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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-22, filed July 15 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) and claims 26, 33-35, 46, 48 and 50 under 35 U.S.C §103 directed to Cui have been fully considered and are largely persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and review of Yang, Examiner has determined Yang provides a teaching for the disputed features related to the claimed indication from the base station “indicating the collocated deployment” at the center of a majority of the arguments presented. In light of this, a new grounds of rejection is presented below based upon these findings.
All previous prior art references remain applicable and no new prior art is cited at time. However, the disclosures and teachings relied upon, as well as motivations to combine, have been corrected where appropriate. As a result, this action is made non-final.
With respect to Applicants arguments for claim 41 regarding the lack of a “unified ‘Non-Collocated Intra-Band’ Capability Indication” in Cui. This argument is unpersuasive as the claims fail to explicitly claim such a feature. The claims merely require the terminal indicate support for “a non-collocated intra-band operation”. Paragraph 85 of Cui discloses: “The capability information indicated for carrier aggregation in the high speed mode can include any or a combination of: the supported band combinations, the supported maximum number of serving cells (or, similarly, serving component carriers), whether intra-band contiguous component carriers are supported, whether intra-band non-contiguous component carriers are supported, whether inter-band component carriers are supported, whether collocated serving cells are supported, and/or whether non-collocated serving cells are supported.“ Cui is thereby explicitly disclosing indicating a combination of IEs that would serve as an indication of support for “a non-collocated intra-band operation” and thereby discloses this feature as claimed. If Applicants intend for this to be a “unified” indication, then the content and structure of said indication must be claimed. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to Applicants arguments for claims 26, 46 and 48 regarding the lack of a “conditional default” in Cui, the argument is persuasive to the extent that Cui fails to disclose the indication of cell information regarding collocated or non-collocated deployment generally. Examiner instead relies upon a newly discovered teaching in Yang for this feature. However, Examiner does not agree with Applicants’ broader assertion that the claim language itself requires the asserted “conditional default”.
The claim limitation “if the network does not indicate to the terminal device a collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell” is not limited to a “conditional default”. As set forth below, Yang teaches the PCell transmits cell information indicating collocated/non-collocated status. This satisfies the requirements of the claims as currently presented.
If the specification instead describes a “conditional default” in which the terminal assumes a “second architecture type” when no indication is received, i.e., a fallback behavior, then the claims must expressly recite that limitation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to claim 50, Applicants argue that the Type 1 and Type 2 modes require distinct hardware configurations, such as a single receive chain for Type 1 and separate receive chains for Type 2. However, those hardware configurations are not recited in claim 50. As presently written, claim 50 defines the Type 1 and Type 2 modes by the respective collocated and non-collocated intra-band NR-CA operation. The updated grounds of rejection below have been clarified to better address that claimed functionality. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, with respect to Gonuguntla, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Gonuguntla is not relied upon for its entire inter-band FR2/CBM implementation or for the Type 1/Type 2 operating framework. Rather, Gonuguntla is relied upon for the narrower teaching that a terminal device may be configured to handle an MRTD of up to 3 µs. Cui remains relied upon for the recited collocated and non-collocated intra-band operating functionality.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 26, 33-35, 46 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of Yang (US 2020/00259618, Yang hereafter) and further in view of Non-Patent Literature ("Topic summary for [106][215] NonCol_intraB_ENDC_NR_CA", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting # 106, R4-2302773, Agenda: 9.11.4, Huawei, February 27-March 03, 2023, cited on IDS filed August 05, 2024, NPL hereafter).
RE claims 26, 46 and 48, Cui discloses a terminal, method and non-transitory computer readable medium; comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Figure 15); and further discloses that “the terminal device is servable by a first cell of the communication network and at least one second cell of the communication network in an intra-band operation” (Figures 1 and 2, a UE served by at least two gNodeBs. Figures 3-7 show a plurality of configurations for said gNBs to serve said UE 310. Such a configuration includes intra-band cells).
Cui further discloses that “the terminal device indicates to the network device a capability of supporting the first cell and the at least one second cell in a non-collocated intra-band operation (Paragraph 85 discloses: “The capability information indicated for carrier aggregation in the high speed mode can include any or a combination of: the supported band combinations, the supported maximum number of serving cells (or, similarly, serving component carriers), whether intra-band contiguous component carriers are supported, whether intra-band non-contiguous component carriers are supported, whether inter-band component carriers are supported, whether collocated serving cells are supported, and/or whether non-collocated serving cells are supported.”)
However, while Cui discloses the recited capability indication, Cui does not explicitly disclose “determining an operating architecture type of the terminal device” wherein “the operating architecture type is determined in accordance with a determination that the terminal device indicates to the network device a capability of supporting the first cell and the at least one second cell in a non-collocated intra-band operation,” such that “if an indication indicating a collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell is received at the terminal device from the network device, the operating architecture type is determined by the terminal device as being a first operating architecture type otherwise if the network does not indicate to the terminal device a collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell, the operating architecture type is determined by the terminal device as being a second operating architecture type and applying at least one Radio Resource Management, RRM, requirement based on the determined operating architecture type of the terminal device.”
However, Yang teaches a wireless communication device receiving cell information from a PCell indicating whether a PCell and Scell are collocated or non-collocated, and the UE knowing the deployment type based on that cell information (Figure 7 and Paragraphs 141: “According to FIG. 7, UE and PCell are connected. PCell may transmit cell information to the UE. The UE may receive cell information from PCell. The cell information informs the UE that PCell and SCell are collocated or non-collocated.”. Paragraph 142: “ If gNB including PCell transmits the cell information (informing PCell and SCell are collocated or non-collocated) to the UE. The UE may know whether FR2 inter-band CA is supported by the UE or not based on the cell information and capability of the UE (for example, antenna type of the UE). The capability of the UE may includes information related to whether the UE supports independent beam forming per band or not. For example, the capability of the UE includes information related to antenna type of the UE. The antenna type of the UE may be a shared antenna or separated antennas.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal, method and media of Cui in view of the teachings of Yang. Cui supplies the system and arrangement of collocated or non-collocated intra-band multi-cell service to a UE which indicates its own capability to support such an arrangement through a combination of one or more information elements that explicitly indicate collocated/non-collocated/intra-band/inter-band capability. Yang teaches that the PCell and Scell may be collocated or non-collocated and indicate as such explicitly to the UE thereby making the UE aware of the PCell and SCell configuration. This combination therefore predictably yields “determining an operating architecture type of the terminal device” and “if an indication indicating a collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell is received at the terminal device from the network device, the operating architecture type is determined by the terminal device as being a first operating architecture type otherwise if the network does not indicate to the terminal device a collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell, the operating architecture type is determined by the terminal device as being a second operating architecture type”.
In the proposed combination, an indication that the PCell and SCell are collocated would result in the terminal determining the corresponding first operating architecture type, while an indication that the PCell and SCell are non-collocated would result in the terminal determining the corresponding second operating architecture type. This determination would then further be made in accordance with the terminals’ indicated capability to support the applicable non-collocated intra-band operation, as taught by Cui.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
Cui in view of Yang does not explicitly disclose applying at least one Radio Resource Management, RRM, requirement based on the determined operating architecture type of the terminal device.
However, NPL teaches an Radio Resource Management, RRM, requirement applicable serving-cell configuration (Page 5, proposals 1-4, teaching SCell activation delay, interruption, and scheduling restriction requirements for FR1 intra-band non-contiguous CA depending on the deployment/configuration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal, method and media of Cui as modified by Yang, according to the further teachings of NPL, because such a combination would have been the predictable use of a known RRM requirement according to the determined serving-cell configuration, thereby resulting in the terminal device applying the RRM requirement based on its determined operating architecture type.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
RE claim 33, Cui in view of Yang and further in view of NPL discloses the terminal of claim 26 as set forth above. Note that Yang further teaches wherein the at least one RRM requirement is applied corresponding to the determined operating architecture type for a maximum transmit timing difference, MTTD/ maximum receive timing difference, MRTD requirement (Tables 11-16 teaches determine MRTD and MTTD requirements according to whether a gNB deployment type in intra-band, inter-band, collocated and non-collocated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang’s teachings to Cui as it would predicably result in the determination and application of MTTD and MRTD requirements according to the determined operating architecture.
