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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground(s).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20240008050) in view of Nemeth et al. (US 20230261798).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses a terminal comprising: a transceiver that receives system information; and a processor (UE210, Fig. 2A) that
determines that setting using a configuration of a downlink bandwidth part (DL-BWP) for a reduced capability User Equipment (RedCapUE) and a configuration of an uplink bandwidth part (UL-BWP) for the RedCapUE is executable, wherein the configuration of the DL-BWP for the RedCapUE and the configuration of the UL-BWP for the RedCapUE are configured by the system information (UE may be configured with one or more downlink BWPs and one or more uplink BWPs. downlink BWP from a set of configured downlink BWPs may be linked with an uplink BWP from a set of configured uplink BWPs. For unpaired spectra, a UE may expect that a center frequency for a downlink BWP is the same as a center frequency for an uplink BWP. Wireless device may be a capability-reduced wireless device type. base station may transmit to a wireless device one or more RRC messages (e.g., MIB, SIB1, SIB2, etc.) comprising configuration parameters of a cell; [0130-0131, 0313, 0321]),
wherein, in response to detecting that the configuration for the DL-BWP for the RedCapUE is not configured in the system information, the processor determines that setting using a configuration of a DL-BWP for a non-RedCapUE is executable, the configuration of the DL-BWP for the non-RedCapUE being configured by the system information (In response to the one or more R bits of the MIB message being set to second value(s), the capability-reduced wireless device may determine that the second SIB1 message, dedicated for the capability-reduced wireless device type, is not transmitted by the base station and/or the base station does not support an access of the capability-reduced wireless device type. In an example, the capability-reduced wireless device may perform a cell search procedure for finding another cell transmitting a MIB having the one or more R bits being set to the first value(s). In an example, the capability-reduced wireless device may fall back to apply configuration parameters of the MIB message as a normal capability wireless device. the configuration parameters of the cell may comprise configuration parameters of one or more RA search spaces (e.g., ra-SearchSpace) of a control resource set (CORESET) on an initial downlink BWP of the cell; [0320, 0326]),
wherein, in response to detecting that the configuration for the UL-BWP for the RedCapUE is not configured in the system information, the processor determines that setting using a configuration of a UL-BWP for the non-RedCapUE is executable, the configuration of the UL-BWP for the non-RedCapUE being configured by the system information (In response to the one or more R bits of the MIB message being set to second value(s), the capability-reduced wireless device may determine that the second SIB1 message, dedicated for the capability-reduced wireless device type, is not transmitted by the base station and/or the base station does not support an access of the capability-reduced wireless device type. In an example, the capability-reduced wireless device may perform a cell search procedure for finding another cell transmitting a MIB having the one or more R bits being set to the first value(s). In an example, the capability-reduced wireless device may fall back to apply configuration parameters of the MIB message as a normal capability wireless device. the configuration parameters of the cell may comprise one or more 4-step RA RACH configurations (rach-ConfigCommon) for the 4-step RA on an initial (uplink) BWP of the cell. the configuration parameters may comprise one or more 2-step RA RACH configurations (RACH-ConfigCommonTwoStepRA) for a RA with a 2-step RA type on an initial (uplink) BWP of the cell; [0320-0323]).
Zhou does not expressly disclose wherein, when a supported number of reception branches is one, a maximum number of DL-Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) layers supported by the terminal is one; and when the supported number of reception branches is two, the maximum number of MIMO layers supported by the terminal is two.
In an analogous art, Nemeth discloses wherein, when a supported number of reception branches is one, a maximum number of DL-Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) layers supported by the terminal is one (limiting the maximum number of DL MIMO layers to one DL MIMO layer in an event that the UE has one Rx branch; [0059]); and
when the supported number of reception branches is two, the maximum number of MIMO layers supported by the terminal is two (limiting the maximum number of DL MIMO layers to two DL MIMO layers in an event that the UE has two Rx branches; [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features taught by Nemeth into the system of Zhou in order to achieve complexity reduction in NR reduced-capability UE devices in mobile communications in an efficient manner (Nemeth; [0006]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhou and Nemeth, particularly Zhou discloses wherein the processor determines that a center frequency of the DL-BWP for the RedCapUE is a same as a center frequency of the ULBWP for the RedCapUE (UE may expect that a center frequency for a downlink BWP is the same as a center frequency for an uplink BWP. Wireless device may be a capability-reduced wireless device type; [0130-0131, 0313]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhou and Nemeth, particularly Zhou discloses wherein the processor executes setting using the configuration of the UL-BWP for the RedCapUE (base station may transmit to a wireless device one or more RRC messages (e.g., BWP-UplinkCommon IE) comprising configuration parameters of a RA procedure on an uplink BWP of a cell (e.g., PCell, or a SCell); [0272]), and
wherein the transceiver transmits a message of a random access in the UL-BWP for the RedCapUE (configuration parameters of the cell may comprise one or more 4-step RA RACH configurations (rach-ConfigCommon) for the 4-step RA on an initial (uplink) BWP of the cell. Each rach-ConfigCommon may comprise a maximum number (e.g., preambleTransMax) of RA preamble transmission performed, for a 4-step RA type, before declaring a failure of the RA procedure; [0322]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhou and Nemeth, particularly Zhou discloses wherein the processor determines that the DL-BWP for the RedCapUE is an active BWP for a connected mode (for FDD systems, when configured with BA, one UL BWP for each uplink carrier and one DL BWP may be active at a time in an active serving cell. In an example, for TDD systems, one DL/UL BWP pair may be active at a time in an active serving cell. Operating on the one UL BWP and the one DL BWP (or the one DL/UL pair) may improve wireless device battery consumption. BWPs other than the one active UL BWP and the one active DL BWP that the wireless device may work on may be deactivated; [0248]), and
wherein the transceiver receives a synchronization signal in the DL-BWP for the RedCapUE (the configuration parameters of the cell may comprise configuration parameters of one or more RA search spaces (e.g., ra-SearchSpace) of a control resource set (CORESET) on an initial downlink BWP of the cell. Configuration parameters of each RA search space may comprise an SSB index or an SSB group index, indicating the RA search space is associated with an SSB identified by the SSB index, or a group of SSBs identified by the SSB group index; [0326]).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as in claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is a combination of the terminal of claim 7 and the base station of claim 12, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as in claims 7 and 12.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sogabe et al. (US 20240064588), “Determining whether a base station is capable of communicating with a capability-limited user equipment having a limited communication capability.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OUSSAMA ROUDANI whose telephone number is (571)272-4727. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, UN C CHO can be reached at (571) 272 7919. 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.
/OUSSAMA ROUDANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
