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 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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-13, 15, 17-20, 27, 30-31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (.US 2022/0232641 A1), supported by provisional application No. 63/138,715, filed on Jan.18, 2021., hereinafter “Lee”, in view of R2-2100782, “Separate BWP for Small Data Transmission”, 3GPP TSG-RAN2#113-e Online, 25th Jan - 5th Feb 2021, LG Electronics Inc., hereinafter “LG”.
Claims 1, 30, and 34:
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches, a method for synchronizing bandwidth parts (BWPs), performed by a terminal device (Lee: a method of receiving a signal by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system may include receiving small data transmission (SDT) configuration information including a configured grant (CG) resource configuration and a random access channel (RACH) resource configuration for SDT, the CG resource configuration being configured for the SDT, switching to a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state, triggering a RACH for the SDT based on predefined conditions being satisfied, and transmitting SDT data based on the RACH resource configuration for the SDT).
Lee teaches configuration for uplink access, as discussed above regarding two access procedures, a configured grant (CG) resource configuration and a random access channel (RACH) resource configuration for SDT, and BWP configuration for SDT, “The method may further include selecting a bandwidth part (BWP) for SDT included in the SDT configuration information,” ([0008]).
Lee, though teaches about initial BWP (see [0205], [0218-9], e.g.) however does not expressly teach BWP configuration for initial BWP.
LG in the same field of endeavor teaches, configuration of different BWP resources, and thus teaching, determining BWPs configured for two or more uplink access procedures, (related to proposal 1, “In addition to CG-SDT on the dedicated UL BWP, we think that RA-SDT should be also allowed on the dedicated UL BWP. In the last meeting, RAN2 agreed to configure different RA resource between SDT and non-SDT in order to avoid RA collision between RA-SDT and legacy RACH.”,
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by LG with that of Lee motivated by avoiding collision between RA-SDT and legacy RACH as discussed above and avoid congestion as disclosed, “The separate UL BWP can avoid the congestion on initial UL BWP and provide flexibility of allocation of CG resource.” (§ 2).
Combination of disclosures by Lee and LG teaches the synchronizing bandwidth parts (BWPs), as per the claim which is implied by disclosure in LG regarding avoiding collision, as discussed above.
Lee teaches, determining to perform a first uplink access procedure ([0188] “When the UE triggers the RACH for SDT, the UE performs RACH transmission/reception based on the SDT RACH configuration. On the other hand, when the RACH is triggered for an SI request or RRC connection establishment rather than the SDT, the UE performs RACH transmission/reception based on the RACH configuration received through SIB1.”), and
activating a first BWP corresponding to the first uplink access procedure, wherein the first uplink access procedure is any one of the two or more uplink access procedures (Lee: [0021] The one or more processors are configured to select a bandwidth part (BWP) for SDT included in the SDT configuration information, and activate the BWP based on the SDT configuration information).
Claim 30 is for a device implementing method of claim 1. This is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Existence of a processor and memory is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claim 34 is for a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. This is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Existence of a processor and memory is implied. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2 and 18:
Regarding claim 2, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising:
deactivating a BWP that is in an activated state before performing the first uplink access procedure (implied based on disclosures in Lee: “The carrier may include up to N (e.g., 5) BWPs. Data communication may be performed through an activated BWP, and only one BWP may be activated for one UE.”; [0218] the UE activates the indicated SDT BWP and transmits MSG3 in the activated SDT BWP. At this time, the initial BWP is deactivated.”)
Claim 18 is for a device implementing method of complimentary to method of claim 2. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising:
determining to hand over to a second uplink access procedure from the first uplink access procedure, and perform at least one of activating a second BWP corresponding to the second uplink access procedure, or deactivating the first BWP (implied based on disclosures in Lee [0218] the UE activates the indicated SDT BWP and transmits MSG3 in the activated SDT BWP. At this time, the initial BWP is deactivated.”; [0219], “the UE activates the indicated SDT BWP and transmits the MSGA in the SDT BWP. At this time, the initial BWP is deactivated.”).
