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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 13, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Alriksson et al. US 2023/0337201 A1.
Claims 1 and 19:
Alriksson discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (See fig. 3, memory and processor in a Wireless device) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive first control signaling that indicates a set of communication parameters for communications by the UE via a set of time and frequency resources (See figs. 8, & 10-11, first and second BWPs are indicated/received to/by the UE with criterion), wherein the set of communication parameters support communications according to a first throughput, or at least a first processing timeline, or both (See 126, “The threshold is configured per BWP and can either be a new threshold for the purpose of BWP selection”. Also see paras 119-120 & 127, threshold as throughput/bitrate. In other words, BWPs will have their own throughputs/bitrate); receive second control signaling that indicates a threshold throughput that is less than the first throughput, a threshold processing timeline that is longer than the first processing timeline, or both for communications by the UE (See 126, “The threshold is configured per BWP and can either be a new threshold for the purpose of BWP selection”. Also see paras 119-120 & 127, threshold as throughput/bitrate. Para 120, new lower value for threshold); and communicate via the set of time and frequency resources in accordance with the set of communication parameters and the threshold throughput or the threshold processing timeline, or both (See figs. 10-11, selects or implements second BWP for communication).
Claim 14:
Alriksson discloses a network entity, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (See fig. 3, memory and processor in a network node) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: output first control signaling that indicates a set of communication parameters for communications by a user equipment (UE) via a set of time and frequency resources (See figs. 8, & 10-11, first and second BWPs are indicated by the network node with criterion), wherein the set of communication parameters support communications according to a first throughput, or at least a first processing timeline, or both (See 126, “The threshold is configured per BWP and can either be a new threshold for the purpose of BWP selection”. Also see paras 119-120 & 127, threshold as throughput/bitrate. In other words, BWPs will have their own throughputs/bitrate); output second control signaling that indicates a threshold throughput that is less than the first throughput, a threshold processing timeline that is longer than the first processing timeline, or both for communications by the UE (See 126, “The threshold is configured per BWP and can either be a new threshold for the purpose of BWP selection”. Also see paras 119-120 & 127, threshold as throughput/bitrate. Para 120, lower value for threshold); and communicate via the set of time and frequency resources in accordance with the set of communication parameters and the threshold throughput or the threshold processing timeline, or both (See figs. 10-11, implements second BWP for communication).
Claim 8:
Alriksson discloses receive a control message comprising the first control signaling that indicates the set of communication parameters and the second control signaling that indicates the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both for the communications by the UE, wherein the control message comprises a downlink control information message, a medium access control-control element, a bandwidth part configuration message, a configuration profile message, a radio resource control message, or any combination thereof (See figs. 8, & 10-11 and para 126, BWP configuration message).
Claim 13:
Alriksson discloses that the set of communication parameters comprise at least a rank, a bandwidth, a modulation and coding scheme, or a combination thereof (See figs. 8, & 10-11 and para 126, BWP configuration message).
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) 2, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson et al in view of Liu et al. US 2025/0126307 A1.
Claims 2, 15 and 20:
Alriksson discloses receive/output, via the second control signaling (See para 126, throughput threshold configured by the network node).
Alriksson doesn’t disclose a scaling factor associated with the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both, wherein the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both are based at least in part on the scaling factor applied to the first throughput, or the first processing timeline, or both.
Liu discloses that to receive/output the second control signaling, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, via the second control signaling, a scaling factor associated with the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both, wherein the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both are based at least in part on the scaling factor applied to the first throughput, or the first processing timeline, or both (See para 85, scaling factor to adjust bitrate).
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 Alriksson with the teachings of Liu to improve the method disclosed by Alriksson by including the feature of scaling factor for throughput threshold. The motivation for doing so would have been to flexibly control throughputs for the UE in the network.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson et al. in view of Kim et al. US 2020/0112965 A1.
Claims 3 and 16:
Alriksson discloses receive/output, via the second control signaling (See para 126, throughput threshold configured by the network node).
Alriksson doesn’t disclose a threshold transport block size associated with a threshold time period, wherein the threshold throughput is based at least in part on the threshold transport block size and the threshold time period.
Kim discloses receive a threshold transport block size associated with a threshold time period, wherein the threshold throughput is based at least in part on the threshold transport block size and the threshold time period (See para 43, “The predetermined decoding throughput threshold may be based on a maximum TBS (a throughput required to decode a TB of the maximum TBS transmitted in a fourteen-symbol duration), a number of codeblocks for transmitting a TB of the maximum TB size, a length of a codeblock-level cyclic redundancy check (CRC), a length of a TB-level CRC, a coding rate for transmitting a TB of maximum TB size with limited-buffer rate-matching (LBRM) enabled, a scaling factor, or a combination thereof”).
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 Alriksson with the teachings of Kim to improve the method disclosed by Alriksson by including the feature of indicating threshold throughput based on TBS. The motivation for doing so would have been to flexibly control throughputs based on different communication types.
Claims 4 and 17:
Alriksson discloses receive/output, via the second control signaling (See para 126, throughput threshold configured by the network node).
Alriksson doesn’t disclose an indication of a first limited-buffer rate-matching value from among a plurality of limited-buffer rate-matching values associated with the set of communication parameters, wherein the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both are based at least in part on the first limited-buffer rate-matching value.
Kim discloses an indication of a first limited-buffer rate-matching value from among a plurality of limited-buffer rate-matching values associated with the set of communication parameters, wherein the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both are based at least in part on the first limited-buffer rate-matching value (See para 43, “The predetermined decoding throughput threshold may be based on a maximum TBS (a throughput required to decode a TB of the maximum TBS transmitted in a fourteen-symbol duration), a number of codeblocks for transmitting a TB of the maximum TB size, a length of a codeblock-level cyclic redundancy check (CRC), a length of a TB-level CRC, a coding rate for transmitting a TB of maximum TB size with limited-buffer rate-matching (LBRM) enabled, a scaling factor, or a combination thereof”).
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 Alriksson with the teachings of Kim to improve the method disclosed by Alriksson by including the feature of indicating threshold throughput based on LBRM. The motivation for doing so would have been to flexibly control throughputs based on different communication types.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alriksson et al. in view of Pitchaiah et al. US 2016/0037386 A1.
Claim 9:
Alriksson doesn’t disclose receive, via the second control signaling, a downlink control information message, a medium access control-control element, or a radio resource control message that indicates the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both for the communications by the UE.
Pitchaiah discloses receive, via the second control signaling, a downlink control information message, a medium access control-control element, or a radio resource control message that indicates the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both for the communications by the UE (See paras 30-31, “Upon receiving the IE, a client device may compare the channel characteristic threshold(s) (e.g., data rate) indicated in the IE with the specifications supported by the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer of the client device”).
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 Alriksson with the teachings of Pitchaiah to improve the method disclosed by Alriksson by including the feature of indicating threshold throughput via MAC control element. The motivation to combine would have been to reliably convey the information to the UE.
Claim 11:
Alriksson doesn’t disclose that the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both apply to a single communication type from among a plurality of communication types, the plurality of communication types comprising multicast communications, broadcast communications, unicast communications, or any combination thereof.
Pitchaiah discloses that the threshold throughput, the threshold processing timeline, or both apply to a single communication type from among a plurality of communication types, the plurality of communication types comprising multicast communications, broadcast communications, unicast communications, or any combination thereof (See paras 30-31, group indication of throughput threshold indicating to which group it applies).
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 Alriksson with the teachings of Pitchaiah to improve the method disclosed by Alriksson by including the feature of indicating threshold throughput for broadcast/multicast. The motivation for doing so would have been to flexibly control throughputs for different UEs in the network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 10, 12 & 18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to claims 1, 14 & 9, on pages 2-3 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues “Alriksson doesn’t disclose any threshold value that is defined as being less than a throughput and/or longer than a processing timeline that are supported by a “set of communication parameters” indicated via prior signaling”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. One of the metrics or communication parameters is throughput/bitrate for which threshold or first value is set, as disclosed in para 127. A new value/threshold is set according to new requirements. That new threshold is lower than the first, as disclosed in para 120. Therefore, second throughput value is lower (relative) than the first value of throughput.
With regards to claims 1, 14 & 9, on page 2 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues Alriksson uses one of multiple BWPs and does not communicate via the same set of time and frequency resources.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Receiving first control signaling indicating a set of time and frequency resources correspond to both first and second BWPs, as disclosed in fig. 8 step 136. Out of the two BWPs one is used for communication which is still from/within the two indicated BWPs (within the set of time and frequency resources).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HASHIM S BHATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-7748. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at 571-270-3770. 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.
HASHIM S. BHATTI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights