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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2024, and 09/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations “communication unit configured to receive”, “control unit configured to expect”, “control unit expects”, “communication unit transmits,” “communication unit receives,” “communication unit configured to transmit,” and “control unit uses”, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “receive”, “expect”, “transmit,” “receive,” and “use” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 7-13 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows lack of sufficient and adequate structure (or material or algorithm) for performing the above functions.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 7-13 are rejected under 112(b) because the specification does not disclose adequate and sufficient structure (or material or acts or algorithm) for performing the recited functions (invoking the 112, sixth paragraph) in the claims resulting in no definite boundaries.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al. (US 20240008050).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou discloses a terminal (UE210, Fig. 2A) comprising:
a communication unit configured to receive system information (UE may request one or more system information blocks; [0183]); and
a control unit configured to expect that a configuration using a configuration related to DL-BWP (Downlink Bandwidth part) for RedCap UE (Reduced Capability UE) and a configuration related to UL-BWP (Uplink Bandwidth part) for RedCap UE that are configured by the system information can be used (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; [0130-0131, 0313]).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou discloses wherein the control unit expects that a center frequency of the DL-BWP for RedCap UE is to be same as a center frequency of the UL-BWP for RedCap UE (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, Zhou discloses wherein the control unit uses a configuration that uses the configuration related to the UL-BWP for RedCap UE (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
the communication unit transmits a message related to random access in the UL-BWP for RedCap UE (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, Zhou discloses wherein the control unit expects that the DL-BWP for RedCap UE is to be an active BWP in 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
the communication unit receives a synchronization signal in the DL-BWP for RedCap UE (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.
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 20240008050) in view of Lee et al. (US 20250280452).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou does not expressly disclose wherein the control unit expects that a configuration using a configuration related to DL-BWP for non-RedCap UE configured by the system information can be used in a case where the configuration related to the DL-BWP for RedCap UE is not configured by the system information, and expects that a configuration using a configuration related to UL-BWP for non-RedCap UE configured by the system information can be used in a case where the configuration related to the UL-BWP for RedCap UE is not configured by the system information.
In an analogous art, Lee discloses wherein the control unit expects that a configuration using a configuration related to DL-BWP for non-RedCap UE configured by the system information can be used in a case where the configuration related to the DL-BWP for RedCap UE is not configured by the system information (it is assumed that the RedCap UE is configured with an initial UL/DL BWP based on SIB1 shared with or separated from that of the legacy UE. The initial UL BWP of the RedCap UE may be set smaller than the initial BWP of the legacy UE. The initial UL BWP of the RedCap UE may completely or partially overlap with the initial BWP of the legacy UE. The RedCap UE and legacy UE may share a resource (e.g., random access occasion (RO)) for transmitting a PRACH preamble in the initial UL BWP; [0088]), and
expects that a configuration using a configuration related to UL-BWP for non-RedCap UE configured by the system information can be used in a case where the configuration related to the UL-BWP for RedCap UE is not configured by the system information (ROs of the RedCap UE are completely included in ROs of the legacy UE, but the number of ROs of the RedCap UE may be set differently (to be small) due to the smaller initial UL BWP of the RedCap UE. In the frequency domain, the initial DL BWP of the RedCap UE may be configured such that the initial DL BWP of the RedCap UE is smaller than the initial BWP of the legacy UE and completely or partially overlaps with the initial BWP of the legacy UE; [0088]).
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 Lee into the system of Zhou in order to ensure that a random access procedure can be performed more efficiently in a wireless communication system in which terminals of different types coexist (Lee; [0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turtinen et al. (US 20230133904), “ENABLING ACCESS FOR A REDUCED CAPABILITY NEW RADIO (NR) DEVICE.”
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