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 Amendments and Arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/30/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification have been withdrawn.
With regard to the claim interpretation under 112(f) to claim 5, Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered. Applicant has acknowledged this interpretation.
With regard to the 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/30/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 03/30/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15 and 22 each recites "... dynamically transmit, via the transceiver, a second UE capability” (e.g., lines 1-14 of claim 1). However, “dynamically” transmitting a second UE capability does not appear to be described within the Specification. Moreover, Applicant does not specifically point out the support for the limitation.
In regard to the above claimed limitation, Applicant’s Specification describes at best:
[a]t block 612 the UE transmits capability information that corresponds to a suitable number (e.g., a reduced number) of Tx antennas. For example, the UE may signal that it only supports a single-antenna transmission configuration (“UL 1Tx”) rather than a dual-antenna transmission configuration (“UL 2Tx”). Signaling a reduced number of available antennas may enable the UE to deactivate transceiver circuitry (e.g., RF circuitry 515) coupled to one or more antennae (e.g., the antennas 520), allowing the UE to reduce power consumption. (Emphasis added.) (see, ¶0072).
The term “dynamically” is not found in regard to the transmitting of the second UE capability.
Examiner does not find any relevant description that a skilled artisan would recognize Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. As such, Examiner suggests Applicant to point to specific language within the Specification that fully discloses the above noted limitation of claims 1, 8, 15 and 22, otherwise Applicant should amend the claims to recite limitations fully supported within Applicant’s Specification.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-21 and 23-28 are also rejected since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claims, as set forth above.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19, 22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al (US Publication No. 2013/0051261 A1)1 in view of Marinier et al (WO 2006031495 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Kazmi discloses, a wireless communication device operable as user equipment (UE) [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0094-0103, user equipment (UE)] comprising:
a processor [FIG. 8; ¶0120, microprocessor 830/1430; note that every UE has at least one processor];
a transceiver communicatively coupled to the processor [FIG. 8; ¶0120, radio 810/1410 including receiver circuits and transmitter circuits];
a plurality of antennas coupled to the transceiver [FIG. 8, antenna array; further see ¶0094, activation of multiple-antenna transmission; note that more than one antenna is implicit from use of multi-antenna transmission], the antennas configured to enable a single-antenna configuration [¶0094, deactivation of multiple-antenna transmission; further see ¶0090, “under low UE transmit power, the efficiency of transmit diversity is worse than single antenna transmission”], and to enable a multi-antenna configuration [¶0094, activation of multiple-antenna transmission]; and
a memory coupled to the processor [FIG. 8; ¶0120, memory 840/1440 coupled to the microprocessor 830/1430], wherein the processor and the memory are configured to cause the UE to [FIG. 8; ¶0120, the microprocessor 830/1430 and the memory 840/1440]:
transmit, via the transceiver [FIG. 8; ¶0120, using radio 810/1410 including receiver circuits and transmitter circuits], a first capability information message indicating that the UE is configured to use a first number of antennas of the plurality of antennas for uplink transmissions [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the UE indicates to the network that it has activated the uplink transmission diversity (ULTD) (i.e., multiple-antenna transmission); further see ¶0094-0095]; and
based on a change of at least one of a power state of the UE [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0102, UE’s output power level; further see, ¶0094, based on UE’s battery] or a throughput of the UE [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0102, date rate (expected bit rate or average bit rate) of the UE; note that the term “date rate” encompasses “throughput” under normal operating conditions], transmit, via the transceiver [FIG. 8; ¶0120, using radio 810/1410 including receiver circuits and transmitter circuits], a second capability information message indicating that the UE is configured to use a second number of antennas [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0102-0103, the UE indicates to the network that it has deactivated the uplink transmission diversity (ULTD) (i.e., multiple-antenna transmission); further see ¶0094, the UE can autonomously decide whether to activate or deactivate (if activated) multiple-antenna transmission under one or more of several conditions; note that the deactivation of the ULTD results in a single antenna transmission], different from the first number of antennas, for uplink transmissions [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0094-0095 and 0102-0103, note that the number of antenna in the deactivated multiple-antenna transmission (i.e., second number of antennas) is smaller than the number of antenna in the activated multiple-antenna transmission (i.e., first number of antennas)].
