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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 11 of the claim recites the limitation “downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to by a change for the UE”. The claim limitation should be corrected to recite “downlink data to be transmitted by the BS Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the applicants arguments regarding the 103 rejection of claim 1 as amended, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
For example claim 1 has been amended to recite the claim features of “transmitting at least one downlink transmission parameter to a UE, the at least one downlink transmission parameter configuring a first BWP for the UE and a second BWP for the UE for downlink data”. However the teachings of Takeda discloses such claimed downlink transmission parameter configuring a first BWP and a second BWP for the UE for downlink data (see Para’s [0029], [0031], [0111] i.e., one or more DL BWPs configured for the user terminal, [0114-0116] i.e., The user terminal may receive BWP configuration information through higher layer signaling (for example RRC signaling), [0170] i.e., the control section 301 may control configuration of one or more DL BWPs for the user terminal 20, & [0191] i.e., the control section 401 may configure the one or more BWPs, based on BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) from the radio base station 20). The BWP configuration information configuring one or more DL BWPs for the UE may be interpreted as the claimed “downlink transmission parameter” since it configures a first BWP and second BWP for the UE as claimed in claim 1.
In regards to the amended claim feature in claim 1 of wherein the at least one downlink transmission parameter indicates a first maximum number of MIMO layers to be transmitted by a base station to the UE specific to the BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP, Takeda discloses at least discloses wherein the at least one downlink transmission parameter indicates a first number of MIMO layers to be transmitted by a base station to the UE specific to the BWP and a second number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP (Takeda, see Para’s [0031-0032] i.e., the plurality of BWPs configured for the user terminal are each associated with a BWP configuration, [0114-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers (i.e., BWP#1 and BWP#2 are each associated with a number of MIMO layers) which is indicated by the BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) in the RRC signaling, [0170], & [0191]).
While Takeda is silent regarding a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP indicated by the downlink transmission parameter, the teachings of Chen et al. (EP 3618542) used in the rejection of claim 1 discloses such claim feature. For example Chen discloses a downlink transmission parameter via RRC signaling indicating a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP (Chen, see Para’s [0024] i.e., a carrier may include multiple BWPs (i.e., including downlink BWPs), [0060-0062] i.e., the network device pre-configures the bandwidths corresponding to the four BWPs and corresponding transmission parameters for the UE through higher-layer signaling (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) when downlink BWPs are being used). Para [0064] of Chen discloses that the transmission parameter associated with each configured BWP which may include a first DL BWP and a second DL BWP includes a maximum number of MIMO layers associated with the respective BWP, (Chen, i.e., Para [0064], [0067] i.e., the maximum transmission layer number is configured to determine a rank (i.e., rank is associated with MIMO) & [0088-0089]). Chen further discloses in Para [0025] that different transmission parameters may be used on different BWPs suggesting that different maximum numbers of MIMO layers may be associated with each BWP which may result in a second maximum number of MIMO layers associated with a second configured BWP being lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers associated with a first configured BWP.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the number of MIMO layers associated with the first BWP and second BWP as disclosed in Takeda to each be configured with a maximum number of MIMO layers based on the teachings of Chen who discloses a first BWP and second BWP configured via RRC signaling may be associated with a maximum number of MIMO layers.
For the reasons explained, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the amended claim features in claim 1 of “transmitting at least one downlink transmission parameter to a UE, the at least one downlink transmission parameter configuring a first BWP for the UE and a second BWP for the UE for downlink data…that indicates a first maximum number of MIMO layers to be transmitted by a base station to the UE specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP”.
Referring back to applicants arguments on (Pg. 8 of the remarks), the applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach or suggest at least “determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP” and argues the teachings of Davydov for not disclosing the claim feature. More specifically the applicant argues that Davydov does not suggest determining to adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect in relation to a BWP switch or a carrier switch or any related change switch.
However while the examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants arguments with respect to Davydov, the teachings of Chen et al. (EP 3618542) discloses the claim feature of “determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP”.
For example Chen discloses “determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP” (see Para’s [0024-0025] i.e., downlink BWP may be activated for downlink transmission to the UE…The specific BWP presently activated for the UE 102 is indicated by the network device 101 through DCI, and the BWP for transmission of the UE 102 may be dynamically switched in multiple BWPs in a carrier). Therefore (Para’s [0024-0025]) of Chen discloses the BWP for transmission, which may be a DL BWP, may be dynamically switched in multiple BWPs in a carrier via downlink control information (DCI) (i.e., change for the UE from a first BWP to a second BWP). Chen further discloses that each configured BWP is associated a respective transmission parameter that includes a maximum number of MIMO layers used for the transmission by the UE (see Para’s [0024-0025], [0061-0064] i.e., the transmission parameter associated with a BWP includes at least one of: a maximum transmission layer number (i.e., “rank”), [0067], & [0088-0090]). While embodiments of Chen refer to the transmission parameters being determined for PUSCH transmission (Chen, i.e., Para’s [0061-0064]), Chen discloses in Para [0024] the use of DL BWPs may be activated for downlink transmission. Therefore if the downlink BWP is being used for the UE for downlink transmission according to Para [0024] of Chen, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the transmission parameters (i.e., such as the maximum number of MIMO layers) associated with the configured BWPs to be also used for the downlink transmission.
As previously mentioned above, Chen discloses in Para [0025] that different transmission parameters may be used on different BWPs suggesting that different maximum numbers of MIMO layers may be associated with each BWP which may result in a second maximum number of MIMO layers associated with a second configured BWP being lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers associated with a first configured BWP.
Therefore based on the DL BWP of the UE being dynamically switched via DCI as disclosed in (Para [0024]) of Chen, which teaches a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP, in effect dynamically adjusts the maximum number of MIMO layers for downlink data transmitted by the base station to the UE based on the change.
For the reasons explained, Chen alone discloses the claim feature argued by the applicant in claim 1 of “determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP”.
Referring back to the applicants arguments regarding Davydov, the examiner respectfully disagrees. More specifically the applicant argues that Davydov does not suggest determining to adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect in relation to a BWP switch or a carrier switch or any related change/switch. The applicant further states on Pg. of the remarks, that notably, neither [0069] and [0077] (nor any combination) of Davydov suggests changing from one BWP (or component carrier) to another for the purpose of changing a number of MIMO layers. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as Para [0069] & [0077] of Davydov relate to adjusting a maximum number of MIMO layers from a given component carrier using a first maximum number of MIMO layers to another component carrier using a second maximum number of MIMO layers lower than the first maximum number of MIMO layers. For example Para [0069] of Davydov discloses i.e., For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers for reception of PDSCH, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers via configuration signaling e.g., DCI…can be supported.
Referring to Para [0077] Davydov discloses that such indication of the new or adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers used for reducing power consumption by turning off some receiver chains, is indicated via DCI on a given component carrier (Davydov, see Para [0077]). Therefore the new or adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers on a given component carrier from the initial or original maximum number of MIMO layers for a given carrier as disclosed in Davydov Para [0069] suggests different component carriers (i.e., “a carrier switch”) may be configured. For example Davydov discloses in Para [0028] the UE and the RAN node can be configured to communicate over a “multicarrier communication channel”. Therefore “a given component carrier” as disclosed in Para’s [0069] & [0077] of Davydov suggests that different component carriers may be configured between the first configured maximum number of MIMO layers on a given component carrier (Davydov, Para [0069]) and the adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers on a given component carrier (Davydov, Para [0077]). As previously explained on Pg. 5 of the non-final office action of March 6 2026, that the combination of Davydov in view of Manolakos teach that a CC may be equivalent to a BWP according to the rejection of claim 1 in the office action. Therefore the combined teachings of Davydov in view of Manolakos also suggest that one component carrier (i.e., “BWP”) can be changed to another component carrier (i.e., second BWP). In regards to the applicants arguments that the office action on Pg. 5 asserts that changing a number of MIMO layers based on turning off some of the receiving chains of the UE transceiver as allegedly discussed in [0069] is an example of changing from one BWP (i.e., “carrier”) to another for the purpose of changing a number of MIMO layers. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as Pg. 5 of the previous non-final office action of March 6 2026 refers to Para [0069] & [0077] of Davydov with respect to “a given component carrier” to suggest changing to a different component carrier, and not only relying only on turning off some of the receiving chains of the UE transceiver as also explained in Pg. 5 of the previous non-final office action.
The applicant further argues on (Pg. 9 of the remarks) Para [0069] of Davydov and states that “turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains” is clearly an example of “power efficient UE operation” and potentially based on “an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers” but there is no suggestion that tuning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains” is in any way an example of or in response to “changing a number of MIMO layers”. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as turning off some of the receiving chains is in response to changing the maximum number of MIMO layers since (Para [0069]) of Davydov discloses that reception via a first maximum number of MIMO layers is not always optimal by the UE given variations in network traffic, in which a power efficient UE operation by turning off some of the receiving chains is performed by changing the maximum number of MIMO layers for reception by the UE is indicated by DCI (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]). Therefore turning off some of the receiving chains which is a “power efficient UE operation” is in response to changing a number of MIMO layers (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]). Turning off some of the receiving chains by the UE is also an example of “changing a number of MIMO layers” since turning off some of the receiving chains or a subset of receiving chains according to an indication of an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers for reception by the UE for saving power, reduces the number of MIMO layers being used for communication from the previous configured maximum number of MIMO layers which is “changing a number of MIMO layers” (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]).
In regards to the applicants arguments further on Pg. 9 of the remarks, the applicant argues the office actions interpretation of Para’s [0069] and [0077] of Davydov and the hypothetical example. The applicant argues that the hypothetical example is not found in Davydov, however the hypothetical example was merely an example. The applicant further states that the office action (Pg. 7) asserts that “however the network can configure the number of maximum MIMO layers to be 4 as an example, and then determine to reduce the number of MIMO layers (e.g., by tuning off some of the receiving chains based on an indication of a updated maximum number of MIMO layers optimized to a given traffic load. The applicant then states that this is not consistent with the disclosure of Davydov since Davydov does not mention any “updated maximum number of layers”. However just because Davydov does not explicitly state an “updated maximum number of layers”, Para’s [0069] discloses an indication of a new maximum number of MIMO layers for reducing power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, from the previous configured maximum number of MIMO layers (e.g., 4) for a given carrier in which reception is not optimal, by an indication of the new maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI to support the power efficient UE operation (Davydov, see Para [0069]). Such new or adjusted (i.e., changed) maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI to support the power efficient UE operation is also an “updated maximum number of MIMO layers” optimized for a given traffic load (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]). Therefore the office actions interpretation of Para’s [0069] and [0077] is consistent with the disclosure of Davydov. The applicant further argues on (Pg. 9 of the remarks), that “second, the skilled person would recognize that turning off receiving chains is a decision made by the UE, not by the network. However decision to configure a reduced number of receiving chains is an initial decision made by the network based on configuring via DCI the adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers optimized to the given traffic load (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]) which is consistent with the claim feature in claim 1 of “determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers”.
In regards to the applicants arguments on the last paragraph of (Pg. 9 of the remarks) the applicant argues that at page 8, the office action rejects applicants prior argument regarding the phrase “on a given component carrier” and states that in doing so, the office action ignores the plain language of Davydov and instead relies on analysis of the office actions own hypothetical example. However the examiner respectfully disagrees as the office action relies on the teachings of Davydov in Para [0028] which discloses the UE and the RAN node can be configured to communicate over a “multicarrier communication channel” and Para’s [0069] & [0077] of Davydov. Therefore “a given component carrier” for including different configured maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in (Para’s [0069] & [0077] of Davydov) can suggest that different component carriers of the multicarrier communication channel may be used as a possibility.
As previously explained the teachings of Chen has also been shown to disclose the claim feature in claim 1 argued by the applicant of “determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP”.
For the reasons explained, the rejection of claim 1 as amended, is maintained under 35 103 over the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen. Independent claims 8 and 18 which recite similar features as claim 1 is also rejected over the prior art for the same reasons explained for claim 1. The dependent claims also remain rejected over the prior art (of Record) based on their dependence to independent claims 1, 8, and 18.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8, and 18 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. USP (12,010,616). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application’s claims merely broaden the scope of the patented claims by not claiming certain claim elements. The application’s claims are nearly identical in every other aspect to the patented claims. Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,616 does not disclose the claim feature in independent claims 1, 8 and 18 of the instant application 18/648,970 of configuring the first BWP and the second BWP by transmitting at least one communication parameter to the UE, the at least one communication parameter configuring the first BWP for the UE and the second BWP for the UE, wherein the at least one communication parameter indicates a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180).
Takeda discloses transmitting at least one communication parameter to the UE, the at least one communication parameter configuring the first BWP for the UE and the second BWP for the UE, (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0029] i.e., semi-statically configure one or more frequency bands (i.e., BWPs) in the carrier for a user terminal, [0031] i.e., a plurality of BWPs (here, BWPs#1 and #2) may be configured per carrier for a user terminal, [0111] i.e., one or more BWPs configured for the user terminal may be determined, [0114-0116] i.e., The user terminal may receive BWP configuration information through higher layer signaling (for example, RRC signaling) (i.e., RRC signaling may be at least one “communication parameter” since it indicates BWP configuration information for one or more BWPs), [0170], & [0191] i.e., The control section 401 (i.e., UE of Fig. 16) may control configuration of one or more BWPs (one or more DL BWPs and/or one or more UL BWPs) in the carrier. Specifically, the control section 401 may configure the one or more BWPs, based on BWP configuration information (i.e., “communication parameter”) from the radio base station 20 )
wherein the at least one communication parameter (see Para’s [0116] i.e., BWP configuration information received by UE through RRC signaling (i.e., “communication parameter”), [0170], & [0191] i.e., BWP configuration information (i.e., “communication parameter”) received from radio base station 20 which configures one or more BWPs) indicates a first maximum number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP, (see Fig. 1B i.e., BWP #1 and BWP #2 & Para’s [0031-0032] i.e., the plurality of BWPs configured for the user terminal are each associated with a BWP configuration information, [0114-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers (i.e., BWP#1 and BWP #2 are each associated with a maximum number of MIMO layers) which is indicated by the BWP configuration information in the RRC signaling (i.e., “communication parameter”), [0170], & [0191]).
(Takeda suggests in a case that one or more frequency bands (for example, BWPs) to be used for DL/UL communications are configurable in a carrier as described above, it is desired to appropriately control activation and/or deactivation of the frequency band (i.e., “BWP”) in order to reduce processing load in the user terminal, (see Para [0008])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the base station which configures the first BWP and the second BWP for the UE as disclosed in claims 1, 7, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,616 to configure the BWP’s by transmitting at least one communication parameter to the UE, the at least one communication parameter configuring the first BWP for the UE and the second BWP for the UE, wherein the at least one communication parameter indicates a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP as disclosed in the teachings of Takeda, because the motivation lies in Takeda that in a case that one or more frequency bands (for example, BWPs) to be used for DL/UL communications are configurable in a carrier as described above, it is desired to appropriately control activation and/or deactivation of the frequency band (i.e., “BWP”) in order to reduce processing load in the user terminal.
Independent claims 1, 7, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,616 does not disclose the claim feature in independent claims 1, 8 and 18 of determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect by a change for the UE from a first BWP to a second BWP. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542)
Chen discloses determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect by a change for the UE from a first BWP to a second BWP, (see Para’s [0024] .e., a carrier may include multiple BWPs. For a piece of UE 102, only one uplink BWP may be activated for uplink transmission at a moment…the specific BWP presently activated for the UE 102 is indicated by the network device 101 through DCI, and the BWP for transmission of the UE 102 may be dynamically switched in multiple BWPS in a carrier, [0024-0025] i.e., a network device 101 may configure a set of PUSCH transmission parameters for each BWP of UE 102 at first; then, responsive to that the UE 102 is dynamically switched to a certain BWP for PUSCH transmission, the UE 102 may determine the at least one PUSCH transmission parameter corresponding to the BWP as at least one PUSCH transmission parameter for PUSCH transmission (i.e., determine to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers based on changing to a different BWP & PUSCH transmission parameter associated with the changed BWP)…In such a manner, different PUSCH transmission parameters (i.e., different PUSCH transmission parameters may include different configured maximum number of MIMO layers) may be adopted for PUSCH transmission on different BWPs, and PUSCH transmission flexibility is further improved, [0051-0059], [0062-0063] i.e., PUSCH transmission parameter configured for each BWP 1-4, [0064] i.e., the at least one PUSCH parameter includes at least one of: a maximum uplink transmission layer number (i.e., maximum number of MIMO layers, [0067] i.e., the maximum uplink transmission layer number is configured to determine a rank available for the PUSCH, [0075-0080], [0088-0090] i.e., The UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number and the TRI information in the DCI; or the UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number in the DCI & [0138])
(Chen suggests different PUSCH transmission parameters may be adopted for PUSCH transmission on different BWPs which results in improved PUSCH transmission flexibility (see Para [0025])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the base station which configures the first BWP and the second BWP for the UE as disclosed in claims 1, 7, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,616 to determine to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect by a change for the UE from a first BWP to a second BWP as disclosed in the teachings of Chen who discloses determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect by a change for the UE from a first BWP to a second BWP, because the motivation lies in Chen that different PUSCH transmission parameters may be adopted for PUSCH transmission on different BWPs which results in improved PUSCH transmission flexibility.
It is important to note that the instant application 18/648,970 is a continuation of the application 16/564,018 which yielded patent (U.S. Patent No. 12,010,616) used herein as the basis for the obviousness-type double patenting rejection. The applicant is attempting to broaden the parent applications claims by eliminating some of the claim elements in the continuation at issue here. If allowed, the application would unjustly extend Applicant patent protection beyond the statutory period, at the same time, granting broader protection to the applicant.
4. Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-17, and 19-20 the claims are further rejected as non-statutory obviousness type double patenting because the instant application is a continuation of U.S. Patent No. USP (12,010,616), hence the claimed limitations are disclosed in the patent.
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.
5. Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542)
Regarding Claim 1, Takeda discloses a method, comprising: transmitting at least one downlink transmission parameter to a user equipment device (UE), the at least one downlink transmission parameter configuring a first Bandwidth Part (BWP) for the UE and a second BWP for the UE for downlink data, (the claim language of “for downlink data” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim feature), (see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use)), (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0029] i.e., semi-statically configure one or more frequency bands (i.e., BWPs) in the carrier for a user terminal, [0031] i.e., a plurality of BWPs (here, BWPs#1 and #2) may be configured per carrier for a user terminal, [0111] i.e., one or more DL BWPs configured for the user terminal may be determined, [0114-0116] i.e., The user terminal may receive BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) through higher layer signaling (for example, RRC signaling) (i.e., BWP configuration information for one or more BWPs may be at least one “downlink transmission parameter” since it indicates BWP configuration for one or more DL BWPs ), [0170], & [0191] i.e., The control section 401 (i.e., UE of Fig. 16) may control configuration of one or more BWPs (one or more DL BWPs and/or one or more UL BWPs) in the carrier. Specifically, the control section 401 may configure the one or more BWPs, based on BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) from the radio base station 20)
wherein the at least one downlink transmission parameter (see Para’s [0116] i.e., BWP configuration information received by UE through RRC signaling (i.e., “communication parameter”), [0170], & [0191] i.e., BWP configuration information (i.e., “communication parameter”) received from radio base station 20 which configures one or more BWPs) indicates a first number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers to be transmitted by a base station (BS) to the UE specific to the first BWP and a second number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP, (see Fig. 1B i.e., BWP #1 and BWP #2 & Para’s [0031-0032] i.e., the plurality of BWPs configured for the user terminal are each associated with a BWP configuration information, [0114-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers (i.e., BWP#1 and BWP #2 are each associated with a maximum number of MIMO layers) which is indicated by the BWP configuration information in the RRC signaling (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”), [0170], & [0191])
indicating, to the UE via downlink control information, a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP for downlink data; (the claim language of “for downlink data” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim feature) (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0031-0036] i.e., DCI explicitly or implicitly indicates activation or deactivation of a BWP, [0044-0051], [0063], & [0076-0077], & [0091] i.e., the user terminal may monitor a CORESET configured in a DL BWP (for example, DL BWP #1) in a carrier, in a certain cycle, to receive (detect) DCI for activation of a different DL BWP (for example, DL BWP #2) & [0111] i.e., DL BWPs configured for the UE)
and transmitting to the UE, downlink data on the second BWP using an actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the second maximum number of MIMO layers, (see Para’s [0076-0077] i.e., the user terminal activates DL BWP #2, based on the DCI (DL assignment) for DL BWP #2…The user terminal receives the PDSCH scheduled in DL BWP #2, based on the DCI for DL BWP#2 (i.e., UE communicates on the second BWP using the maximum number of MIMO layers configured for BWP #2) & [0115-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers)
Takeda does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the second number of MIMO layers is lower than the first number of MIMO layers and determining to dynamically adjust a number of MIMO layers in effect by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP for downlink data. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second carrier is lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first carrier (see Fig. 10 i.e., step 1020 & Para’s [0069] i.e., For the wide system bandwidth of NR, support for a configurable bandwidth for the UE has been proposed as a means to adapt the operating bandwidth of the UE to traffic demands and thereby optimize UE power consumption. In various aspects discussed herein, a similar power consumption optimization can be employed for SU-MIMO….For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier (i.e., “first carrier”), and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “first maximum number of MIMO layers”) for reception, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “first maximum number of MIMO layers”) is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers” which will have reduced layers (i.e., “lower”) from the “first maximum number of MIMO layers” based on turning off some of the receiving chains) (e.g., via configuration signaling (e.g., higher layer, DCI (Downlink Control Information), etc.)…can be supported for NR in various aspects discussed herein.…the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers on a given CC via DCI may be repeated based on adapting to the dynamic traffic variations. Thus, a second maximum number of MIMO layers for a second component carrier (CC) may be configured as an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers on a given CC (i.e., “second carrier”) which will have reduced layers (i.e., “lower”) from the first maximum number of MIMO layers based on turning off some of the receiving chains, [0077] i.e., signaling of DCI…can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) (e.g., via a designated indicator, for example, a MIMO layer indicator, etc.) which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value…The maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., “second carrier”), [0080], [0084-0085], & [0097]).
dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data by a change for the UE from the first carrier to the second carrier, the claim language of “for downlink data” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim feature (see Para’s [0069] i.e., For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier (i.e., may be the “first carrier”) and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers for reception of PDSCH, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI can be supported in NR, [0077] i.e., higher layer signaling or DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers…the indicated number of MIMO layers can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving chains and reduce the power consumption…the maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., may be a “second carrier”), & [0097])
Davydov further discloses indicating, to the UE via downlink control information, a change for the UE from the first carrier to the second carrier for downlink data (see Fig. 10 i.e., step 1020 & Para’s [0069] i.e., To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication (i.e., “change”) of the maximum number of MIMO layers (e.g., via configuration signaling (e.g., higher layer, DCI))…can be supported, [0077] i.e., DCI (i.e., “indication”) can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers, which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value…The maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling (i.e., “change”) can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., “second carrier”), [0080] i.e., configuration signaling (i.e., “indication”) can be received indicating a maximum number of MIMO layers for transmission on a CC, [0084-0085], & [0097]).
and transmitting to the UE, downlink data on the second carrier using an actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the second maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0030] i.e., PDSCH, [0067], [0069] i.e., adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) based on dynamic traffic variation and power efficient UE operation will be used for communication, [0077] i.e., MIMO transmission with the number of MIMO layers equal to the indicated value will be scheduled for transmission on the PDSCH and the second carrier & [0093])
(Davydov suggests the adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP as disclosed in Takeda to be configured to be lower than the first number of MIMO layers based on the teachings of Davydov who discloses configuring for a UE, a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second carrier which is lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first carrier, because the motivation lies in Davydov suggests the adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
While Davydov discloses configuring a first carrier including a first maximum number of MIMO layers and a second carrier including a second maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0069], [0077], & [0079-0081]), Davydov does not disclose configuring a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second BWP. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103).
Manolakos discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier (see Para [0141])
Manolakos further discloses a UE may be configured with one or more BWPs for multiple component carriers allocated to the UE for performing communication (see Para’s [0106], [0142] i.e., number of CCs allocated to the UE, [0144-0145] i.e., the base station 1102 may identify one or more bandwidth parts on one or more component carriers allocated to the UE 104 for performing uplink and downlink communication & [0147])
(Manolakos suggests the bandwidth part may be configured in the one or more component carriers (CCs) in order for the UE to perform downlink and uplink communication with the base station on the one or more bandwidth parts configured on the one or more CCs (see Para’s [0141-0142], [0144-0145], & [0147]))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the configured first carrier including a first maximum number of MIMO layers and the second carrier including a second maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov to each comprise a bandwidth part (BWP) which results in a first BWP and a second BWP each including a configured maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the respective BWP, based on the teachings of Manolakos who discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier and one or more bandwidth parts may be configured on one or more component carriers allocated to the UE for communication, because the motivation lies in Manolakos that the bandwidth part may be configured in the one or more component carriers (CCs) in order for the UE to perform downlink and uplink communication with the base station on the one or more bandwidth parts configured on the one or more CCs.
The combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos does not explicitly disclose not explicitly disclose a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP and the claim feature of determining to dynamically adjust the maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542)
Chen discloses a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP (see Para’s [0024-0025] i.e., different transmission parameters on different BWPs, [0061-0064] i.e., transmission parameter includes maximum transmission layer number, [0067], & [0088-0089])
Chen discloses determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS (see Para [0024] i.e., DL BWP) by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP, (see Para’s [0024] i.e., a carrier may include multiple BWPs. For a piece of UE 102, only one uplink or downlink BWP may be activated for uplink or downlink transmission at a moment…the specific BWP presently activated for the UE 102 is indicated by the network device 101 through DCI, and the BWP for transmission of the UE 102 may be dynamically switched in multiple BWPS in a carrier, [0024] i.e., downlink BWP may be activated, [0025] i.e., a network device 101 may configure a set of PUSCH transmission parameters for each BWP of UE 102 at first; then, responsive to that the UE 102 is dynamically switched to a certain BWP for PUSCH transmission, the UE 102 may determine the at least one PUSCH transmission parameter corresponding to the BWP as at least one PUSCH transmission parameter for PUSCH transmission (i.e., determine to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers based on changing to a different BWP & PUSCH transmission parameter associated with the changed BWP)…In such a manner, different PUSCH transmission parameters (i.e., different PUSCH transmission parameters may include different configured maximum number of MIMO layers) may be adopted for PUSCH transmission on different BWPs, and PUSCH transmission flexibility is further improved, [0051-0059], [0062-0063] i.e., PUSCH transmission parameter configured for each BWP 1-4, [0064] i.e., the at least one PUSCH parameter includes at least one of: a maximum uplink transmission layer number (i.e., maximum number of MIMO layers, [0067] i.e., the maximum uplink transmission layer number is configured to determine a rank available for the PUSCH, [0075-0080], [0088-0090] i.e., The UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number and the TRI information in the DCI; or the UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number in the DCI & [0138])
(Chen suggests different transmission parameters may be adopted for transmission on different BWPs which results in improved transmission flexibility (see Para [0025])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the determining of dynamically adjusting the maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data associated with the first BWP and the second BWP as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos to include a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP and to be based on a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP based on the teachings of Chen who discloses determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from a first BWP associated with a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP associated with a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific, because the motivation lies in Chen that different transmission parameters may be adopted for transmission on different BWPs which results in improved transmission flexibility.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the first maximum number of MIMO layers is equal to one. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein a maximum number of MIMO layers may be configured to equal to one (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077] i.e., The maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier).
(Davydov suggests maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a given carrier can vary from 1 to the maximum capability of the UE for adapting to dynamic traffic variations when the traffic load is small and to save power consumption at the UE, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen who discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier, to be configured to equal to one based on the teachings of Davydov who discloses wherein a maximum number of MIMO layers may be configured to equal to one, because the motivation lies in Davydov that the maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a given carrier (i.e., “BWP”) can vary from 1 to the maximum capability of the UE for adapting to dynamic traffic variations when the traffic load is small and to save power consumption at the UE
Regarding Claim 8, Takeda discloses a method, comprising: while a user equipment device (UE) is configured for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless communications (see Para [0181]): receiving, from a base station (BS), at least one downlink transmission parameter for the user equipment device (UE), the at least one downlink transmission parameter configuring a first Bandwidth Part (BWP) for the UE and a second BWP for the UE for downlink data, (the claim language of “for downlink data” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim feature), (see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use)), (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0029] i.e., semi-statically configure one or more frequency bands (i.e., BWPs) in the carrier for a user terminal, [0031] i.e., a plurality of BWPs (here, BWPs#1 and #2) may be configured per carrier for a user terminal, [0111] i.e., one or more DL BWPs configured for the user terminal may be determined, [0114-0116] i.e., The user terminal may receive BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) through higher layer signaling (for example, RRC signaling) (i.e., BWP configuration information for one or more BWPs may be at least one “downlink transmission parameter” since it indicates BWP configuration for one or more DL BWPs ), [0170], & [0191] i.e., The control section 401 (i.e., UE of Fig. 16) may control configuration of one or more BWPs (one or more DL BWPs and/or one or more UL BWPs) in the carrier. Specifically, the control section 401 may configure the one or more BWPs, based on BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) from the radio base station 20)
wherein the at least one downlink transmission parameter (see Para’s [0116] i.e., BWP configuration information received by UE through RRC signaling (i.e., “communication parameter”), [0170], & [0191] i.e., BWP configuration information (i.e., “communication parameter”) received from radio base station 20 which configures one or more BWPs) indicates a first number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers to be transmitted by the base station (BS) to the UE specific to the first BWP and a second number of MIMO layers to be transmitted by the BS to the UE specific to the second BWP, (see Fig. 1B i.e., BWP #1 and BWP #2 & Para’s [0031-0032] i.e., the plurality of BWPs configured for the user terminal are each associated with a BWP configuration information, [0114-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers (i.e., BWP#1 and BWP #2 are each associated with a maximum number of MIMO layers) which is indicated by the BWP configuration information in the RRC signaling (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”), [0170], & [0191])
receiving, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI), indicating a change from the first BWP to the second BWP for the UE (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0031-0036] i.e., DCI explicitly or implicitly indicates activation or deactivation of a BWP, [0044-0051], [0063], & [0076-0077], & [0091] i.e., the user terminal may monitor a CORESET configured in a DL BWP (for example, DL BWP #1) in a carrier, in a certain cycle, to receive (detect) DCI for activation of a different DL BWP (for example, DL BWP #2) & [0111] i.e., DL BWPs configured for the UE)
and receiving downlink data from the base station on the second BWP using an actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the second maximum number of MIMO layers, (see Para’s [0076-0077] i.e., the user terminal activates DL BWP #2, based on the DCI (DL assignment) for DL BWP #2…The user terminal receives the PDSCH scheduled in DL BWP #2, based on the DCI for DL BWP#2 (i.e., UE communicates on the second BWP using the maximum number of MIMO layers configured for BWP #2) & [0115-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers)
Takeda does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the second number of MIMO layers is lower than the first number of MIMO layers and wherein the change is to dynamically adjust a number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to the UE. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second carrier is lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first carrier (see Fig. 10 i.e., step 1020 & Para’s [0069] i.e., For the wide system bandwidth of NR, support for a configurable bandwidth for the UE has been proposed as a means to adapt the operating bandwidth of the UE to traffic demands and thereby optimize UE power consumption. In various aspects discussed herein, a similar power consumption optimization can be employed for SU-MIMO….For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier (i.e., “first carrier”), and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “first maximum number of MIMO layers”) for reception, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “first maximum number of MIMO layers”) is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers” which will have reduced layers (i.e., “lower”) from the “first maximum number of MIMO layers” based on turning off some of the receiving chains) (e.g., via configuration signaling (e.g., higher layer, DCI (Downlink Control Information), etc.)…can be supported for NR in various aspects discussed herein.…the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers on a given CC via DCI may be repeated based on adapting to the dynamic traffic variations. Thus, a second maximum number of MIMO layers for a second component carrier (CC) may be configured as an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers on a given CC (i.e., “second carrier”) which will have reduced layers (i.e., “lower”) from the first maximum number of MIMO layers based on turning off some of the receiving chains, [0077] i.e., signaling of DCI…can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) (e.g., via a designated indicator, for example, a MIMO layer indicator, etc.) which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value…The maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., “second carrier”), [0080], [0084-0085], & [0097]).
dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data by a change for the UE from the first carrier to the second carrier in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS, (see Para’s [0069] i.e., For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier (i.e., may be the “first carrier”) and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers for reception of PDSCH, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI can be supported in NR, [0077] i.e., higher layer signaling or DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers…the indicated number of MIMO layers can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving chains and reduce the power consumption…the maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., may be a “second carrier”), & [0097])
Davydov further discloses indicating, to the UE via downlink control information, a change for the UE from the first carrier to the second carrier for downlink data (see Fig. 10 i.e., step 1020 & Para’s [0069] i.e., To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication (i.e., “change”) of the maximum number of MIMO layers (e.g., via configuration signaling (e.g., higher layer, DCI))…can be supported, [0077] i.e., DCI (i.e., “indication”) can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers, which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value…The maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling (i.e., “change”) can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., “second carrier”), [0080] i.e., configuration signaling (i.e., “indication”) can be received indicating a maximum number of MIMO layers for transmission on a CC, [0084-0085], & [0097]).
and transmitting to the UE, downlink data on the second carrier using an actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the second maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0030] i.e., PDSCH, [0067], [0069] i.e., adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) based on dynamic traffic variation and power efficient UE operation will be used for communication, [0077] i.e., MIMO transmission with the number of MIMO layers equal to the indicated value will be scheduled for transmission on the PDSCH and the second carrier & [0093])
(Davydov suggests the adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP as disclosed in Takeda to be configured to be lower than the first number of MIMO layers based on the teachings of Davydov who discloses configuring for a UE, a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second carrier which is lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first carrier, because the motivation lies in Davydov suggests the adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
While Davydov discloses configuring a first carrier including a first maximum number of MIMO layers and a second carrier including a second maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0069], [0077], & [0079-0081]), Davydov does not disclose configuring a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second BWP. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103).
Manolakos discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier (see Para [0141])
Manolakos further discloses a UE may be configured with one or more BWPs for multiple component carriers allocated to the UE for performing communication (see Para’s [0106], [0142] i.e., number of CCs allocated to the UE, [0144-0145] i.e., the base station 1102 may identify one or more bandwidth parts on one or more component carriers allocated to the UE 104 for performing uplink and downlink communication & [0147])
(Manolakos suggests the bandwidth part may be configured in the one or more component carriers (CCs) in order for the UE to perform downlink and uplink communication with the base station on the one or more bandwidth parts configured on the one or more CCs (see Para’s [0141-0142], [0144-0145], & [0147]))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the configured first carrier including a first maximum number of MIMO layers and the second carrier including a second maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov to each comprise a bandwidth part (BWP) which results in a first BWP and a second BWP each including a configured maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the respective BWP, based on the teachings of Manolakos who discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier and one or more bandwidth parts may be configured on one or more component carriers allocated to the UE for communication, because the motivation lies in Manolakos that the bandwidth part may be configured in the one or more component carriers (CCs) in order for the UE to perform downlink and uplink communication with the base station on the one or more bandwidth parts configured on the one or more CCs.
The combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos does not explicitly disclose not explicitly disclose a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP and the claim feature of dynamically adjust the maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to the UE by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542)
Chen discloses a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP (see Para’s [0024-0025] i.e., different transmission parameters on different BWPs, [0061-0064] i.e., transmission parameter includes maximum transmission layer number, [0067], & [0088-0089])
Chen discloses dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to the UE (see Para [0024] i.e., DL BWP) by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP, (see Para’s [0024] i.e., a carrier may include multiple BWPs. For a piece of UE 102, only one uplink or downlink BWP may be activated for uplink or downlink transmission at a moment…the specific BWP presently activated for the UE 102 is indicated by the network device 101 through DCI, and the BWP for transmission of the UE 102 may be dynamically switched in multiple BWPS in a carrier, [0024] i.e., downlink BWP may be activated, [0025] i.e., a network device 101 may configure a set of PUSCH transmission parameters for each BWP of UE 102 at first; then, responsive to that the UE 102 is dynamically switched to a certain BWP for PUSCH transmission, the UE 102 may determine the at least one PUSCH transmission parameter corresponding to the BWP as at least one PUSCH transmission parameter for PUSCH transmission (i.e., determine to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers based on changing to a different BWP & PUSCH transmission parameter associated with the changed BWP)…In such a manner, different PUSCH transmission parameters (i.e., different PUSCH transmission parameters may include different configured maximum number of MIMO layers) may be adopted for PUSCH transmission on different BWPs, and PUSCH transmission flexibility is further improved, [0051-0059], [0062-0063] i.e., PUSCH transmission parameter configured for each BWP 1-4, [0064] i.e., the at least one PUSCH parameter includes at least one of: a maximum uplink transmission layer number (i.e., maximum number of MIMO layers, [0067] i.e., the maximum uplink transmission layer number is configured to determine a rank available for the PUSCH, [0075-0080], [0088-0090] i.e., The UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number and the TRI information in the DCI; or the UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number in the DCI & [0138])
(Chen suggests different transmission parameters may be adopted for transmission on different BWPs which results in improved transmission flexibility (see Para [0025])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the determining of dynamically adjusting the maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data associated with the first BWP and the second BWP as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos to include a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP and to be based on a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP based on the teachings of Chen who discloses determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from a first BWP associated with a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP associated with a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific, because the motivation lies in Chen that different transmission parameters may be adopted for transmission on different BWPs which results in improved transmission flexibility.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method and processor of claims 8 and 18, but does not disclose the claim features of wherein the DCI is received from the base station during a first slot, wherein the method further comprises: depowering at least one active receiver chain during the first slot, wherein downlink data is received during the first slot and subsequent to said depowering. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein the DCI is received from the base station during a first slot (Davydov, see Para’s [0029] i.e., communication slots in downlink communications, [0031] i.e., The PDCCH may use control channel elements (CCEs) (i.e., “includes a first slot”) to convey the control information…The PDCCH can be transmitted using one or more CCEs, depending on the size of the downlink control information (DCI) and the channel condition, [0069] i.e., DCI transmission to UE, [0071] i.e., DCI transmission & [00109] i.e., decode a DCI message), wherein the method further comprises: depowering at least one active receiver chain during the first slot, (Davydov see Para’s [0029] i.e., communication slots in downlink communications, [0069] i.e., To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers can be supported, [0073] i.e., The indicated number of MIMO layer can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving or transmitting chains, which can facilitate reduced UE power consumption. & [0077] i.e., UE can autonomously decide regarding the number of receiving chains based on the maximum number of MIMO layers configured for the UE, [0081] i.e., Optionally, based on this determination, one or more receive chains or transmit chains can be turned off to conserve power at the UE & [00112])
wherein the downlink data is received during the first slot and subsequent to said depowering, (Davydov, see Para’s [0029-0030] i.e., downlink data in PDSCH will be received in downlink communication slots, [0067], [0069], [0077] i.e., MIMO transmission with the number of MIMO layers will be scheduled for transmission on the PDSCH & [0093]).
(Davydov suggests an adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE by receiving the DCI in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the DCI received from the base station as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to receive the DCI from the base station during a first slot and depowering at least one active receiver chain during the first slot, wherein downlink data is received during the first slot and subsequent to said depowering as disclosed in the teachings of Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE by receiving the DCI in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining a dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining a dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers. (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] i.e., the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI may be repeated based on adapting to the dynamic traffic variations. Thus a second maximum number of MIMO layers may be determined & [0077] i.e., DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers (e.g., via a designated indicator for example, a MIMO layer indicator, etc.) which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value).
(Davydov suggests an adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE by receiving the DCI in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the maximum number of MIMO layers determined for communication with the UE as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to determine a dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in the teachings of Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE by receiving the DCI in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 14, but does not disclose the claim features of wherein the method further comprises: receiving a further downlink transmission parameter from the base station, wherein the further downlink transmission parameter is received via a media access control, MAC, control element, CE and adjusting the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers based on the further downlink transmission parameter; and depowering at least one receiver chain of a plurality of receiver chains based on the adjustment to the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses receiving a further downlink transmission parameter from the base station, (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] i.e., the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI may be repeated based on adapting to the dynamic traffic variations. Thus a second maximum number of MIMO layers may be determined & [0077] i.e., DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “further communication parameter”) (e.g., via a designated indicator for example, a MIMO layer indicator, etc.) which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value).
wherein the further downlink transmission parameter is received via a media access control, MAC, control element, CE (Davydov, see Para’s [0031] i.e., control channel elements (CCEs) to convey the control information & [0077] i.e., MAC signaling),
and adjusting the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers based on the further downlink transmission parameter (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]);
and depowering at least one receiver chain of a plurality of receiver chains based on the adjustment to the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers, (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] i.e., the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI may be repeated based on adapting to the dynamic traffic variations. Thus a second maximum number of MIMO layers may be determined…To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers can be supported, [0073] i.e., The indicated number of MIMO layer can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving or transmitting chains, which can facilitate reduced UE power consumption. & [0077] i.e., UE can autonomously decide regarding the number of receiving chains based on the maximum number of MIMO layers configured for the UE, [0081] i.e., Optionally, based on this determination, one or more receive chains or transmit chains can be turned off to conserve power at the UE & [00112]).
(Davydov suggests an adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE by receiving the DCI in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the communication between the UE and the base station as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to receive a further downlink transmission parameter from the base station, wherein the further downlink transmission parameter is received via a media access control, MAC, control element, CE and adjusting the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers based on the further downlink transmission parameter; and depowering at least one receiver chain of a plurality of receiver chains based on the adjustment to the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in the teachings of Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE by receiving the DCI in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
Regarding Claim 18, Takeda discloses a processor (see Fig. 17 i.e., processor 1001 & Para [0214]) configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: while a user equipment device (UE) is configured for multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) wireless communications (see Para [0181]): receiving, from a base station (BS), at least one downlink transmission parameter for the user equipment device (UE), the at least one downlink transmission parameter configuring a first Bandwidth Part (BWP) for the UE and a second BWP for the UE for downlink data, (the claim language of “for downlink data” is simply a statement of intended use and is not considered limiting to the claim feature), (see Outdry Techs. Corp V. Geox Pg.’s 2-3 regarding statement of intended use)), (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0029] i.e., semi-statically configure one or more frequency bands (i.e., BWPs) in the carrier for a user terminal, [0031] i.e., a plurality of BWPs (here, BWPs#1 and #2) may be configured per carrier for a user terminal, [0111] i.e., one or more DL BWPs configured for the user terminal may be determined, [0114-0116] i.e., The user terminal may receive BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) through higher layer signaling (for example, RRC signaling) (i.e., BWP configuration information for one or more BWPs may be at least one “downlink transmission parameter” since it indicates BWP configuration for one or more DL BWPs ), [0170], & [0191] i.e., The control section 401 (i.e., UE of Fig. 16) may control configuration of one or more BWPs (one or more DL BWPs and/or one or more UL BWPs) in the carrier. Specifically, the control section 401 may configure the one or more BWPs, based on BWP configuration information (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”) from the radio base station 20)
wherein the at least one downlink transmission parameter (see Para’s [0116] i.e., BWP configuration information received by UE through RRC signaling (i.e., “communication parameter”), [0170], & [0191] i.e., BWP configuration information (i.e., “communication parameter”) received from radio base station 20 which configures one or more BWPs) indicates a first number of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) layers to be transmitted by the base station (BS) to the UE specific to the first BWP and a second number of MIMO layers to be transmitted by the BS to the UE specific to the second BWP, (see Fig. 1B i.e., BWP #1 and BWP #2 & Para’s [0031-0032] i.e., the plurality of BWPs configured for the user terminal are each associated with a BWP configuration information, [0114-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers (i.e., BWP#1 and BWP #2 are each associated with a maximum number of MIMO layers) which is indicated by the BWP configuration information in the RRC signaling (i.e., “downlink transmission parameter”), [0170], & [0191])
receiving, from the base station, downlink control information (DCI), indicating a change from the first BWP to the second BWP for the UE (see Fig. 1B & Para’s [0031-0036] i.e., DCI explicitly or implicitly indicates activation or deactivation of a BWP, [0044-0051], [0063], & [0076-0077], & [0091] i.e., the user terminal may monitor a CORESET configured in a DL BWP (for example, DL BWP #1) in a carrier, in a certain cycle, to receive (detect) DCI for activation of a different DL BWP (for example, DL BWP #2) & [0111] i.e., DL BWPs configured for the UE)
and receiving downlink data from the base station on the second BWP using an actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the second maximum number of MIMO layers, (see Para’s [0076-0077] i.e., the user terminal activates DL BWP #2, based on the DCI (DL assignment) for DL BWP #2…The user terminal receives the PDSCH scheduled in DL BWP #2, based on the DCI for DL BWP#2 (i.e., UE communicates on the second BWP using the maximum number of MIMO layers configured for BWP #2) & [0115-0116] i.e., The BWP configuration information may include at least one of…information indicating the number of MIMO layers)
Takeda does not disclose the claim feature of wherein the second number of MIMO layers is lower than the first number of MIMO layers and wherein the change is to dynamically adjust a number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to the UE. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second carrier is lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first carrier (see Fig. 10 i.e., step 1020 & Para’s [0069] i.e., For the wide system bandwidth of NR, support for a configurable bandwidth for the UE has been proposed as a means to adapt the operating bandwidth of the UE to traffic demands and thereby optimize UE power consumption. In various aspects discussed herein, a similar power consumption optimization can be employed for SU-MIMO….For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier (i.e., “first carrier”), and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “first maximum number of MIMO layers”) for reception, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “first maximum number of MIMO layers”) is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers” which will have reduced layers (i.e., “lower”) from the “first maximum number of MIMO layers” based on turning off some of the receiving chains) (e.g., via configuration signaling (e.g., higher layer, DCI (Downlink Control Information), etc.)…can be supported for NR in various aspects discussed herein.…the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers on a given CC via DCI may be repeated based on adapting to the dynamic traffic variations. Thus, a second maximum number of MIMO layers for a second component carrier (CC) may be configured as an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers on a given CC (i.e., “second carrier”) which will have reduced layers (i.e., “lower”) from the first maximum number of MIMO layers based on turning off some of the receiving chains, [0077] i.e., signaling of DCI…can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) (e.g., via a designated indicator, for example, a MIMO layer indicator, etc.) which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value…The maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., “second carrier”), [0080], [0084-0085], & [0097]).
dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data by a change for the UE from the first carrier to the second carrier in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS, (see Para’s [0069] i.e., For example, although a UE can support large number of MIMO layers for a given carrier (i.e., may be the “first carrier”) and can perform received signal processing for that maximum number of MIMO layers for reception of PDSCH, reception via the maximum number of MIMO layers is not always optimal, given variations in network traffic. To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication of the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI can be supported in NR, [0077] i.e., higher layer signaling or DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers…the indicated number of MIMO layers can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving chains and reduce the power consumption…the maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., may be a “second carrier”), & [0097])
Davydov further discloses indicating, to the UE via downlink control information, a change for the UE from the first carrier to the second carrier for downlink data (see Fig. 10 i.e., step 1020 & Para’s [0069] i.e., To facilitate power efficient UE operation (e.g., by turning off some of the receiving or transmitting chains of transceiver circuitry 420) that can be optimized to a given traffic load, an indication (i.e., “change”) of the maximum number of MIMO layers (e.g., via configuration signaling (e.g., higher layer, DCI))…can be supported, [0077] i.e., DCI (i.e., “indication”) can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers, which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value…The maximum number of MIMO layers indicated via the configuration signaling (i.e., “change”) can vary from 1 to the maximum MIMO capability of the UE on a given component carrier (i.e., “second carrier”), [0080] i.e., configuration signaling (i.e., “indication”) can be received indicating a maximum number of MIMO layers for transmission on a CC, [0084-0085], & [0097]).
and transmitting to the UE, downlink data on the second carrier using an actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the second maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0030] i.e., PDSCH, [0067], [0069] i.e., adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers (i.e., “second maximum number of MIMO layers”) based on dynamic traffic variation and power efficient UE operation will be used for communication, [0077] i.e., MIMO transmission with the number of MIMO layers equal to the indicated value will be scheduled for transmission on the PDSCH and the second carrier & [0093])
(Davydov suggests the adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP as disclosed in Takeda to be configured to be lower than the first number of MIMO layers based on the teachings of Davydov who discloses configuring for a UE, a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second carrier which is lower than a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first carrier, because the motivation lies in Davydov suggests the adjusted or second maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
While Davydov discloses configuring a first carrier including a first maximum number of MIMO layers and a second carrier including a second maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0069], [0077], & [0079-0081]), Davydov does not disclose configuring a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second BWP. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103).
Manolakos discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier (see Para [0141])
Manolakos further discloses a UE may be configured with one or more BWPs for multiple component carriers allocated to the UE for performing communication (see Para’s [0106], [0142] i.e., number of CCs allocated to the UE, [0144-0145] i.e., the base station 1102 may identify one or more bandwidth parts on one or more component carriers allocated to the UE 104 for performing uplink and downlink communication & [0147])
(Manolakos suggests the bandwidth part may be configured in the one or more component carriers (CCs) in order for the UE to perform downlink and uplink communication with the base station on the one or more bandwidth parts configured on the one or more CCs (see Para’s [0141-0142], [0144-0145], & [0147]))
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the configured first carrier including a first maximum number of MIMO layers and the second carrier including a second maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov to each comprise a bandwidth part (BWP) which results in a first BWP and a second BWP each including a configured maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the respective BWP, based on the teachings of Manolakos who discloses a configured bandwidth part (BWP) may span the full bandwidth of a component carrier and one or more bandwidth parts may be configured on one or more component carriers allocated to the UE for communication, because the motivation lies in Manolakos that the bandwidth part may be configured in the one or more component carriers (CCs) in order for the UE to perform downlink and uplink communication with the base station on the one or more bandwidth parts configured on the one or more CCs.
The combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos does not explicitly disclose not explicitly disclose a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP and the claim feature of dynamically adjust the maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to the UE by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542)
Chen discloses a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP (see Para’s [0024-0025] i.e., different transmission parameters on different BWPs, [0061-0064] i.e., transmission parameter includes maximum transmission layer number, [0067], & [0088-0089])
Chen discloses dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS to the UE (see Para [0024] i.e., DL BWP) by a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP, (see Para’s [0024] i.e., a carrier may include multiple BWPs. For a piece of UE 102, only one uplink or downlink BWP may be activated for uplink or downlink transmission at a moment…the specific BWP presently activated for the UE 102 is indicated by the network device 101 through DCI, and the BWP for transmission of the UE 102 may be dynamically switched in multiple BWPS in a carrier, [0024] i.e., downlink BWP may be activated, [0025] i.e., a network device 101 may configure a set of PUSCH transmission parameters for each BWP of UE 102 at first; then, responsive to that the UE 102 is dynamically switched to a certain BWP for PUSCH transmission, the UE 102 may determine the at least one PUSCH transmission parameter corresponding to the BWP as at least one PUSCH transmission parameter for PUSCH transmission (i.e., determine to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers based on changing to a different BWP & PUSCH transmission parameter associated with the changed BWP)…In such a manner, different PUSCH transmission parameters (i.e., different PUSCH transmission parameters may include different configured maximum number of MIMO layers) may be adopted for PUSCH transmission on different BWPs, and PUSCH transmission flexibility is further improved, [0051-0059], [0062-0063] i.e., PUSCH transmission parameter configured for each BWP 1-4, [0064] i.e., the at least one PUSCH parameter includes at least one of: a maximum uplink transmission layer number (i.e., maximum number of MIMO layers, [0067] i.e., the maximum uplink transmission layer number is configured to determine a rank available for the PUSCH, [0075-0080], [0088-0090] i.e., The UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number and the TRI information in the DCI; or the UE determines the transmission layer number for transmission of the PUSCH according to the maximum uplink transmission layer number in the DCI & [0138])
(Chen suggests different transmission parameters may be adopted for transmission on different BWPs which results in improved transmission flexibility (see Para [0025])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the determining of dynamically adjusting the maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data associated with the first BWP and the second BWP as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos to include a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the first BWP and a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific to the second BWP and to be based on a change for the UE from the first BWP to the second BWP based on the teachings of Chen who discloses determining to dynamically adjust a maximum number of MIMO layers in effect for downlink data to be transmitted by the BS by a change for the UE from a first BWP associated with a first maximum number of MIMO layers specific to a second BWP associated with a second maximum number of MIMO layers specific, because the motivation lies in Chen that different transmission parameters may be adopted for transmission on different BWPs which results in improved transmission flexibility.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, and further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harada et al. US (2021/0058218).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the first bandwidth part is a default bandwidth part. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Harada et al. US (2021/0058218).
Harada discloses wherein a first bandwidth part is a default bandwidth part (see Para [0053] i.e., a default BWP may be determined for a user terminal. The default BWP may be the above-mentioned initial active BWP, [0066], [0084-0085], & [0102])
(Harada suggests in the case of activating a plurality of BWPs, based on an expiration of a timer, the default BWP is activated, and it is therefore possible to flexibly change and control the BWP to activate corresponding to the communication circumstance (see Para’s [0084-0085]) and RLM monitoring may be performed in the default BWP for determining radio link quality and radio link failure for re-establishment of the RRC connection, (see Para’s [0093-0096], [0100], & [0102])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first bandwidth part disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be configured as the default bandwidth part disclosed in Harada who discloses a default BWP may be configured for the UE as an initial active BWP, because the motivation lies in Harada that in the case of activating a plurality of BWPs, based on an expiration of a timer, the default BWP is activated, and it is therefore possible to flexibly change and control the BWP to activate corresponding to the communication circumstance and RLM monitoring may be performed in the default BWP for determining radio link quality and radio link failure for re-establishment of the RRC connection.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, and further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ANG et al. US (2016/0128128).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose transmitting a second communication parameter to the UE, wherein the second communication parameter comprises a maximum number of layers to receive. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses transmitting a second communication parameter to the UE, wherein the second communication parameter comprises a maximum number of layers to receive (see Para’s [0069], 0073], [0077] i.e., DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers via a designated indicator, for example, a MIMO layer indicator which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value. The indicated number of MIMO layers can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving chains and reduce the power consumption, & [0096]),
(Davydov suggests an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the communication between the UE and the base station as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to include transmitting a second communication parameter to the UE, wherein the second communication parameter comprises a maximum number of layers to receive as disclosed in Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen does not disclose the number of layers is received during a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of ANG et al. US (2016/0128128).
ANG discloses a number of layers to receive data during a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration (see Fig. 12 i.e., radios 1210, 1212 may communicate via a single or a plurality of antennas 1216 (i.e., a plurality of antennas may refer to respective RF chains or “number of layers”), Para’s [0030] i.e., a UE may use a secondary receiver that has lower power consumption than a primary receiver of the UE to listen for control channels and other signals during ON durations of a C-DRX cycle, [0081], & [0123] i.e., Each radio may, for example, include a transmitter and receiver, and any other “RF chain” components to allow transmission and reception between the wireless device 1200 and a BS…Each radio may communicate via a single or a plurality of antennas 1216 (i.e., “number of layers”))
(ANG suggests connected discontinuous reception (C-DRX) generally refers to a technique used in wireless communication to reduce power consumption, thereby conserving the battery of the mobile device, (see Para [0081])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the second communication parameter transmitted to the UE comprising a maximum number of layers to receive by the UE as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be received during a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration based on the teachings of ANG who discloses a number of layers to receive data during a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration is configured for the UE which results in the maximum number of layers received during the C-DRX on duration, because the motivation lies in ANG to use a connected discontinuous reception (C-DRX) for the UE which generally refers to a technique used in wireless communication to reduce power consumption, thereby conserving the battery of the mobile device.
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, and further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al. US (2016/0198504).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1, including said changing from the first BWP to the second BWP for the UE (Takeda, see Para’s [0034-0036], [0041], [0063], [0092-0096] i.e., DCI for activation of BWP & [0116]), but does not disclose the change such as the activation of the second BWP is based at least in part on a preference indication received from the UE. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Seo et al. US (2016/0198504).
Seo discloses the activation of a new BWP is based at least in part on a preference indication received from the UE (see Para’s [0059] & [0061-0062] i.e., When a new resource is allocated according to a request of a UE or determination of a master UE/base station, the new resource can be determined based on information (preferred PRB pair (set) index) (i.e., “preference indication” of a BWP such as PRB pair) reported by a dTUE and/or a dRUE…A D2D pair can report a preferred PRB pair (set) index at the time of being indicated by the master UE/base station or predetermined time. Having received the report, the base station can allocate a new resource for a D2D operation based on the reported information (i.e., new resource may be the preferred PRB pair set (i.e., activation of a new “BWP”) indicated/reported by the UE)).
(Seo suggests the base station can allocate a new resource for satisfying the request of the UE and the UEs preferred PRB pair set for satisfying the users resource allocation preference (see Para [0062])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the activation of the second BWP for the UE based on the change from the first BWP to the second BWP for the UE as disclosed in of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to activate the new BWP by the base station based at least in part on a preference indication received from the UE as disclosed in the teachings of Seo, because the motivation lies in Seo that the base station can allocate a new resource for satisfying the request of the UE and the UEs preferred PRB pair set for satisfying the users resource allocation preference.
9. Claims 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542). as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. US (2015/0318907).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos further in view of Chen, discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose the method further comprising transmitting a second communication parameter to the UE, wherein the second communication parameter comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (CE). However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses transmitting a second downlink transmission parameter to the UE (Davydov, see Para [0077] i.e., maximum number of MIMO layers for receiving PDSCH), wherein the second downlink transmission parameter comprises a media access control (MAC) control element (CE), (Davydov, see Para’s [0031] i.e., CCEs to convey the control information, [0073], [0077] i.e., MAC signaling, & [00118]),
(Davydov suggests an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the communication between the UE and the base station as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to include transmitting a second downlink transmission parameter to the UE, wherein the second downlink transmission parameter comprises a MAC CE as disclosed in Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
The combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen does not disclose wherein use of the second maximum number of MIMO layers is based at least in part on channel conditions. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2015/0318907).
Zhang discloses a determined number of MIMO layers is based at least in part on channel conditions (see Para [0003] i.e., The RI is the number of MIMO layers suggested by the UE according to the radio condition (informally, the number of data channels suggested to be used for data transmission).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the second maximum number of MIMO layers determined for the UE as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be a determined number of MIMO layers based on channel conditions as disclosed in the teachings of Zhang for adapting the number of MIMO layers according to the determined channel conditions in the network system.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, further in view of Zhang, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 6, bit does not disclose the claim features of wherein the MAC CE is transmitted to the UE during a first slot, wherein the second maximum number of MIMO layers is applicable to one or more second slots after the first slot, the method further comprising: determining a third maximum number of MIMO layers for downlink transmission with the UE, wherein the third maximum number of MIMO layers is determined based at least in part on a change in channel conditions, transmitting a third downlink transmission parameter to the UE, wherein the third downlink transmission parameter indicates the third maximum number of MIMO layers, wherein the third maximum number of MIMO layers is applicable to one or more third slots after the one or more second slots; transmitting, to the UE, second downlink control information indicating a second actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the third maximum number of MIMO layers;
and transmitting data to the UE using the second actual number of MIMO layers during the one or more third slots. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein the MAC CE is transmitted to the UE during a first slot, (Davydov, see Para’s [0030] i.e., PDCCH may include a first slot for control information, [0031] i.e., The PDCCH may use (CCEs) to convey the control information & [0077]
wherein the second maximum number of MIMO layers (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] & [0077]) is applicable to one or more second slots after the first slot, (Davydov, see Para’s [0029-0030] i.e., the downlink transmission of PDSCH will include one or more second slots after the first slot, [0069] i.e., PDSCH & [0077] & [00101])
the method further comprising: determining a third maximum number of MIMO layers for downlink transmission with the UE, (Davydov, see Para’s [0069] i.e., the previous steps of determining the maximum number of MIMO layers via DCI may be repeated based on adapting the dynamic traffic variations. Thus a third maximum number of MIMO layers may be determined & [0077])
wherein the third maximum number of MIMO layers is determined based at least in part on a change in channel conditions; (Davydov, see Para [0069] & Zhang, see Para [0003])
transmitting a third downlink transmission parameter to the UE, (Davydov, see Fig. 10, step 1020 & Para’s [0069] & [0077])
wherein the third downlink transmission parameter indicates the third maximum number of MIMO layers, (Davydov, see Fig. 10, step 1020 & Para’s [0069] & [0077])
wherein the third maximum number of MIMO layers is applicable to one or more third slots after the one or more second slots; (Davydov, see Para’s [0029-0030] i.e., the downlink transmission of PDSCH will include one or more third slots after the one or more second slots, [0069] i.e., PDSCH & [0077] & [00101])
transmitting, to the UE, second downlink control information indicating a second actual number of MIMO layers less than or equal to the third maximum number of MIMO layers; (Davydov, see Para [0077] i.e., the maximum number of MIMO layers which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers (i.e., “actual number”) equal to or less than the indicated value)
and transmitting data to the UE using the second actual number of MIMO layers during the one or more third slots, (Davydov, see Para’s [0029-0030] i.e., PDSCH, [0067], [0069], [0077] i.e., MIMO transmission with the number of MIMO layers will be scheduled for transmission on the PDSCH & [0093]).
(Davydov suggests an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the communication between the UE and the base station as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to include transmitting a third downlink transmission parameter to the UE for configuring a third maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises: indicating to the base station a preferred maximum number of MIMO layers based on one or more measurements of channel conditions. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2015/0318907).
Zhang discloses wherein the method further comprises: indicating to the base station a preferred maximum number of MIMO layers based on one or more measurements of channel conditions (see Para [0003] i.e., The RI is the number of MIMO layers suggested by the UE according to the radio condition (informally, the number of data channels suggested to be used for data transmission).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the maximum number of MIMO layers determined for the UE as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to indicate to the base station a preferred maximum number of MIMO layers based on one or more measurements of channel conditions as disclosed in the teachings of Zhang for adapting the number of MIMO layers according to the determined channel conditions in the network system.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises: receiving, from the base station, an indication of an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses receiving, from the base station, an indication of an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para’s [0069] & [0077]),
(Davydov suggests an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the communication between the UE and the base station as disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to include receiving, from the base station, an indication of an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in Davydov, because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains.
Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen does not disclose wherein the adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is equal to the preferred maximum number of MIMO layers. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Zhang et al. US (2015/0318907).
Zhang discloses wherein an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is equal to a preferred maximum number of MIMO layers (see Para [0003] i.e., The RI is the number of MIMO layers suggested by the UE according to the radio condition (informally, the number of data channels suggested to be used for data transmission & [0005]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers determined for the UE as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be equal to the preferred maximum number of MIMO layers as disclosed in the teachings of Zhang for adapting the number of MIMO layers according to the determined channel conditions in the network system.
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, and further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Das US (2017/0019820).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 9, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises: repowering the at least one active receiver chain for at least a portion of a subsequent slot. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Das US (2017/0019820).
Das discloses repower the at least one active receiver chain for at least a portion of a subsequent slot (see Para [0028] i.e., a wireless user equipment (UE) may periodically depower or disable various power-hungry circuits, such as a power amplifier in a receiver, repowering or enable them at scheduled intervals to listen for incoming data (i.e., data may be received in a “subsequent slot”), [0043] i.e., data received through PDSCH includes downlink slots for receiving the data & [0046] i.e., sub-frames will include slots for DL reception of data).
(Das suggests depowering and repowering the receiver circuitry in the UE is for reducing power consumption of the receiver circuitry (see Para [0028])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the teachings of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses which depowers at least one active receiver chain to perform repowering the at least one active receiver chain for at least a portion of a subsequent slot as disclosed in Das because the motivation lies in Das that depowering and repowering the receiver circuitry in the UE is for reducing power consumption of the receiver circuitry.
11. Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, and further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542), as applied to claims 8 and 18 above, and further in view of Chae et al. US (2018/0248581).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, the combination of Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method and processor of claims 8 and 18, but does not disclose wherein the method further comprises: wherein the first maximum number of MIMO layers is associated with the number of codewords. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1.
Davydov discloses wherein the first maximum number of MIMO layers is associated with a number of codewords, (Davydov, see Para’s [0077] & [0093]).
(Davydov suggests an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains, (see Para’s [0069] & [0077])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the first maximum number of MIMO layers disclosed in Takeda in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be associated with a number of codewords as disclosed in Davydov because the motivation lies in Davydov that an adjusted maximum number of MIMO layers is configured for the UE in order to adapt to the dynamic traffic variations and save the power consumption at the UE by turning off some of the receiving chains
The combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen does not disclose the claim feature of indicating to the base station a number of codewords supported by the UE. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of Chae et al. US (2018/0248581).
Chae discloses an indication such as a UE capability sent to a device indicating a number of codewords supported by the UE (see Para [0085] i.e., In this case, the capability includes all or a part of…the number of codewords capable of performing transmission or reception).
(Chae suggests the UE capability information is used for indicating capability information for performing transmission and reception on a specific band (see Para [0085])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the UE to indicate to the base station in the teachings of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen a number of codewords supported by the UE based on the UE capability information transmitted as disclosed in Chae who discloses transmitting UE capability information indicating a number of codewords supported by the UE, because the motivation lies in Chae that the UE capability information is used for indicating capability information for performing transmission and reception on a specific band and for satisfying the UE capability requirements for data communications of the UE.
12. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, and further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), and further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of ANG et al. US (2019/0090299).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 14, but wherein the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers is further based on at least one inactivity timer; and wherein the at least one inactivity timer includes a BWP inactivity timer, but does not disclose wherein the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers is further based on at least one inactivity timer, wherein the at least one inactivity timer includes a BWP inactivity timer. However the claim features would be rendered obvious in view of ANG et al. US (2019/0090299).
ANG discloses determining an adjusted number of MIMO layers (see Para [0041] i.e., UE may selectively transition from a first bandwidth part to a second bandwidth…The second bandwidth part transition leads to a higher quantity of MIMO layers than the first bandwidth part (i.e., adjusted number of MIMO layers when switching to first BWP)).
ANG discloses wherein the dynamic maximum number of MIMO layers is further based on at least one inactivity timer, (see Para [0117] i.e., activate inactivity timer associated with a DRX cycle & [0150]);
wherein the at least one inactivity timer includes a BWP inactivity timer (see Para [0117] & [0150] i.e., In some aspects, UE 120 may activate an inactivity timer, a bandwidth part timer, and/or the like associated with a DRX cycle after receiving the PDSCH. As shown by reference number 1420, based at least in part on expiration of the bandwidth part timer, UE 120 may determine that the bandwidth part timer is expired and may switch to the first bandwidth part (e.g., a default bandwidth part).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the adjusted number of MIMO layers determined in Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be based on using the bandwidth part inactivity timer as disclosed in ANG for efficiently determining the appropriate adjusted number of MIMO layers for the UE.
13. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. US (2020/0252180) in view of Davydov et al. WO (2018/084971) A1, further in view of Manolakos et al. US (2019/0053103), further in view of Chen et al. (EP 3618542), and further in view of ANG et al. US (2019/0090299) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of ANG et al. US (2016/0128128).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 15, but does not disclose wherein the at least one inactivity timer further includes a discontinuous reception, DRX, inactivity timer. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of ANG et al. US (2019/0090299).
ANG discloses wherein the at least one inactivity timer further includes a discontinuous reception, DRX, inactivity timer (ANG, see Para [0117] i.e., activate inactivity timer associated with a DRX cycle & [0150]),
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing for the adjusted number of MIMO layers determined in Takeda in view of Davydov, and further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be based on using the inactivity timer as disclosed in ANG for efficiently determining the appropriate adjusted number of MIMO layers for the UE.
Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen discloses wherein the UE receives a maximum number of layers (Davydov, see Para’s [0069], 0073], [0077] i.e., DCI can be employed to indicate to the UE the maximum number of MIMO layers via a designated indicator, for example, a MIMO layer indicator which can inform the UE that the BS will schedule MIMO transmission with a number of MIMO layers equal to or less than the indicated value. The indicated number of MIMO layers can be used at the UE to autonomously select the number of receiving chains and reduce the power consumption, & [0096]), but does not disclose the number of layers is received for a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration. However the claim feature would be rendered obvious in view of ANG et al. US (2016/0128128).
ANG discloses a number of layers to receive data for a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration (see Fig. 12 i.e., radios 1210, 1212 may communicate via a single or a plurality of antennas 1216 (i.e., a plurality of antennas may refer to respective RF chains or “number of layers”), Para’s [0030] i.e., a UE may use a secondary receiver that has lower power consumption than a primary receiver of the UE to listen for control channels and other signals during ON durations of a C-DRX cycle, [0081], & [0123] i.e., Each radio may, for example, include a transmitter and receiver, and any other “RF chain” components to allow transmission and reception between the wireless device 1200 and a BS…Each radio may communicate via a single or a plurality of antennas 1216 (i.e., “number of layers”))
(ANG suggests connected discontinuous reception (C-DRX) generally refers to a technique used in wireless communication to reduce power consumption, thereby conserving the battery of the mobile device, (see Para [0081])).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the maximum number of layers received by the UE as disclosed in Takeda in view of Davydov, further in view of Manolakos, and further in view of Chen to be received for a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration based on the teachings of ANG who discloses a number of layers to receive data during a connected mode discontinuous reception (CDRX) on duration is configured for the UE which results in the maximum number of layers received for a C-DRX on duration, because the motivation lies in ANG to use a connected discontinuous reception (C-DRX) for the UE which generally refers to a technique used in wireless communication to reduce power consumption, thereby conserving the battery of the mobile device.
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 ADNAN A BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-7511. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ADNAN BAIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights