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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE claims 1, 15, 16 and 30, Applicants have amended the claims and assert that Jung fails to disclose the amended features. Applicants argue that “However, the "virtual cell" in paragraph [0026] of Jung is not "a single virtual cell that includes an aggregation of a plurality of non-contiguous frequency resources," as in amended claim 1 (emphasis added). Paragraph [0029] of Jung further describes "Carrier Aggregation (CA)" as "two or more cells." The cited description in paragraph [0056] of Jung is about a "CA scheme," e.g., which is based on "two or more cells" as described in paragraph [0029] of Jung rather than "a single virtual cell," as in claim 1. Thus, the statement that "The component carriers in a CA scheme do not need to be contiguous in the frequencies or be within the same frequency band," in paragraph [0056] is about different cells, where each "component carrier" corresponds to a separate cell.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this position. The claim as currently presented defines a virtual cell as merely a “single virtual cell that includes an aggregation of a plurality of non-contiguous frequency resources;” The cited disclosure of Jung explicitly discloses this. Two or more cells transmit different component carriers which need not be contiguous in frequency. Those two or more cells may then also form a ”virtual cell”. Jung clearly meets the claimed invention in this regard.
Examiner can appreciate that virtual cell in the context of the intended invention may be different from Jung, but the claims must provide features and limitations that fully capture that. Per MPEP 2111.01 (II), it is improper for an Examiner to import limitations from the specification. If applicants have disclosed additional features/limitations/details that set their “virtual cell” apart from Jung’s definition and disclosed structure, those details must be claimed to be given their full weight.
For this reason, Examiner maintains that Jung discloses the amended portions of claims and has accordingly updated the grounds of rejection below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 13-17, 21-22 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2013/0178221, Jung hereafter) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0254794, Lee hereafter)
RE claims 1 and 15, Jung discloses an apparatus and method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor (Figure 3) is configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a virtual cell configuration for a virtual cell, wherein the virtual cell configuration is for a single virtual cell that includes an aggregation of a plurality of non-contiguous frequency resources (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”. Paragraph 61 further discloses “ UE1 is initially connected to cell 101k via the DL and UL carriers corresponding to cell 101k. Cell 101k and UE1 exchange messages (e.g., using RRC signaling) to set up CA. These messages may include messages for signaling UE1's CA capabilities to cell 101j, and messages used by cell 101j to provide the CA configuration data to UE1.”) ; switch to a target bandwidth part (BWP) of the virtual cell; and communicate, with the virtual cell in the target BWP (Paragraph 61 further disclosing: “UE1 uses the CA configuration data to communicate with cells 101k, 101j, and 101c. For UL communication, UE1 transmits to cell 101k, 101j, and 101c using respective first, second and third UL component carriers, each component carrier occupying its own channel bandwidth that is separate from that of the other component carriers. UE1 may also receive from the three cells using multiple DL component carriers,”).
Jung does not explicitly disclose the apparatus transmitting, to a network entity, an indication of support for at least one capability associated with flexible spectrum integration (FSI) for virtual cells.
However, Lee teaches the apparatus transmitting, to a network entity, an indication of support for at least one capability associated with flexible spectrum integration (FSI) for virtual cells (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and apparatus of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 2, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses the apparatus further comprising a transceiver (Figure 3) coupled to the at least one processor, the transceiver being configured to: receive the virtual cell configuration for the virtual cell based on the aggregation of the plurality of non-contiguous frequency resources (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”. Paragraph 61 further discloses “ UE1 is initially connected to cell 101k via the DL and UL carriers corresponding to cell 101k. Cell 101k and UE1 exchange messages (e.g., using RRC signaling) to set up CA. These messages may include messages for signaling UE1's CA capabilities to cell 101j, and messages used by cell 101j to provide the CA configuration data to UE1.”); and communicate, with the virtual cell in the target BWP (Paragraph 61 further disclosing: “UE1 uses the CA configuration data to communicate with cells 101k, 101j, and 101c. For UL communication, UE1 transmits to cell 101k, 101j, and 101c using respective first, second and third UL component carriers, each component carrier occupying its own channel bandwidth that is separate from that of the other component carriers. UE1 may also receive from the three cells using multiple DL component carriers,”).
Jung does not explicitly disclose the transceiver transmitting, to a network entity, an indication of support for at least one capability associated with FSI for the virtual cells.
However, Lee teaches the transceiver transmitting, to a network entity, an indication of support for at least one capability associated with FSI for the virtual cells (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and apparatus of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 6, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein a frequency band of the virtual cell comprises multiple non-contiguous frequency sub-bands (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”.).
RE claim 7, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein a BWP of the virtual cell is comprised of multiple non-contiguous frequency sub-bands (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”.).
RE claims 13, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit a channel quality indication of the target BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraph 47 discloses: “Each CSI report sent by a UE may include one or more of a CQI, a PMI, a PTI, and an RI.”) .
RE claim 14, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein control information and data is received via the target BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraph 61 further disclosing: “UE1 sends both control information and user data to cell 101k on a first UL carrier. UE1 sends user data to cell 101c on the second UL carrier. UE1 may also send user data to cell 101j on the third UL carrier”).
