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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)1
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 21,28,35 are/is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being clearly anticipated by Lee et al (US 20180076924 A1) hereinafter as Lee.
Regarding claim(s) 21,28,35 Lee discloses a method of operating a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (See Fig(s). 1A-1B), the method comprising:
receiving cell-specific subband configuration information for a downlink subband (See ¶ 63, the WTRU may receive a configuration including resource information for a plurality of subbands, wherein a subband may be a downlink (DL) subband (D-subband), an uplink (UL) subband (U-subband) or both));
receiving UE-specific subband configuration information for a specific frequency resource that is not being used as the downlink subband within the downlink subband (See Fig(s). 3, See ¶ 103-104, 108, a subband may be used as a reduced BW and may be configured or used for a reduced BW WTRU. A subband may be D-subband, U-subband, or both…. The multiple D-subband configuration information may include at least one of a number of D-subbands configured or used in a cell (e.g., an eNobe-B), a frequency location of one or more configured D-subbands);
determining a UE-specific downlink subband based on the cell-specific subband configuration information and the UE-specific subband configuration information (See ¶ 63, 128, The WTRU may determine the number of D-subbands and/or U-subbands and/or their frequency location in a subframe based on one or more system parameters, including a physical cell-identifier (ID)….. certain DL subband may be determined as a function of at least one of WTRU-ID);
wherein, within the downlink subband, frequency resources other than the specific frequency resource are determined to be the UE-specific downlink subband (See Fig(s). 6, See ¶ 135-136, the WTRU-specific D-subband may be determined as a function of a WTRU-ID).
Further with regards to claim 28 Lee discloses a processor and memory for performing the method of claim 21 (See Fig(s). 1b, processor 118 memory 130).
Further with regards to claim 35 Lee discloses a base station for performing the mirrored steps of claim 21 (See Fig(s). 1A, 1C, base station 114a, See ¶ 34,45).
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 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.
Claim(s) 22-24,29-31, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180076924 A1) hereinafter as Lee in view of Agrawal (US 20040229615 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 22,29, Lee fails to discloses wherein the specific frequency resource that is not being used as the downlink subband is a guard subband.
Agrawal discloses wherein the specific frequency resource that is not being used as the downlink subband is a guard subband (See ¶ 34, With OFDM, each subband is associated with a respective sub-carrier that may be modulated with data. In some OFDM systems, only N.sub.D subbands are used for data transmission, N.sub.P subbands are used for pilot transmission, and N.sub.G subbands are not used and serve as guard subbands to allow the systems to meet spectral mask requirements).
Guard subbands provide ample spacing between downlink subbands to prevent interference and/or overlap during uplink communications.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal within Lee, so as provide ample spacing between downlink subbands to prevent interference and/or overlap during uplink communications.
Regarding claim(s) 23,30, Lee discloses wherein the cell-specific subband configuration information informs the downlink subband, an uplink subband (See ¶ 63) and a cell-specific guard subband ( Agrawal discloses the guard subband for cell specific information See ¶ 34). Reasons for combining same as claim 22.
Regarding claim(s) 24,31, Lee discloses wherein the UE-specific subband configuration information informs an additional guard frequency resource within the downlink subband (See ¶ 195, The first subframe may be the subframe n. The second subframe may be a subframe n−1 and/or a subframe n+1. The subframe in which a WTRU may skip receiving or monitoring a downlink control channel may be considered as a guard subframe for frequency band switching.).
Claim(s) 26-27,33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20180076924 A1) hereinafter as Lee in view of Oh et al (US 20200154415 A1) hereinafter as Oh.
Regarding claim(s) 26,33, Lee fails to discloses transmitting guard frequency size information about a size of required guard frequency resources to a base station.
Oh discloses transmitting guard frequency size information about a size of required guard frequency resources to a base station (See ¶ 249, Table 8, the values express the offset using the size of a guard band that is minimally required to minimize inter-subband interference.).
Guard subbands provide ample spacing between downlink subbands to prevent interference and/or overlap during uplink communications.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Agrawal within Lee, so as provide ample spacing between downlink subbands to prevent interference and/or overlap during uplink communications.
Regarding claim(s) 27,34, Oh discloses wherein the guard frequency size information informs required additional guard frequency resources compared to a size of guard frequency resources currently applied to the UE (See ¶ See ¶ 249, Table 8,. the values express the offset using the size of a guard band that is minimally required to minimize inter-subband interference, and the unit thereof is kHz. In this case, it is also possible to express the offset as the minimum number of subcarriers or PRBs having the spacing that is equal to or larger than the values of Table 8. ). Reasons for combining same as claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 25,32, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raj Jain whose telephone number is (571) 272-3145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th ~8 ~6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RAJ JAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411