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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 23 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 17 and 22 are amended.
Claim 23 is newly added.
Claims 2, 10, 15 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-14 and 17-23 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11-13 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 9, and 17.
The outstanding rejection of 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 9, and 17.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 5-7, 13, 14, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 1, 9, and 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should start on a separate line from the previous claim. The claim listing submitted 23 December 2025 does not separate the end of Claim 18 and the start of Claim 19. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-9, 11-14 and 17-23 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. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended to recite (emphasis added) “bandwidths of the first initial uplink BWP and the first initial downlink BWP of the first initial BWP pair are less than or equal to a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a first type of terminal.” However, this amended limitation finds no basis in Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and therefore constitutes new matter. Paragraph 0042 indicates that bandwidths of the first initial uplink BWP and the first initial downlink BWP of the first initial BWP pair are less than or equal to a first threshold, but does not indicate what this threshold is. Paragraph 0043 further indicates that the first threshold may be determined according to a bandwidth supported by the first type of terminal. However, Applicant’s specification does not describe that the bandwidth is the “maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a first type of terminal.” As such, this limitation is new matter. Claims 3-8, 11-14 and 18-23 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0361122), in view of Rastegardoost et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0210806), hereinafter Rastegardoost.
Regarding Claim 17, Zheng discloses a terminal (Figure 17 – terminal device), comprising:
a processor (Figure 17 – processor 1702); and
a memory configured to store a processor-executable instruction (Figure 17 – memory 1703; paragraph 0287 – the memory stores instructions for execution by the processor); wherein the processor is configured to:
determine a first initial bandwidth part (BWP) pair (paragraph 0186 – an initial BWP incudes an initial uplink BWP and an initial downlink BWP (i.e., pair));
wherein the first initial BWP pair comprises a first initial uplink BWP and a first initial downlink BWP (paragraph 0186 – an initial BWP includes an initial uplink BWP and an initial downlink BWP (i.e., pair)); and
wherein a capability of the first type of terminal is lower than a capability of a second type of terminal (paragraph 0139 – a first-type terminal is an NR-light terminal device which is also referred to as a NR REDCAP device and the second type terminal is a non-NR-light terminal device (i.e., non-REDCAP)), and the second type of terminal corresponds to a second initial downlink BWP (paragraph 0262 and Figure 12 – the second-type corresponds to a frequency resource of a second initial downlink BWP);
wherein the processor is further configured to:
monitor a second type of information in the second initial downlink BWP (Figure 12 and paragraphs 0261-0262 – the first-type terminal device can monitor SSBs that are the same as the second-type terminal device); and
during a process of accessing a network, determine configuration information of the first initial BWP pair based on the second type of information (paragraph 0262 and Figure 12 – the frequency resource of a first initial BWP is included in a frequency resource of a second initial BWP corresponding to the second-type terminal device; the configuration provided by the network device to the terminal includes the frequency resource of the initial BWP and how to determine time resource of the CORESET 0)).
However, Zheng does not disclose bandwidths of the first initial uplink BWP and the first initial downlink BWP of the first initial BWP pair are less than or equal to a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a first type of terminal. In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses this. Specifically, Rastegardoost discloses a network may have to configure separate parameters/resources/channels for RedCap and/or modify legacy configurations/channels such that RedCap UEs can also support them. For example, network may limit a bandwidth of initial DL/UL BWPs and/or CORESET#0 and/or common PRACH/PDCCH/PDSCH/PUSCH/PUSCH resources (paragraph 0273). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for differentiated parameters and treatment between RedCap and legacy UEs and maintain system performance (see paragraphs 0273-0274 of Rastegardoost).
Claim 1 is directed to a method (performed by a terminal) comprising the same steps as the terminal of Claim 17. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasoning as applied to Claim 17.
Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a processor of a terminal, cause the terminal to perform the BWP configuration method according to claim 1. As presented above, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the method of Claim 1 (as performed by the terminal in Claim 17) and further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Zheng at Figure 17 – memory 1703; paragraph 0287 – the memory stores instructions for execution by the processor).
Regarding Claim 9, Zheng discloses a bandwidth part (BWP) configuration method, performed by a network device (Figures 1 and 2 – terminal devices communicate with a network device; paragraph 0262 – the network device configures BWPs for a terminal device) and comprising:
determining a first initial BWP pair (paragraph 0186 – an initial BWP incudes an initial uplink BWP and an initial downlink BWP (i.e., pair));
wherein the first initial BWP pair comprises a first initial uplink BWP and a first initial downlink BWP (paragraph 0186 – an initial BWP includes an initial uplink BWP and an initial downlink BWP (i.e., pair)); and
wherein a capability of the first type of terminal is lower than a capability of a second type of terminal (paragraph 0139 – a first-type terminal is an NR-light terminal device which is also referred to as a NR REDCAP device and the second type terminal is a non-NR-light terminal device (i.e., non-REDCAP)), and the second type of terminal corresponds to a second initial downlink BWP (paragraph 0262 and Figure 12 – the second-type corresponds to a frequency resource of a second initial downlink BWP) and;
the second initial downlink BWP is configured to carry a second type of information which is configured to determine configuration information of the first initial BWP pair (paragraph 0262 and Figure 12 – the frequency resource of a first initial BWP is included in a frequency resource of a second initial BWP corresponding to the second-type terminal device; the configuration provided by the network device to the terminal includes the frequency resource of the initial BWP and how to determine time resource of the CORESET 0)).
However, Zheng does not disclose bandwidths of the first initial uplink BWP and the first initial downlink BWP of the first initial BWP pair are less than or equal to a maximum downlink bandwidth supported by a first type of terminal. In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses this. Specifically, Rastegardoost discloses a network may have to configure separate parameters/resources/channels for RedCap and/or modify legacy configurations/channels such that RedCap UEs can also support them. For example, network may limit a bandwidth of initial DL/UL BWPs and/or CORESET#0 and/or common PRACH/PDCCH/PDSCH/PUSCH/PUSCH resources (paragraph 0273). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for differentiated parameters and treatment between RedCap and legacy UEs and maintain system performance (see paragraphs 0273-0274 of Rastegardoost).
Regarding Claim 19, Zheng discloses a network device (Figures 1 and 2 – terminal devices communicate with a network device), comprising:
a processor (the Office submits that the network devices shown in Figures 1 and 2 inherently comprise a processor); and
a memory configured to store a processor-executable instruction (the Office submits that the network devices shown in Figures 1 and 2 inherently comprise a memory storing processor-executable instructions); wherein the processor is configured to perform the BWP configuration method according to claim 9 (the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the method of Claim 9 as presented above).
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein instructions that, when executed by a processor of a network device, cause the network device to perform the BWP configuration method according to claim 9. As presented above, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the method of Claim 9 and further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Zheng at Figures 1 and 2 - the Office submits that the network devices shown in Figures 1 and 2 inherently comprise a memory storing processor-executable instructions).
Regarding Claims 3 and 11, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the first initial uplink BWP is configured to carry information corresponding to the first type of terminal, the information being at least one of: first physical random access channel (RPACH) information (Rastegardoost at paragraph 0274 –Identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg1 (PRACH) transmission. The options may comprise separate initial UL BWP, and/or separate PRACH resources, and/or PRACH preamble partitioning), a first uplink data transmission, or first uplink control information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Zheng and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for differentiated parameters and treatment between RedCap and legacy UEs and maintain system performance (see paragraphs 0273-0274 of Rastegardoost).
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the second initial uplink BWP is configured to carry information corresponding to the second type of terminal, the information being at least one of: second RPACH information (Rastegardoost at paragraph 0273 – legacy UE PRACH transmissions), a second uplink data transmission, or second uplink control information. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Zheng and Rastegardoost. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for differentiated parameters and treatment between RedCap and legacy UEs and maintain system performance (see paragraphs 0273-0274 of Rastegardoost).
Claims 5-7, 13, 14, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Rastegardoost, as applied to Claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Orsino et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2020/0119898), hereinafter Orsino.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. Zheng further discloses in response to the terminal being a first type of terminal (Figure 12 and paragraphs 0139 – a first-type terminal is an NR-light terminal device which is also referred to as a NR REDCAP device), monitoring … the first initial downlink BWP (Figure 12 and paragraph 0262 – monitoring the first initial BWP for configuration information), the second type of information is a system message (paragraph 0125 – the terminal device reads system information included in system information blocks). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first type of information is a random access message corresponding to the first type of terminal. In an analogous art, Orsino discloses this. Specifically, Orsino discloses an idle/inactive UE can perform random access in an initial UL/DL BWP (paragraph 0045). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zheng, Rastegardoost and Orsino further discloses in response to the terminal being the first type of terminal, during a process of accessing a network, performing at least one of a random access or a radio resource control (RRC) connection in the first initial BWP pair based on the configuration information of the first initial BWP pair (Orsino at paragraphs 0042-0043 – BWPs can be configured in RRC connected state). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine further combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose in response to the terminal being the first type of terminal and the first type of terminal being in an idle state, monitoring a paging message based on the second initial downlink BWP. In an analogous art, Orsino discloses this. Specifically, Orsino discloses an idle/inactive UE can monitor for system information and paging information in an initial DL BWP (paragraph 0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the limitations of Claim 9, as described above. Zheng further discloses the first initial downlink BWP is configured to carry at least one of a first type of information or a second type of information (Figure 12 and paragraph 0262 – monitoring the first initial BWP for configuration information); and the second type of information is a system message (paragraph 0125 – the terminal device reads system information included in system information blocks). However, the aforementioned references do not disclose the first type of information is a random access message corresponding to the first type of terminal. In an analogous art, Orsino discloses this. Specifically, Orsino discloses an idle/inactive UE can perform random access in an initial UL/DL BWP (paragraph 0045). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the limitations of Claim 9, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose sending a paging message based on the second initial downlink BWP. In an analogous art, Orsino discloses this. Specifically, Orsino discloses an idle/inactive UE can monitor for system information and paging information in an initial DL BWP (paragraph 0044). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Zheng, Rastegardoost and Orsino further discloses in response to the terminal being the first type of terminal and the first type of terminal being in an idle state, monitoring a paging message based on the second initial downlink BWP (Orsino paragraph 0044 - an idle/inactive UE can monitor for system information and paging information in an initial DL BWP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Zheng, Rastegardoost, and Orsino further discloses sending a paging message based on the second initial downlink BWP (Orsino at paragraph 0044 - an idle/inactive UE can monitor for system information and paging information in an initial DL BWP). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Zheng / Rastegardoost and Orsino. One would have been motivated to do so in order to conserve device power and reduce unnecessary control signaling (paragraphs 0006 and 0015 of Orsino).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng and Rastegardoost, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lei et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0104109), hereinafter Lei. The combination of Zheng and Rastegardoost discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose in response to the terminal being the first type of terminal, determining to switch to a second initial BWP pair, and measuring a synchronization signal block (SSB). In an analogous art, Lei discloses this. Specifically, Lei discloses, at paragraph 0217, in cases where the SSB is not transmitted in the active downlink BWP, the reduced-capability UE may switch to the initial downlink BWP to measure the SSB. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng / Rastegardoost with Lei. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow reduced capability UEs to receive master information blocks and system information blocks (refer to paragraph 0004 of Lei).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, Rastegardoost and Orsino, as applied to Claim 6 above, and further in view of Lei. The combination of Zheng, Rastegardoost and Orsino discloses the limitations of Claim 6, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose in response to the terminal being a first type of terminal, determining to switch to a second initial BWP pair, and measuring a synchronization signal block (SSB). In an analogous art, Lei discloses this. Specifically, at paragraph 0217, Lei discloses in cases where the SSB is not transmitted in the active downlink BWP, the reduced-capability UE may switch to the initial downlink BWP to measure the SSB. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Zheng / Rastegardoost / Orsino with Lei. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow reduced capability UEs to receive master information blocks and system information blocks (refer to paragraph 0004 of Lei).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472