Note that NPL also further teaches the alternative option wherein the at least one RRM requirement is applied corresponding to the determined operating architecture type for a scheduling restriction (Page 1, section 1.1: “When intra-band carrier aggregation in FR1 is configured, the scheduling restrictions on FR1 serving PCell or PSCell apply to serving cells in the same band on the symbols that fully or partially overlap with restricted symbols. When intra-band non-collocation carrier aggregation is configured for CA type 2 UE indicating [signaling TBD], there are no scheduling restrictions on another serving cell in the same band.“).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply NPL’s teachings to Cui as modified by Yang as set forth above as it would further predicably result in the determination and application of a scheduling restriction according to the determined operating architecture.
RE claim 34, Cui in view of Yang and further in view of NPL discloses the terminal of claim 33 as set forth above. Note that Yang further teaches wherein in accordance with a determination that a first operating architecture type is determined as the operating architecture type of the apparatus, the at least one RRM requirement is applied by at least applying an intra-band MTTD/MRTD requirement (Tables 11-16 teaches determine MRTD and MTTD requirements according to whether a gNB deployment type in intra-band, inter-band, collocated and non-collocated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang’s teachings to Cui as it would predicably result in the determination and application of MTTD and MRTD requirements according to the determined operating architecture.
Note that NPL also further teaches the alternative option wherein in accordance with a determination that a first operating architecture type is determined as the operating architecture type of the apparatus, the at least one RRM requirement is applied by at least: applying a scheduling restriction to all carriers on a same band ((Page 1, section 1.1: “When intra-band carrier aggregation in FR1 is configured, the scheduling restrictions on FR1 serving PCell or PSCell apply to serving cells in the same band on the symbols that fully or partially overlap with restricted symbols. When intra-band non-collocation carrier aggregation is configured for CA type 2 UE indicating [signaling TBD], there are no scheduling restrictions on another serving cell in the same band.“).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply NPL’s teachings to Cui as modified by Yang as set forth above as it would further predicably result in the determination and application of a scheduling restriction according to the determined operating architecture.
RE claim 35, Cui in view of Yang and further in view of NPL discloses the terminal of claim 33 as set forth above. Note that Yang further teaches wherein in accordance with a determination that a second operating architecture type is determined as the operating architecture type of the apparatus, the at least one RRM requirement is applied by at least: applying an inter-band cell activation delay of the at least one second cell; or applying an inter-band MTTD/MRTD requirement.
However, Yang teaches applying an inter-band MTTD/MRTD requirement (Tables 11-16 teaches determine MRTD and MTTD requirements according to whether a gNB deployment type in intra-band, inter-band, collocated and non-collocated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Yang’s teachings to Cui as it would predicably result in the determination and application of MTTD and MRTD requirements according to the determined operating architecture.
Note that NPL also further teaches the alternative option wherein in accordance with a determination that a second operating architecture type is determined as the operating architecture type of the apparatus, the at least one RRM requirement is applied by at least: applying no scheduling restriction on the carriers on a same band (Page 1, section 1.1: “When intra-band carrier aggregation in FR1 is configured, the scheduling restrictions on FR1 serving PCell or PSCell apply to serving cells in the same band on the symbols that fully or partially overlap with restricted symbols. When intra-band non-collocation carrier aggregation is configured for CA type 2 UE indicating [signaling TBD], there are no scheduling restrictions on another serving cell in the same band.“).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply NPL’s teachings to Cui as modified by Yang as set forth above as it would further predicably result in the determination and application of a scheduling restriction according to the determined operating architecture.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in view of in view of Yang.