Although Kazmi discloses, “based on a change of at least one of a power state of the UE or a throughput of the UE, transmit, via the transceiver, a second capability information message indicating that the UE is configured to use a second number of antennas” as set forth above, Kazmi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), initiate a capability information exchange with a network to dynamically transmit a second UE capability information message that the UE is configured to use a second number of antennas.
However, Marinier discloses, initiate a capability information exchange with a network to dynamically transmit a second UE capability information message [FIGS. 19-20; their related descriptions; ¶0119, transmitting STA (or receiving STA) initiates antenna capability information exchange with receiving STA (or transmitting STA) (“AP”; see ¶0118, “both the transmitting STA and the receiving STA can be an AP or a STA” AP) and ¶0119, “It is noted that steps 2010 and 2012 can be performed in reverse order”; further see ¶0127); note that the transmission of antenna capability information is made dynamically].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Kazmi with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Marinier to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Marinier into the system of Kazmi would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., enabling to improve network resource usage based on capability exchange, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Regarding claim 4, Kazmi in view of Marinier discloses, the wireless communication device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kazmi further discloses, wherein when the change comprises the change of the throughput of the UE, the change of the throughput corresponds to the throughput falling below a throughput threshold [¶0104, when the data rate/throughput is below a threshold].
Regarding claim 5, Kazmi in view of Marinier discloses, the wireless communication device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kazmi further discloses, wherein, based on the second capability information message [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0102-0103, based on the situation where the UE indicates to the network that it has deactivated the uplink transmission diversity (ULTD) (i.e., multiple-antenna transmission)], the processor and the memory are further configured to cause the UE to:
deactivate radio-frequency (RF) circuitry coupled to at least one antenna of the plurality of antennas [¶0102, when transmitting at a low uplink data rate and/or when operating at low output power, the UE can autonomously deactivate the multiple antenna transmission; note that deactivation of the multiple antenna transmission results in a single antenna transmission requiring the UE to deactivate RF circuitry coupled to at least one antenna of the multiple antennas associated with the multiple antenna transmission]; and
transmit, via the transceiver, an uplink transmission using the second number of antennas [¶0102, when transmitting at a low uplink data rate and/or when operating at low output power, the UE can autonomously deactivate the multiple antenna transmission, using a single antenna].
Regarding claim 8, since claim 8 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 8 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claims 11, 18 and 25, claims 11, 18 and 25 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claims 12, 19 and 26, claims 12, 19 and 26 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, since claim 15 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 15 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, Kazmi discloses, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing computer executable code comprising instructions for a wireless communication device operable as user equipment (a UE) [FIG. 8; ¶0120, memory 840/1440 storing program code executable by the microprocessor].
Since claim 22 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 22 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al (US Publication No. 2013/0051261 A1) in view of in view of Marinier et al (WO 2006031495 A2) and further in view of Ge et al (US Publication No. 2019/0101970 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kazmi in view of Marinier discloses, the wireless communication device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kazmi in view of Marinier does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Ge discloses, wherein when the change comprises the change of the power state of the UE, the change of the power state corresponds to a battery voltage falling below a voltage threshold, or a remaining battery energy falling below an energy threshold [¶0044, when the mobile terminal detects that its battery level falls below a low battery threshold, the mobile terminal may trigger the instruction for reducing power consumption; further see ¶0056 and table 1 and ¶0057-0058, reducing the number of the operable antennas for reducing the power consumption].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Ge in the system of Kazmi in view of Marinier in order to cause the system to be able to reduce power consumption which is automatically triggered according to a battery level [e.g., ¶0035 of Ge].
Regarding claim 3, Kazmi in view of Marinier and Ge discloses, the wireless communication device of claim 2 as set forth above.
Kazmi in view of Marinier does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Ge discloses, wherein the processor and the memory are further configured to cause the UE to receive at least one of the energy threshold or the voltage threshold via a user interface of the UE [¶0044, the low battery threshold and the preset duration threshold may be previously configured in the mobile terminal or may be set by the user autonomously].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Ge in the system of Kazmi in view of Marinier for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2.
