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
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 12, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uemura US 20150011215.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 14, Uemura teaches a communication method, comprising:
transmitting, by a terminal device, a first message, the first message being used for a capability negotiation performed by the terminal device with a network device (fig. 3, Although being omitted in FIG. 3, the mobile-station apparatus 1 transmits mobile-station apparatus capability notification message (UE Capability) to the base-station apparatus 2 by using an RRC message before step S101. At least physical layer-related parameters such as the number of antennas of the mobile-station apparatus 1, [0109]).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 11, 15, 18, wherein the first message comprises at least one of:
a number of transmitting antennas expected to be retained by the terminal device (the objects to be negotiated may include the number of Tx/Rx antennas, [0109]), a number of receiving antennas expected to be retained by the terminal device (the objects to be negotiated may include the number of Tx/Rx antennas, [0109]), a number of transmitting antennas expected to be released by the terminal device, a number of receiving antennas expected to be released by the terminal device, a maximum number of carriers expected to be supported by the terminal device, or a maximum transmit power expected to be supported by the terminal device.
Regarding claims 3, 16, wherein the first message comprises a capability configuration requested by the terminal device from the network device (fig. 4, the terminal may
negotiate MIMO capabilities with the BS, [0109]).
Regarding claims 4, 8, 17, the first message is of any one of following message types:
radio resource control (RRC) message ([0109]), media access control element (MAC CE) message, or uplink control information (UCI) message.
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first message comprises a capability configuration requested by the apparatus from the network device ([0109]).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 14-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho US 20140050193.
Regarding claim 1, 5, 14, Cho teaches a communication method, comprising:
transmitting, by a terminal device, a first message, the first message being used for a capability negotiation performed by the terminal device with a network device (fig. 4, the terminal may negotiate MIMO capabilities with the BS, the objects to be negotiated may include the number of Tx/Rx antennas, [0053]).
Regarding claim 2, 6, 15, 18, wherein the first message comprises at least one of:
a number of transmitting antennas expected to be retained by the terminal device (the objects to be negotiated may include the number of Tx/Rx antennas, [0053]), a number of receiving antennas expected to be retained by the terminal device (the objects to be negotiated may include the number of Tx/Rx antennas, [0053]), a number of transmitting antennas expected to be released by the terminal device, a number of receiving antennas expected to be released by the terminal device, a maximum number of carriers expected to be supported by the terminal device, or a maximum transmit power expected to be supported by the terminal device.
Regarding claims 3, 7, 16, wherein the first message comprises a capability configuration requested by the terminal device from the network device (fig. 4, the terminal may
negotiate MIMO capabilities with the BS, [0053]).
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.
Claim(s) 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uemura as applied to claims 5, 14 above, and further in view of Ejzak US 20040196867.
Uemura is silent on receiving a fourth message, the fourth message being used for indicating that the network device allows
the apparatus to perform the capability negotiation.
Ejzak teaches receiving a fourth message, the fourth message being used for indicating that the network device allows
the apparatus to perform the capability negotiation (The network controller 202 sends SIP INVITE without SDP attachment to the resource controller 204 to request a conference media resource 224 and to allow separate session capability negotiation with each participating party, [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Uemura by receiving a fourth message, the fourth message being used for indicating that the network device allows the apparatus to perform the capability negotiation, as shown by Ejzak. This modification would benefit the system by informing the apparatus that it is allowed to perform capability negotiation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 13, and 20 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 RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476