Claims 4 and 19:
Regarding claim 4, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising:
receiving a deactivation indication transmitted by a network device, wherein the deactivation indication is used to indicate the terminal device to deactivate a currently activated BWP, and wherein the currently activated BWP is configured for an uplink access procedure currently performed by the terminal device (implied based on discussion above that only one BWP may be active at a time ([0094] as discussed above; [0217] “when transmitting the PRACH with the normal preamble, the UE may perform SDT RACH according to the indication from the BS.”; and [0218] “the UE activates the indicated SDT BWP and transmits MSG3 in the activated SDT BWP. At this time, the initial BWP is deactivated.”); and
activating a third BWP configured by the network device or agreed in a protocol (implied by disclosure in [0094], “The carrier may include up to N (e.g., 5) BWPs. Data communication may be performed through an activated BWP, and only one BWP may be activated for one UE.”; a third BWP may be activated based on requirement for other data transmission and BWP configuration).
Claim 19 is for a device implementing method of complimentary to method of claim 4. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 20:
Regarding claim 5, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 3 (discussed above), further comprising:
monitoring a handover trigger event, and determining to hand over to the second uplink access procedure from the first uplink access procedure under a case that the handover trigger event is monitored (Lee: clm.1 discloses a triggering event of reception of SDT configuration information);
wherein the handover trigger event comprises at least one of:
receiving handover indication information transmitted by a network device, wherein the handover indication information is used to indicate the terminal device to hand over to the second uplink access procedure from the first uplink access procedure;
monitoring that a measurement result of the first uplink access procedure no longer satisfies a measurement threshold for selecting the first uplink access procedure (implied by disclosure in Lee: triggering a RACH for the SDT based on predefined conditions being satisfied; wherein the predefined conditions comprise a condition that a quality of a serving cell is greater than or equal to a set threshold. (Clm.1)); or
monitoring that a number of uplink transmission failures of the first uplink access procedure reaches a threshold.
Claim 20 is for a device implementing method of complimentary to method of claim 5. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein different uplink access procedures are configured with different BWPs (discussed above in claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), wherein the uplink access procedure comprises any of:
a small data transmission (SDT) procedure;
a random access channel (RACH) SDT procedure;
a configure grant (CG) SDT procedure; or
a non-SDT uplink access procedure (discussed above in claim 1, where RACH SDT procedure and CG SDT procedures are discussed).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above), further comprising:
receiving a BWP configured by a network device for each uplink access procedure (implied by disclosure in [0094] “The carrier may include up to N (e.g., 5) BWPs. Data communication may be performed through an activated BWP, and only one BWP may be activated for one UE.”).
Regarding claim 13, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 12 (discussed above), further comprising:
determining an initial state of the BWP configured for each uplink access procedure according to a protocol agreement (implied by BWP states defined in Lee as activated BWP or inactivated BWP, and switching states as disclosed in [0218], “the UE activates the indicated SDT BWP and transmits MSG3 in the activated SDT BWP. At this time, the initial BWP is deactivated.”, and [0219], “the UE activates the indicated SDT BWP and transmits the MSGA”)); or
receiving state indication information transmitted by the network device, wherein the state
indication information is used to indicate the initial state of the BWP configured.
Regarding claim 15, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above),further comprising one of:
determining that the terminal device is in an idle state or a deactivated state, and
determining a currently activated BWP as a BWP where the terminal device currently resides; or
determining that the terminal device is in an idle state or a deactivated state, and
performing, on a specified BWP, a cell measurement on a cell where the terminal device resides, wherein the specified BWP comprises one of an initial BWP, a currently activated BWP, or a protocol-agreed BWP (cell measurement is implied by the determination by quality of the resource as discussed in Clms. 1 and 4).
Claims 17, 31, and 35:
Claim 17 is for a network device performing method complimentary to method performed by device of claim 30. Claim elements are discussed above in claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 1 and claim 30.
Claim 31 is for a device implementing method of claim 17. This is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 17.
Claim 35 is for a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. This is a change in category with respect to claim 17. Claim is rejected based on rejection of claim 17.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Lee and LG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of R2-2105693, “RACH-based SDT in NR”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #114 electronic Online, May 19 - May 27, 2021, Source Sony, hereinafter “Sony”.
Regarding claim 6, combination of Lee and LG teaches the method according to claim 3 (discussed above), wherein the first BWP and the second BWP overlap (Sony: “One essential design requirement is that the additional BWP should configured in such a way that it overlaps with the initial BWP operating with the same numerology, i.e. for both DL and UL.”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine disclosure by LG with that of Sony motivated by avoidance of bandwidth part switching as disclosed by Sony, “a UE can still monitor the initial BWP, e.g. paging, SIB1, and able to start initial access procedures, without switching to another BWP or without interrupting other services such as SDT, MBS and Positioning.” (subsection Proposal 3, observation 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0213067 A1 teaches simultaneous bandwidth part switching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462