Regarding claims 9, 16 and 23, claims 9, 16 and 23 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claims 10, 17 and 24, claims 10, 17 and 24 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 3.
Claims 6, 13, 20 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al (US Publication No. 2013/0051261 A1) in view of Marinier et al (WO 2006031495 A2) and further in view of Nam et al (US Publication No. 2020/0169995 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Kazmi in view of Marinier discloses, the wireless communication device of claim 5 as set forth above.
Although Kazmi discloses, activate the RF circuitry coupled to the at least one antenna [FIG. 7; its related descriptions; ¶0097, the UE activates multiple antenna transmission; which requires at least one RF circuitry coupled to at least one antenna for the multiple antenna transmission]; and transmit, via the transceiver, a uplink transmission using the first number of antennas [¶0094-0095, transmits uplink transmission using the antennas associated with the activated multiple antenna transmission; note that transmit the uplink transmission is implicit from the ULTD (uplink transmission diversity)] and further discloses, the UE can automatically decide whether to activate or deactivate (if activated) multiple-antenna transmission under one or more of several conditions [see ¶0094], Kazmi in view of Marinier does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), wherein the processor and the memory are further configured to cause the UE to: based on a further change of at least one of the power state of the UE or the throughput of the UE, transmit a third capability information message indicating that the UE is configured to use the first number of antennas; reactivate the RF circuitry coupled to the at least one antenna. In other words, Kazmi in view of Marinier does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), after deactivating the RF circuitry coupled to at least one antenna, based on a further change of the UE, reactivate the RF circuitry coupled to the at least one antenna and transmit a further uplink transmission.
However, Nam discloses, based on a further change [¶0054, after deactivating a default antenna panel, when the inactivity timer expires], reactivate the RF circuitry coupled to the at least one antenna [¶0054, reactivate the default antenna panel] and transmit a further uplink transmission [¶0055, UE 120 may transmit uplink signals such as e.g., control channel or a data channel].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Nam in the system of Kazmi in view of Marinier in order to cause the system to be able to improve link quality by enabling dynamic activation and deactivation of different antenna panels with different links [e.g., ¶0048 of Nam].
Regarding claims 13, 20 and 27, claims 13, 20 and 27 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Claims 7, 14, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazmi et al (US Publication No. 2013/0051261 A1) in view of Marinier et al (WO 2006031495 A2) and further in view of Wang et al (WO 2020/228011 A1)2 and further in view of Kim et al (US Publication No. 2012/0060043 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kazmi in view of Marinier discloses, the wireless communication device of claim 1 as set forth above.
Kazmi in view of Marinier does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Wang discloses, wherein the processor and the memory are further configured to cause the UE to: based on the change of at least one of the power state of the UE, transmit a first tracking area update request message [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0111-0112, based on a power level (e.g., battery ratio) of UE 115-c is lower than a battery level, the UE transmits a tracking area update request message as a part of a tracking area update procedure (see steps 405 and 410)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Wang in the system of Kazmi in view of Marinier in order to cause the system to be able to improve power management that promotes enhanced power conservation for user equipment [e.g., ¶0052 of Wang].
Further, Kazmi in view of Marinier and Wang does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Kim discloses, transmit the second capability information message in response to a UE capability inquiry message [¶0056, during negotiation of a communication mode with the base 400 station by the mobile communication terminal, upon receiving a request for UE capability information from the base station 400 in step 413, the modem 230 transmits the UE capability information to the base station 400 in response to the request in step 415].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Kazmi in view of Marinier and Wang with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Kim to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Kim into the system of Kazmi in view of Marinier and Wang would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure faster and more flexible capability negotiation for allowing the network to adapt configuration dynamically to user terminal needs, such a modification (or application) would have involved 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)).
Regarding claims 14, 21 and 28, claims 14, 21 and 28 are rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 7.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Kazmi was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
2 Wang was cited in an IDS by the applicant.
Prosecution Insights