RE claim 41, Cui discloses a network device (Figure 16) of a communication network for communicating with a terminal device, wherein the terminal device is servable by a first cell of the communication network and at least one second cell of the communication network in an intra-band operation when the first cell and the at least one second cell are in a collocated deployment in the communication network (Paragraph 84 discloses serving cell activation based on UE capability information in a high speed mode. UE sends UE capability information for carrier aggregation in a high speed mode to a gNB. Paragraph 85 further discloses: “The capability information indicated for carrier aggregation in the high speed mode can include any or a combination of: the supported band combinations, the supported maximum number of serving cells (or, similarly, serving component carriers), whether intra-band contiguous component carriers are supported, whether intra-band non-contiguous component carriers are supported, whether inter-band component carriers are supported, whether collocated serving cells are supported, and/or whether non-collocated serving cells are supported. In the case when none of such capability information is signaled to the base station 820, the base station 820 may assume (e.g., based on a requirement specified in a technical specification) a minimum set of capabilities (e.g., the maximum number of component carriers is smaller than eight, the band combination is the same as the legacy mode, intra-band contiguous component carriers in collocated serving cells are supported.”); the network device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Figure 16), cause the apparatus network device at least to perform: receiving from the terminal device an indication of a capability of supporting the first cell and the at least one second cell in anon-collocated intra-band operation, and, in response to receiving the indication from the terminal device (Paragraph 85 as cited above);
Cui does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to the terminal device, an indication indicating the collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell.
However, Yang teaches transmitting, to the terminal device, an indication indicating the collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell (Figure 7 and Paragraphs 141: “According to FIG. 7, UE and PCell are connected. PCell may transmit cell information to the UE. The UE may receive cell information from PCell. The cell information informs the UE that PCell and SCell are collocated or non-collocated.”. Paragraph 142: “ If gNB including PCell transmits the cell information (informing PCell and SCell are collocated or non-collocated) to the UE. The UE may know whether FR2 inter-band CA is supported by the UE or not based on the cell information and capability of the UE (for example, antenna type of the UE). The capability of the UE may includes information related to whether the UE supports independent beam forming per band or not. For example, the capability of the UE includes information related to antenna type of the UE. The antenna type of the UE may be a shared antenna or separated antennas.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network device of Cui according to the teachings of Yang to explicitly indicate the collocated or non-collocated serving-cell deployment to the terminal device, because doing so would predictably inform the terminal device of the serving-cell configuration selected by the network based on the terminal device capability information. Thus, where the network configures a collocated deployment, the combination would predictably result in transmitting to the terminal device an indication indicating the collocated deployment of the first cell and the at least one second cell.
Accordingly, Applicant claims a combination that only unites old elements with no change in the respective functions of those old elements, and the combination of those elements yields predictable results; absent evidence that the modifications necessary to effect the combination of elements is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim is unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d at 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at1396.
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui in in view of Gonuguntla et al. (US 2024/0421958, Gonuguntla hereafter).
RE claim 50, Cui discloses a terminal device for communicating with a network device of a communication network, wherein the terminal device is operable in accordance with a Type 1 mode for supporting collocated intra-band NR-CA and in accordance with a Type 2 mode for supporting non-collocated intra-band NR-CA (Paragraphs 57-60: collocated/non-collocated and intra-band/interband configurations. Thus, Examiner maps a “Type 1 mode” to a configuration whereby the UE is served by collocated intra-band serving cells and maps a “Type 2 mode” to a configuration whereby the UE is served by non-collocated intra-band serving cells) and receiving in reply an indication from the network device that the terminal device is to operate in accordance with the Type 1 mode (Paragraphs 73-75: network configures collocated or non-collocated CA based on UE capability. Paragraphs 87-88: the UE sends capability information and receives CA configuration based on that information. See also claims 8 and 9).
Cui does not explicitly disclose the terminal device is configured to handle a relative receive timing difference of 3 microseconds between a timing of different received carriers.
However, Gonuguntla teaches the terminal device is configured to handle a relative receive timing difference of 3 microseconds between a timing of different received carriers (Paragraph 168, UE indicates it can handle MRTD up to 3µs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the terminal of Cui with the teachings of Gonuguntla since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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 D 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights