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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12, 14, 19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With respect to the claim(s), the prior art of record fails to disclose singly or in combination or render obvious all the limitations of the claim(s). The prior art does not teach or suggest situations wherein in a case that the network device is not equipped with a capability to identify the first signaling, ignoring the first signaling, identifying the second signaling to acquire the second maximum uplink MIMO layer number, and configuring the MIMO layer number for the UE based on the second maximum uplink MIMO layer number; and in a case that the network device is equipped with the capability to identify the first signaling, ignoring the second signaling, identifying the first signaling to acquire the first maximum uplink MIMO layer number, and configuring the MIMO layer number for the UE based on the first maximum uplink MIMO layer number.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-5, 11, 16, 18, 26-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220393740 A1 to Nimbalker; Ajit et al.
Re: Claim(s) 1, 11, 26-31
Nimbalker discloses a reporting method, applied to a User Equipment (UE) (Fig. 7a),
and comprising: reporting, through a first signaling, to a network device a maximum uplink Multiple-In Multiple-Out (MIMO) layer number supported by the UE (Fig. 7a – 700 and 704. 0117 - wireless device 400 may set a first capability indication (maxLayersMIMO-Indication) that indicates that the UE supports a maxLayersMIMO configuration on a carrier. In some embodiments, the maxLayersMIMO-Indication comprises a per UE indication),
and reporting, through a second signaling, to the network device a maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE (Fig. 7a – 702 and 704. 0118 - wireless device 400 may set a second capability indication (maxLayersMIMO-Indication-BWP) that indicates that the UE supports a maxLayersMIMO configuration on a BWP-specific basis on the carrier. 0119 - In some other embodiments, the maxLayersMIMO-Indication-BWP comprises a per UE indication),
wherein the maximum uplink MIMO layer number reported through the first signaling is different from the maximum uplink MIMO layer number reported through the second signaling (0120 - The configuration may comprise a configuration for a plurality of BWPs, wherein configuration for each of the plurality of the BWPs comprises a maximum number of MIMO Layers for the corresponding BWP according to some embodiments. In these embodiments, the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one BWP is smaller than the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one other BWP);
or reporting, through at least one of the first signaling or the second signaling, to the network device a maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE, wherein the maximum uplink MIMO layer number reported through the first signaling is the same as the maximum uplink MIMO layer number reported through the second signaling (See id. The Examiner notes that the construction of the claim is in the alternative and the previous alternative is taught by Nimbalker).
Nimbalker further discloses:
a corresponding method performed by a network device (Fig. 8a) that further comprises configuring a MIMO layer number for the UE based on at least one of the first signaling and/or or the second signaling (Fig. 8a – 804), as required by claim 11;
a communication device (e.g., UE) comprising a processor, memory, and interface (Fig. 4 – 403, 405, 401), as required by claims 26 and 28;
a communication device (e.g., BS) comprising a processor, memory, and interface circuit (Fig. 5 – 503, 505, 501), as required by claims 27 and 29;
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 1 (Fig. 4 – 405), as required by claim 30; and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 11 (Fig. 5 – 505), as required by claim 31.
Re: Claim(s) 2
Nimbalker discloses wherein the maximum uplink MIMO layer number reported through the first signaling is different from the maximum uplink MIMO layer number reported through the second signaling (0120 - The configuration may comprise a configuration for a plurality of BWPs, wherein configuration for each of the plurality of the BWPs comprises a maximum number of MIMO Layers for the corresponding BWP according to some embodiments. In these embodiments, the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one BWP is smaller than the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one other BWP);
and the reporting, through the first signaling, to the network device the maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE, and reporting, through the second signaling, to the network device the maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE comprise: reporting, through the first signaling, to the network device a first maximum uplink MIMO layer number, and reporting, through the second signaling, to the network device a second maximum uplink MIMO layer (Fig. 7a – 704);
wherein the first maximum uplink MIMO layer number is a number whose reporting is not supported by the second signaling, and the second maximum uplink MIMO layer number is a maximum number, among a number whose reporting is supported by the second signaling, which is smaller than the first maximum uplink MIMO layer number (Implicit – see at least 0117-0119. The first capability indication is a maxLayersMIMO configuration for the UE. The second capability indication is a maxLayersMIMO configuration for a BWP. The Examiner notes that this would be a subset of the total bandwidth and thus would be smaller than the first capability indication which is not BWP specific).
Re: Claim(s) 3
Nimbalker discloses wherein the reporting, through the at least one of the first signaling or the second signaling, to the network device the maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE comprises: reporting, through the first signaling, to the network device a third maximum uplink MIMO layer number, and reporting, through the second signaling, to the network device the third maximum uplink MIMO layer number; wherein the third maximum uplink MIMO layer number is a number whose reporting is supported by the second signaling (0120 - The configuration may comprise a configuration for a plurality of BWPs, wherein configuration for each of the plurality of the BWPs comprises a maximum number of MIMO Layers for the corresponding BWP according to some embodiments. In these embodiments, the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one BWP is smaller than the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one other BWP. The Examiner notes that multiple BWP configurations can be indicated (i.e., at least a third capability indication). Given that the maximum number of MIMO layers for a given BWP is smaller than that of another BWP, it is implied that the maximum number that is smaller would be a number that is supported by the BWP configuration that supports a higher maximum number of MIMO layers).
Re: Claim(s) 4
Nimbalker discloses wherein the reporting, through the at least one of the first signaling or the second signaling, to the network device the maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE comprises: reporting, through the second signaling, to the network device, a third maximum uplink MIMO layer number; wherein the third maximum uplink MIMO layer number is a number whose reporting is supported by the second signaling (0120 - The configuration may comprise a configuration for a plurality of BWPs, wherein configuration for each of the plurality of the BWPs comprises a maximum number of MIMO Layers for the corresponding BWP according to some embodiments. In these embodiments, the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one BWP is smaller than the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one other BWP. The Examiner notes that multiple BWP configurations can be indicated (i.e., at least a third capability indication). Given that the maximum number of MIMO layers for a given BWP is smaller than that of another BWP, it is implied that the maximum number that is smaller would be a number that is supported by the BWP configuration that supports a higher maximum number of MIMO layers).
Re: Claim(s) 5, 18
Nimbalker discloses wherein a number whose reporting is supported by the second signaling comprises at least one of 1 layer, 2 layers or 4 layers (Nimbalker discloses that the capability indications include a maximum number of layers and that each indication is for a different maximum number of layers (see at least 0117-0119). Therefore, at least 1 layer would be necessary to be supported by the second capability indication).
Re: Claim(s) 16
Nimbalker discloses wherein the acquiring the at least one of the first signaling or the second signaling reported by the UE comprises: acquiring the second signaling reported by the UE (Fig. 7a – 704 and Fig. 8a – 802),
wherein the second signaling comprises a third maximum uplink MIMO layer number supported by the UE (0120 - The configuration may comprise a configuration for a plurality of BWPs, wherein configuration for each of the plurality of the BWPs comprises a maximum number of MIMO Layers for the corresponding BWP according to some embodiments. In these embodiments, the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one BWP is smaller than the maximum number of MIMO Layers for at least one other BWP);
wherein the configuring the MIMO layer number for the UE based on the at least one of the first signaling or the second signaling comprises: identifying the second signaling to obtain the third maximum uplink MIMO layer number, and configuring the MIMO layer number for the UE based on the third maximum uplink MIMO layer number (Fig. 7a – 706 and Fig. 8a – 804. The Examiner notes that the fact that the configuration may be for a plurality of BWPs, then the capability indications would at least be for the maxLayersMIMO configuration and a plurality of maxLayersMIMO-Indication-BWP (i.e. at least 3 indications) which would then be used to determine the configuration).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimbalker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210175935 A1 to Kwon; Young Hoon et al.
Re: Claim(s) 6
Nimbalker discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Nimbalker discloses wherein a number whose reporting is supported by the second signaling comprises at least one of 1 layer, 2 layers or 4 layers (Nimbalker discloses that the capability indications include a maximum number of layers and that each indication is for a different maximum number of layers (see at least 0117-0119). Therefore, at least 1 layer would be necessary to be supported by the second capability indication) and the first capability indication would be a number greater than 1 layer.
Nimbalker does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first maximum uplink MIMO layer number is 3 layers, and the second maximum uplink MIMO layer number is 2 layers.
However, attention is directed to Kwon which discloses said limitation as a design choice (0131 - a UE indicates different UE capability regarding a maximum number of MIMO layers depending on supported bandwidth. In one embodiment, the maximum number of MIMO layers the UE supports is N1 for a first bandwidth and the maximum number of MIMO layers the UE supports is N2 for a second bandwidth, wherein N1 is greater than N2. 0136 - a UE indicates separate capability on a maximum number of MIMO layers depending on supported BWP. In one embodiment, the maximum number of MIMO layers the UE supports is N1 for a first BWP and the maximum number of MIMO layers the UE supports is N2 for a second BWP, wherein N1 and N2 can be different. The Examiner notes that Kwon does not appear to impose any limit on the values of N1 and N2 other than that N2 must be less than N1. Therefore, it would be conceivable to one of ordinary skill in the art to have understood that a value N1=3 and N2=2 would be possible).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Nimbalker invention by employing the teaching as taught by Kwon to provide the ability to select values for the maximum number of layers by way of a design choice. The motivation for the combination is given by Kwon (0002-0003).
Claim(s) 8, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nimbalker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20220287025 A1 to Jin; Seungri et al.
Re: Claim(s) 8, 21
Nimbalker discloses those limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim(s) 1 above.
Nimbalker does/do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first signaling comprises a MIMO-LayersUL-v1xyz; wherein a signaling set related to the first signaling comprises at least one of a featureSetsUplinkPerCC-v1xyz signaling, a mimo-CB-PUSCH-v1xyz signaling, a maxNumberMIMO-LayersCB-PUSCH-v1xyz signaling, a maxNumberSRS-ResourcePerSet-v1xyz signaling, or a maxNumberMIMO-LayersNonCB-PUSCH-v1xyz signaling; and an entry corresponding to the MIMO-LayersUL-v1xyz signaling, an entry corresponding to the featureSetsUplinkPerCC-v1xyz signaling, an entry corresponding to the mimo-CB-PUSCH-v1xyz signaling, an entry corresponding to the maxNumberMIMO-LaversCB-PUSCH-v1xyz signaling, an entry corresponding to the maxNumberSRS-ResourcePerSet-v1xyz signaling and an entry corresponding to the maxNumberMIMO-LayersNonCB-PUSCH-v1xyz signaling are consistent.
However, attention is directed to Jin which discloses said limitation (Fig. 6 – 6-20 UE reports capability information to gNB. 0132 and subsequent table - As the information indicating the UE capability, a 1-bit indicator indicating that the maximum number of MIMO layers indicated for each serving cell may have a different value in a predetermined BWP may be included, or the maximum number of MIMO layers supported by the UE for each BWP, which is different from the maximum number of MIMO layers indicated for each serving cell, may be indicated … For reference, according to the current NR standard, the maximum number of MIMO layers for an uplink and a downlink in a serving cell may be provided for each component carrier (CC) in a corresponding band in a band combination, as shown below. The Examiner notes that the claimed parameters are disclosed in the table presented by Jin).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Nimbalker invention by employing the teaching as taught by Jin to provide the ability for a UE to signal capability information to a network device which includes various entries related to maximum MIMO layers supported by a UE. The motivation for the combination is given by Jin (0002, 0007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASHIF SIDDIQUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3188. The examiner can normally be reached on M-R 6:00 EST to 16:00 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KASHIF SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415