4 disclosing PUCCH for RACH).
Regarding claim 5, D1 discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the transmitting of the uplink control information is in second resources located on a side of the initial UL BWP in accordance with a configuration of PUCCH resources (Section 2.2, pg. 2, lines 46-49 PUCCH of RedCap devices transmitted at the initial UL BWP edge).
Regarding claim 6, D1 discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the configuration of the PUCCH resources comprises an offset, a size of the PUCCH resources, and an indication of the side of the initial UL BWP (Section 2.2, pg. 2, lines 46-49 PUCCH of RedCap devices transmitted at the initial UL BWP edge; pg. 3 3rd paragraph for PUCCH with frequency hopping offset).
Regarding claim 7, D1 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first configuration comprises a first control channel resource set configuration (Section 2.1 disclosing “MIB-configured initial DL BWP is defined by CORESET#0”), and wherein the second configuration comprises a second control channel resource set configuration (Section 2.2, pg. 4, lines 9-16 “separate initial BWP that does not contain CORESET0”).
Regarding claim 8, D1 discloses a method comprising:
transmitting, by a base station, parameters for a first initial downlink (DL) bandwidth part (BWP) in a master information block (MIB), the MIB indicating a first configuration for the first initial DL BWP (Section 2.1 first two paragraphs disclosing the MIB configured Initial DL BWP);
transmitting, by the base station, a system information block (SIB), the SIB indicating a second configuration for a second initial DL BWP for a reduced capability (Redcap) UE (Section 2.1 second paragraph disclosing SIB1 can reconfigure initial DL BWP; end of third paragraph disclosing “the initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs can be configured differently from the MIB configured initial DL BWP), wherein the RedCap UE has a maximum bandwidth capability less than a minimum bandwidth capability for a non-RedCap UE (Section 2.1 end of second paragraph disclosing “non-RedCap UEs only with a wider bandwidth than the maximum RedCap UE bandwidth), and wherein a bandwidth of the second initial DL BWP is less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capability (Section 2.1 first paragraph disclosing “Last RAN1 meeting has agreed on a working assumption that during initial access, the bandwidth of the initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs is not expected to exceed the maximum RedCap UE bandwidth”); and
transmitting, by the base station, initial access messages in the second initial DL BWP in response to receiving a random access channel (RACH) from the RedCap UE (Section 2.1 third paragraph disclosing when SIB1 configures different initial UL BWP for RedCap devices, for offloading purpose, to keep a same central frequency for initial DL and UL BWP for RedCap devices, the bandwidth and location for initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs will also be different form the initial DL BWP of non-RedCap device for initial access (i.e., RACH procedure) to avoid frequent RF retuning during initial access; See Proposal 1).
Regarding claim 9, D1 discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the SIB further indicates a configuration for an initial uplink (UL) BWP (Section 2.1 disclosing Sib-1 configured separate initial UL BWP for RedCap UE), a bandwidth of the initial UL BWP being less than or equal to the maximum bandwidth capability (pg. 3, lines 24 and 25 disclosing “a separate initial UL BWP no wider than RedCap UE maximum bandwidth is configured/identified for RedCap UEs).
Regarding claim 10, D1 discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a first center of the initial UL BWP is aligned to a second center of the second initial DL BWP, and wherein the base station operates with time-division duplexing (Section 2.1 third paragraph disclosing “In TDD system, the center frequency of DL BWP and UL BWP should be kept the same. When SIB1-configured separate initial UL BWP for RedCap devices…for offloading purpose, to keep a same central frequency for initial DL and UL BWP for RedCap devices”).
Regarding claim 11, D1 discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
configuring, by the base station, first parameters for a first RACH transmission for the non-RedCap UE and second parameters for a second RACH transmission for the RedCap UE (Section 2.1 third paragraph disclosing when SIB1 configures different initial UL BWP for RedCap devices, for offloading purpose, to keep a same central frequency for initial DL and UL BWP for RedCap devices, the bandwidth and location for initial DL BWP for RedCap UEs will also be different form the initial DL BWP of non-RedCap device for initial access (i.e., RACH procedure) to avoid frequent RF retuning during initial access; See Proposal 1; Section 2.2, page 4, lines 2-4 disclosing "gNB configures time domain and frequency domain parameters of PRACH resources in SIB1 ... ").
Regarding claim 12, D1 discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, by the base station, uplink control information from the RedCap UE in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) during an initial access procedure in first resources of the initial UL BWP (Section 2.1, third paragraph disclosing separate UL BWP for initial access; Section 2.2, lines 1-4 disclosing PUCCH for RACH).
Regarding claim 13, D1 discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the receiving of the uplink control information in the PUCCH is in second resources located on a side of the initial UL BWP in accordance with a configuration of PUCCH resources (Section 2.2, pg. 2, lines 46-49 PUCCH of RedCap devices transmitted at the initial UL BWP edge).
Regarding claim 14, D1 discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the configuration of the PUCCH resources comprises an offset, a size of the PUCCH resources, and an indication of the side of the initial UL BWP (Section 2.2, pg. 2, lines 46-49 PUCCH of RedCap devices transmitted at the initial UL BWP edge; pg. 3 3rd paragraph for PUCCH with frequency hopping offset).
Regarding claim 15, D1 discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first configuration comprises a first control channel resource set configuration (Section 2.1 disclosing “MIB-configured initial DL BWP is defined by CORESET#0”), and wherein the second configuration comprises a second control channel resource set configuration (Section 2.2, pg. 4, lines 9-16 “separate initial BWP that does not contain CORESET0”).
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) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
Regarding claims 16-18, the claims are directed towards a reduced capability (Redcap) user equipment (UE) comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the RedCap UE to perform the method of claims 1-3. D1 does not expressly disclose such implementations; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the RedCap UE in the manner claimed to perform these techniques because it provides a flexibly configured system that can be easily reprogrammed as technical specifications evolve. Accordingly, claims 16-18 are rejected as obvious over D1.
Regarding claims 19-20, the claims are directed towards a base station comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory storage comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the base station to perform the method of claims 8-9. D1 does not expressly disclose such implementations; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the base station in the manner claimed to perform these techniques because it provides a flexibly configured system that can be easily reprogrammed as technical specifications evolve. Accordingly, claims 16-18 are rejected as obvious over D1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chatterjee et al. (DE 10 2021 112 311 A1) appears to disclose the claimed features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461