RE claims 16 and 30, Jung discloses an apparatus and method for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor (Figure 2), is configured to cause the apparatus to: provide a virtual cell configuration for a virtual cell, wherein the virtual cell configuration is for a single virtual cell that is comprised of an aggregation of a plurality of non-contiguous frequency resources (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”. Paragraph 61 further discloses “ UE1 is initially connected to cell 101k via the DL and UL carriers corresponding to cell 101k. Cell 101k and UE1 exchange messages (e.g., using RRC signaling) to set up CA. These messages may include messages for signaling UE1's CA capabilities to cell 101j, and messages used by cell 101j to provide the CA configuration data to UE1.”); and communicate with the UE on the virtual cell in a target BWP (Paragraph 61 further disclosing: “UE1 uses the CA configuration data to communicate with cells 101k, 101j, and 101c. For UL communication, UE1 transmits to cell 101k, 101j, and 101c using respective first, second and third UL component carriers, each component carrier occupying its own channel bandwidth that is separate from that of the other component carriers. UE1 may also receive from the three cells using multiple DL component carriers,”).
Jung does not explicitly disclose the apparatus obtaining, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of support for at least one capability associated with flexible spectrum integration (FSI) for virtual cells.
However, Lee teaches the apparatus obtaining, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of support for at least one capability associated with flexible spectrum integration (FSI) for virtual cells (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and apparatus of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 17, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Figure 2), the transceiver being configured to: provide a virtual cell configuration for a virtual cell comprised of an aggregation of a plurality of non-contiguous frequency resources (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”. Paragraph 61 further discloses “ UE1 is initially connected to cell 101k via the DL and UL carriers corresponding to cell 101k. Cell 101k and UE1 exchange messages (e.g., using RRC signaling) to set up CA. These messages may include messages for signaling UE1's CA capabilities to cell 101j, and messages used by cell 101j to provide the CA configuration data to UE1.”); and communicate with the UE on the virtual cell in a target BWP (Paragraph 61 further disclosing: “UE1 uses the CA configuration data to communicate with cells 101k, 101j, and 101c. For UL communication, UE1 transmits to cell 101k, 101j, and 101c using respective first, second and third UL component carriers, each component carrier occupying its own channel bandwidth that is separate from that of the other component carriers. UE1 may also receive from the three cells using multiple DL component carriers,”).
Jung does not explicitly disclose the apparatus obtaining, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of support for at least one capability associated with flexible spectrum integration (FSI) for virtual cells.
However, Lee teaches the apparatus obtaining, from a user equipment (UE), an indication of support for at least one capability associated with flexible spectrum integration (FSI) for virtual cells (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and apparatus of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 21, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein a frequency band of the virtual cell comprises multiple non-contiguous frequency sub-bands (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”.).
RE claim 22, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein a BWP of the virtual cell is comprised of multiple non-contiguous frequency sub-bands (Paragraphs 26 and 56 disclose that one or more cells of a network may be a virtual cell. The component carriers comprising these cells further may be “(1) Intra-band aggregation with frequency-contiguous component carriers; (2) Intra-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers (3) Inter-band aggregation with non-contiguous component carriers.”.).
RE claim 28, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: obtain a channel quality indication of the target BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraph 47 discloses: “Each CSI report sent by a UE may include one or more of a CQI, a PMI, a PTI, and an RI.”) .
RE claim 29, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Jung further discloses wherein control information and data is received via the target BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraph 61 further disclosing: “UE1 sends both control information and user data to cell 101k on a first UL carrier. UE1 sends user data to cell 101c on the second UL carrier. UE1 may also send user data to cell 101j on the third UL carrier”)
Claims 3-5 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Frank (US 2025/0219802).
RE claims 3 and 18, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 16 as set forth above. Note that Lee further teaches wherein the at least one capability is based on a radio frequency chain configuration of the UE for communication with the virtual cell (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Jung in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one capability is based on at least one of: locations of local oscillator (LO) for the virtual cell and associated BWPs.
However, Frank teaches wherein the at least one capability is based on locations of local oscillator (LO) for the virtual cell and associated BWPs (Paragraph 49, a gNB receives a capability indication and configures the UE with a bandwidth part for transmission based upon this indication. The indicator “indicates that the UE centers the location of the transmitter local oscillator within the bandwidth part”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Jung in view of Lee with the teachings of Frank since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung in view of Lee already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information for UE configuration.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 4 and 19, Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Frank discloses the apparatuses of claims 3 and 18 as set forth above. Note that Lee further teaches wherein the at least one capability is based on the radio frequency chain configuration of the UE, and wherein communicating with the virtual cell includes communicating with the virtual cell using the radio frequency chain configuration indicated by the UE (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 5 and 20, Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Frank discloses the apparatuses of claims 3 and 18 as set forth above. Note that Lee further teaches wherein the at least one capability is based on a number of radio frequency chains at the UE (Paragraph 11 teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may utilize flexible deployment strategies, and/or flexible operations. Flexible deployment strategies and/or flexible operations may include flexible spectrum allocation.” Paragraph 140 further teaches “A WTRU and/or a base station device may define (e.g., and/or determine and/or use) a downlink control channel, based on a WTRU capability.”, and further “The WTRU capability may include a supportable bandwidth (e.g., RF and/or baseband bandwidth supported by the WTRU). The WTRU capability may include a number of receive antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU receiver). The WTRU capability may include a number of transmit antennas (e.g., the number of RF chains or antennas at the WTRU transmitter). The WTRU capability may include a receiver beamforming capability. The WTRU capability may include a multiple antenna receiver type.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatuses of Jung with the teachings of Lee since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement. As set forth above, Jung already discloses UE capability signaling. Lee merely teaches additional information to support flexible spectrum allocation.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lee, in view of Matsumura et al. (US 2021/0168744, Matsumura hereafter) and further in view of Shimoda et al. (US 2021/0176096, Shimoda hereafter).
RE claim 8, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above. Jung in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose skipping monitoring for control or data for the virtual cell outside of an active BWP; and receiving scheduling for a reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell.
However, Matsumura teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: skip monitoring for control or data for the virtual cell outside of an active BWP (Paragraph 197 teaches: “At least one of the configured BWPs may be active, and the UE may not assume to transmit or receive a predetermined channel/signal outside the active BWP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee with the teachings of Matsumura since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Matsumura does not explicitly disclose receiving scheduling for a reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell.
However, Shimoda teaches receiving scheduling for a reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraphs 525-527 teaches a gNB notifying a UE of a measurement gap for transmission of an SRS transmitted outside an active BWP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Matsumura with the teachings of Shimoda since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 9, Jung in view of Lee, in view of Matsumura and further in view of Shimoda discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as set forth above. Note that Matsumura further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to measure the reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraph 66, CSI-RS received by the UE within a measurement gap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee with the teachings of Matsumura since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Matsumura does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell.
However, Shimoda teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: transmit the reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraphs 525-527 teaches a gNB notifying a UE of a measurement gap for transmission of an SRS transmitted outside an active BWP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Matsumura with the teachings of Shimoda since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 10, Jung in view of Lee, in view of Matsumura and further in view of Shimoda discloses the apparatus of claim 8 as set forth above. Note that Matsumura teaches wherein the reference signal is a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) (Paragraph 66, CSI-RS received by the UE within a measurement gap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee with the teachings of Matsumura since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Matsumura does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference signal is a sounding reference signal (SRS)
However, Shimoda teaches wherein the reference signal is a sounding reference signal (SRS) (Paragraphs 525-527 teaches a gNB notifying a UE of a measurement gap for transmission of an SRS transmitted outside an active BWP).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Matsumura with the teachings of Shimoda since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Sakhnini et al. (US 2022/0369351, Sakhnini hereafter).
RE claims 11 and 26, Jung in view of Lee discloses the apparatuses of claims 1 and 16 as set forth above. Jung in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a switch command to switch to the target BWP of the virtual cell, wherein a switching time is independent of a number of non-contiguous frequency sub-bands comprised in the target BWP, wherein the switch command is comprised within at least one of radio resource control (RRC) signaling, media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE), or downlink control information (DCI) on a source BWP from a serving cell of the network entity.
However, Sakhnini teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to: receive a switch command to switch to the target BWP of the virtual cell, wherein a switching time is independent of a number of non-contiguous frequency sub-bands comprised in the target BWP, wherein the switch command is comprised within downlink control information (DCI) on a source BWP from a serving cell of the network entity (Paragraph 5 teaches a base station may configure BWP switching via one or more DCI messages. Paragraph 98 further teaches “the time gap 614 for BWP switching may be based on a reference slot size, such as being a number of lengths of the reference slot size. The reference slot may be based on a particular SCS. As one example, the reference slot size may be based on a slot having a 120 kHz SCS. The use of a reference slot size provides for a more stable time gap for BWP switching, the length in time being the same independent of the particular SCS of the BWPs involved in the switch.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee with the teachings of Sakhnini since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 12 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung in view of Lee, in view of Sakhnini and further in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0082425, Li hereafter)
RE claims 12 and 27, Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Sakhnini discloses the apparatuses of claims 11 and 26 as set forth above. Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Sakhnini does not explicitly disclose transmitting or obtaining an acknowledgement (ACK) of the switch command for the UE to switch to the target BWP of the virtual cell.
However, Sakhnini teaches transmitting or obtaining an acknowledgement (ACK) of the switch command for the UE to switch to the target BWP of the virtual cell (Paragraph 87 teaches the UE may transmit the ACK for the BWP configuration command after BWP switching).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Jung in view of Lee and further in view of Sakhnini with the teachings of Li since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claim 23, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest the wherein the network node is configured to: obtain uplink control or uplink data for the virtual cell outside of an active BWP; and provide scheduling for a reference signal outside of the active BWP of the virtual cell.
RE claims 24-25, the claims depend upon and therefore incorporate the allowable features of claim 23 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights