CTNF 18/649,869 CTNF 100138 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021-179795 , filed on 11/02/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because Figures 5-8, 11, 14, 17, and 22-26 all contain words missing letters (e.g. “RECEI ER” (112) & (212) of Figs. 5 and 6 respectively) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 6, and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Independent Claims 1, 6, and 11 contain the term “bwd-ID” which is later changed to “bwp-ID” in the same claim. Examiner requests amending “bwd-ID” and “bwp-ID” to “BWP-ID” to conform with consistent naming identifiers within the claim, as Applicant has defined “BWP” as Bandwidth Part . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 , the phrase "in a case where" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are exemplary or descriptive. Each independent claim provides a limitation that provides “a case where” an element is satisfied (in Claims 1, 6, and 11 that element being the configuration information including an absolute radio frequency channel number), which is counterclaimed in the immediate next counterclaim. Additionally, the phrase “in a case where” does not provide adequate metes and bounds as to ascertain the scope of the invention being claimed. Examiner interprets that this language provides for an indeterminate number of cases that expand beyond the ones provided in the above stated claims. Even considering, for sake of argument, that there are only two cases to be considered, Examiner interprets that these cases are alternate embodiments of one another and that only one embodiment need be shown in order to permit rejection. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (2025/0097862), hereinafter Takahashi in view of Park et al. (2024/0187888), hereinafter Park . Re. Claims 1, 6 and 11, Takahashi teaches a communication apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising : a receiver configured to receive, from a base station, system information including information for indicating a first initial downlink Bandwidth Part (BWP), a bwd -ID of the first initial downlink BWP being defined as “0” (¶0126 - the initial BWP, the initial downlink BWP, and the initial uplink BWP may be a BWP, a downlink BWP, and an uplink BWP having indexes of 0 (#0), respectively ), and a transmitter configured to perform the uplink transmission on an active uplink BWP (¶0039 - The terminal apparatus 1 may be configured with up to four BWPs (uplink BWPs) in the uplink. There may be one uplink BWP active at a certain time (active uplink BWP). The terminal apparatus 1 transmits neither a PUCCH nor a PUSCH outside the band of the active uplink BWP ); However, Takahashi does not expressly teach a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message including configuration information, the configuration information including information for indicating a Synchronization Signal/PBCH block (SSB) index used for uplink transmission. Yet, Park explicitly teaches a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message including configuration information (¶0232 - In an example, the at least one message may comprise at least one of: an RRC reconfiguration message, an RRC reestablishment message, an RRC resume message, an RRC setup message, a system information block, and/or the like ), the configuration information including information for indicating a Synchronization Signal/PBCH block (SSB) index used for uplink transmission (¶0259 - the at least one message comprises at least one of: a cell identifier/index indicating the first cell or the second cell; a bandwidth part index indicating a bandwidth part associated with (e.g., overlapping with) the second CORESET; a physical cell identifier (PCI) indicating the second cell; an index of at least one downlink or uplink reference signal (SSB, CSI-RS resource, SRS); quasi co-location type; and/or the like ). Additionally Examiner notes that, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection, the following limitation: “a controller configured to, in an RRC connected state, in a case where the configuration information includes information for indicating an absolute radio frequency channel number of a non-cell defining SSB, based on information for indicating a second initial downlink BWP being included in the system information, control the uplink transmission on the active uplink BWP using the non-cell defining SSB transmitted on the second initial downlink BWP and indicated by the SSB index, wherein a bwp-ID of the second initial downlink BWP is defined as ‘0’” is neither considered or rejected by itself as this is viewed as an alternate limitation to what is claimed in Claims 2, 7, and 12. Examiner will provide further context to this in the “Examiner’s Comments” section provided after the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections and before the conclusion. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Park to the teaching of Takahashi. The motivation for such would be to improve communication efficiency by including specific data within the configuration information, which Park provides (Park, ¶0259). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Park and Nigam et al. (WO 2019050323 A1), hereinafter Nigam . Re. Claims 2, 7 and 12 , Takahashi and Park teach Claims 1, 6, and 11. However, the combination of Takahashi and Park does not expressly teach wherein the controller is configured to, in a case where the configuration information does not include the information for indicating the absolute radio frequency channel number of the non-cell defining SSB, control the uplink transmission on the active uplink BWP using a cell defining SSB indicated by the SSB index. Yet, Nigam explicitly teaches wherein the controller (Fig. 2) is configured to, in a case where the configuration information does not include the information for indicating the absolute radio frequency channel number of the non-cell defining SSB (Examiner interprets that since the reference is silent on whether the absolute radio frequency channel number is contained within the configuration information, it fulfills the requisite parameter of the information not being sent), control the uplink transmission on the active uplink BWP ( - the gnb 100 transmits data within configured active BWP) using a cell defining SSB indicated by the SSB index ( - For common PRB indexing, since different UE 200 may find different cell-defining SSB, indication of the offset from PRB0 to the lowest PRB of the SSB accessed by the UE 200 via RMSI is not feasible. Since different SSB will need different offset indications for the purpose of indexing. This indexing may be useful for OSI, paging etc. Furthermore, UE 200 must explicitly indicate the SSB location to the gnb 100 during the RRC connection establishment procedure so that the gnb 100 can indicate the appropriate offset to the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Nigam to the teaching of Takahashi and Park. The motivation for such would be to improve communication efficiency by including specific data within the configuration information, which Nigam provides (Nigam, ). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Park and Hou et al. (2024/0030964), hereinafter Hou . Re. Claims 3, 8, and 13 , Takahashi and Park teach Claims 1, 6, and 11. However, the combination of Takahashi and Park does not expressly teach wherein the receiver is configured to receive the system information including information for indicating a first initial uplink BWP and information for indicating a second initial uplink BWP, and the active uplink BWP is the second initial uplink BWP. Yet, Hou explicitly teaches wherein the receiver is configured to receive the system information including information for indicating a first initial uplink BWP and information for indicating a second initial uplink BWP, and the active uplink BWP is the second initial uplink BWP (¶0156-0158 - if the second-type terminal device works on the second initial uplink BWP, that is, a current active BWP is the second initial uplink BWP, when the second-type terminal device performs transmission on the second initial uplink BWP, frequency domain resource allocation information of the transmission may be determined in the following three manners:… The information may be determined based on the first initial uplink BWP, and specifically, may be determined based on at least one of a start location of the first initial uplink BWP and a quantity of RBs included in the first initial uplink BWP ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Hou to the teaching of Takahashi and Park. The motivation for such would be to improve communication efficiency by including information for two different uplink BWP’s within the configuration information, which Hou provides (Hou, ¶0156-0158). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-5, 9-10, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Park and Kim; Soenghun (2024/0237125), hereinafter Kim . Re. Claims 4, 9, and 14 , Takahashi and Park teach Claims 1, 6, and 11. However, the combination of Takahashi and Park does not expressly teach wherein the configuration information includes information for configuring a spatial setting for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission, the control of the uplink transmission comprises a control of the spatial setting for the PUCCH transmission Yet, Kim expressly teaches wherein the configuration information includes information for configuring a spatial setting for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission, the control of the uplink transmission comprises a control of the spatial setting for the PUCCH transmission (¶0500 - The PUCCH-SpatialRelationInfo may be used to configure the spatial setting for PUCCH transmission and the parameters for the PUCCH power control ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kim to the teaching of Takahashi and Park. The motivation for such would be to improve communication efficiency by including specific data within the configuration information, which Kim provides (Kim, ¶0500). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Re. Claims 5, 10, and 15 , Takahashi and Park teach Claims 1, 6, and 11. However, the combination of Takahashi and Park does not expressly teach wherein the configuration information includes information for controlling a transmission power of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, the control of the uplink transmission comprises a control of the transmission power of the PUSCH transmission. Yet, Kim expressly teaches wherein the configuration information includes information for controlling a transmission power of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission, the control of the uplink transmission comprises a control of the transmission power of the PUSCH transmission (¶0590 - The UE may determine the uplink transmission power of PUSCH based at least in part on a P0-PUSCH and a Alpha included in the PUSCH-Config ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kim to the teaching of Takahashi and Park. The motivation for such would be to improve communication efficiency by including specific data within the configuration information, which Kim provides (Kim, ¶0590). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Examiner’s Comments Re. Claims 1, 6, and 11 . These above cited claims contain an alternate embodiment limitation that Examiner is not required to elect in their original rejection. Claims 1, 6, and 11 refer specifically to a case where the configuration information includes information for indicating an absolute radio frequency channel number of a non-cell defining SSB, of which Claim 2 presents a case directly antithetical to this limitation. Examiner further finds that the case does not adequately discern itself from being exemplary or necessary to the claim language and as such is neither rejecting nor making an election with regards to this limitation, rather is not considering the specific limitation. Pursuant to MPEP 2111.04 II (“Contingent Limitations”) which reads in part: The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition (s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B. As such, examiner will neither be considering the limitation in the present rejection, rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, nor be performing an election on behalf of the Applicant in view of future prosecution. Should the claims in future applications be amended to better define the claimed metes and bounds and be found to be necessary for the examination of the claim language as a whole, the limitation found herein will be considered in its entirety alongside the rest of the claim . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jung et al. (2024/013814) - ¶0080, ¶0224-0251 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475 /KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 2 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 3 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 4 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 5 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 6 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 7 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 8 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 9 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 10 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 11 Art Unit: 2475 Application/Control Number: 18/649,869 Page 12 Art Unit: 2475
Prosecution Insights