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 with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9-11 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi (US 2021/0127367) in view of Park (US 2019/0028315).
For claims 1 and 9-11; Yi discloses: transmission circuitry, which, in operation, transmits the control signal (paragraph 195: when the BWP is smaller than the carrier bandwidth and does not share the center frequency (fig. 5) then additional signaling is used to locate the BWP inside the carrier bandwidth).
Yi does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: generates a control signal related to a configuration of a first bandwidth part based on a parameter for which a number of candidates is less than that for a parameter of a second bandwidth part (paragraph 108-109, Table 2B: a channel spacing may be applied in a common multiple form of an RB size and a 100 kHz channel raster value for the RB grid alignment… channel spacings corresponding to a channel raster may be configured as frequency location candidates corresponding to an integer multiple, that is, N folds, of a predetermined size unit; the number of candidates N depends on the RB size of the BWP); the parameter for the first bandwidth part indicates a frequency position of the first bandwidth part, and a number of candidates for the parameter of the first bandwidth part is determined based on a least common multiple of a channel raster spacing and a resource block size (paragraph 108-109, Table 2B: a channel spacing may be applied in a common multiple form of an RB size and a 100 kHz channel raster value for the RB grid alignment… channel spacings corresponding to a channel raster may be configured as frequency location candidates corresponding to an integer multiple, that is, N folds, of a predetermined size unit). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Park in the BWP configuration as described by Yi. The motivation is to improve signaling overhead.
For claim 2; Yi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Yi does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the control signal includes information identifying each of a plurality of candidates for a parameter of the first bandwidth part (paragraph 108-109, Table 2B: a channel spacing may be applied in a common multiple form of an RB size and a 100 kHz channel raster value for the RB grid alignment… channel spacings corresponding to a channel raster may be configured as frequency location candidates corresponding to an integer multiple, that is, N folds, of a predetermined size unit). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Park in the BWP configuration as described by Yi. The motivation is to improve signaling overhead.
For claim 3; Yi discloses: wherein when a number of the plurality of candidates for the parameter of the first bandwidth part is one, the control circuitry does not include the parameter in the control signal (paragraph 195: when the BWP is smaller than the carrier bandwidth and does not share the center frequency (fig. 5) then additional signaling is used to locate the BWP inside the carrier bandwidth).
For claim 8; Yi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Yi does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein a number of candidates for a parameter of the first bandwidth part is determined based on channel raster spacing (paragraph 108-109, Table 2B: a channel spacing may be applied in a common multiple form of an RB size and a 100 kHz channel raster value for the RB grid alignment… channel spacings corresponding to a channel raster may be configured as frequency location candidates corresponding to an integer multiple, that is, N folds, of a predetermined size unit). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Park in the BWP configuration as described by Yi. The motivation is to improve signaling overhead.
For claim 4; Yi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Yi does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein the control signal includes a common value for a parameter of each of a plurality of the first bandwidth parts (paragraph 108-109, Table 2B: For example, table 2b, 900kHz is the common value while N is used to locate the BWP along the channel raster points, i.e. the LCM(RB BW, channel raster)). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Park in the BWP configuration as described by Yi. The motivation is to improve signaling overhead.
For claim 6; Yi discloses the subject matter in claim 1 as described above in the office action.
Yi does not expressly disclose, but Park from similar fields of endeavor teaches: wherein a number of candidates for the parameter of the first bandwidth part is determined based on a bandwidth supported by a terminal (paragraph 108-109, Table 2B: For example, table 2b, 180kHz is the is RB bandwidth for a BWP of a specific UE located at N possible locations in the system bandwidth). Thus it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the signaling as described by Park in the BWP configuration as described by Yi. The motivation is to improve signaling overhead.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nogami et al. (US 2022/0377791); Nogami discloses Multiple OFDM numerologies are supported as given by Table 1. Each of the numerologies may be tied to its own subcarrier spacing.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D BLANTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3933. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-6pm EST, Mon-Thu.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JOHN D BLANTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466