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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed June 11, 2026. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended, and claims 19 and 20 have been added. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Accordingly, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the amended claims “are not satisfied merely by a generic ability to switch between BWPs; rather, the claims require configuration information indicating a plurality of simultaneous initial BWPs and the recited failure-based use of the second initial BWP” (Remarks, page 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the recited “plurality of simultaneous initial bandwidth parts” is given its plain meaning of a plurality of initial bandwidth parts that exist concurrently, that is, at the same time; the claim language does not require the wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) to simultaneously operate on, or to simultaneously monitor, more than one initial bandwidth part.
Although the specification describes “simultaneous operation over multiple initial BWPs” (Spec. para. 0138), that operational feature is not recited in the claims, and limitations appearing only in the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Ljung discloses that a network node configures and broadcasts, in control information including SIB1, an indication of a plurality of initial bandwidth parts that are provided to the wireless device for random access and that are separated in the frequency domain for spectrum diversity to avoid interference. (Ljung, pg. 16, lines 1-7; Ljung, pg. 16, lines 15-22; Ljung, pg. 13, lines 20-23; Ljung, pg. 13, lines 25-30.) Because Ljung’s plurality of initial bandwidth parts are concurrently configured and concurrently indicated to the wireless device, they constitute a plurality of simultaneous initial bandwidth parts as claimed. That the wireless device may then select a preferred one of the plurality for random access does not detract from the configuration indicating a plurality of simultaneous initial bandwidth parts, which is what the claim requires.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “Lee’s procedure is therefore a sequential active-BWP switching procedure” and that “the cited portions of Lee do not disclose that the first and second BWPs are simultaneous initial BWPs” (Remarks, pages 2-3), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The rejection does not rely on Lee to teach a plurality of simultaneous initial bandwidth parts. That limitation is taught by Ljung, as set forth above and in the rejection below. Lee is relied on only for its teaching that, upon a failure to decode a transmission on a first (activated) bandwidth part, for example where the WTRU does not receive a PDCCH or a DCI during a certain duration, the WTRU uses a second bandwidth part to perform an uplink transmission to the base station. (Lee, para [130]-[135]; Lee, para [145]; Lee, para [151]-[152].)
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, not whether the features of Lee may be bodily incorporated into Ljung. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the combination, Ljung already provides a plurality of concurrently configured (simultaneous) initial bandwidth parts, so applying Lee’s failure-based teaching to Ljung yields a WTRU that, upon failure to decode a first transmission received on Ljung’s first initial bandwidth part, transmits an uplink transmission using Ljung’s second initial bandwidth part, without any need for Lee’s deactivation and reconfiguration of the first bandwidth part.
As to Applicant’s argument that “[t]he Office Action has not explained why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Ljung’s multiple-initial-BWP initial-access framework to arrive at the claimed failure-based use of a second simultaneous initial BWP” and that “[t]he rejection therefore requires impermissible reconstruction” (Remarks, pages 3-4), any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
As set forth in the rejection below, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Lee’s failure-based use of a second bandwidth part to Ljung’s plurality of frequency-separated initial bandwidth parts in order to predictably improve initial-access robustness by enabling the WTRU to continue communication on an alternative initial bandwidth part when interference or channel conditions prevent successful decoding on the first initial bandwidth part, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful access. This is the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The motivation relied on is drawn from the references themselves and from the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, not from Applicant’s disclosure.
Turning to Applicant’s argument that “neither Ljung nor Lee teaches or suggests the time-domain coexistence recited in claims 19 and 20” (Remarks, page 4), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons given above. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 19 and 20 require that the first initial bandwidth part and the second initial bandwidth part be separately located in the frequency domain and “exist during a same time frame, subframe, duration, period, or symbols in a time domain,” that is, that the two initial bandwidth parts coexist. As set forth above, Ljung’s plurality of initial bandwidth parts are concurrently configured and concurrently indicated to the wireless device, and are separated in the frequency domain for spectrum diversity. (Ljung, pg. 16, lines 1-7; Ljung, pg. 16, lines 15-22; Ljung, pg. 13, lines 20-23; Ljung, pg. 13, lines 25-30; Ljung, pg. 15, lines 15-19.) Ljung’s first and second initial bandwidth parts therefore are separately located in the frequency domain and exist during a same time frame, as claimed. New claims 19 and 20 are accordingly rejected over the same combination of references, as set forth below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments directed to dependent claims 5 and 14 (Remarks, page 4) and to the addition of Shih for claims 4, 6, 13, and 15 (Remarks, page 4) are unpersuasive for the same reasons. Applicant does not separately argue the specific teachings of Shih, and the rejections of claims 4, 6, 13, and 15 stand or fall with the independent claims from which they depend for the reasons given above.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments are not persuasive in view of the rejection set forth below, which presents a new ground of rejection and the rejections are maintained and are restated below to address the amended claim language.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ljung (WO 2020/163672) in view of Lee (WO 2019/059729).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Ljung discloses: A method for use in a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station (BS), configuration information indicating a plurality of simultaneous initial bandwidth parts (BWPs) that comprise a first initial BWP and a second initial BWP, because Ljung teaches broadcasting control information (including SIB1) that is received by a wireless device, where the control information includes information on each of multiple initial bandwidth parts configured and provided by the network node for random access transmission, the multiple initial bandwidth parts being concurrently configured and provided to the wireless device: (Ljung, pg. 16, lines 1-7: “the network node 84 can configure and/or provide multiple initial bandwidth parts over which random access transmission may be performed by wireless device 82”; Ljung, pg. 16, lines 13-14 “BWPs 47 and 48 can be configured as initial BWPs provided by node 43”). In another words, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited plurality of “simultaneous” initial bandwidth parts is a plurality of initial bandwidth parts that exist concurrently; Ljung’s plurality of initial bandwidth parts are concurrently configured and concurrently indicated to the wireless device by the broadcast control information, and therefore are simultaneous initial bandwidth parts.
Furthermore, Ljung discloses: wherein the first initial BWP and the second initial BWP are separated in a frequency domain to avoid interference on at least one of the plurality of initial BWPs; because Ljung teaches segmenting a total system bandwidth into multiple bandwidth parts (i.e., separated frequency portions), and improving initial access performance over unlicensed RF bands using multiple initial bandwidth parts for spectrum diversity in view of interference: (Ljung, pg. 13, lines 25-30 “a total system bandwidth 40 of a network communications system, which may be an unlicensed RF band, can be segmented into multiple subsections or portions referred to herein as bandwidth parts”; Ljung, pg. 15, lines 15-19 “multiple initial bandwidth parts allow for random access on the bandwidth part having less interference, channel occupancy, etc., and therefore a greater chance of successful random access”; Ljung, pg. 20, lines 20-27 “the interference on a bandwidth part in an unlicensed band can differ”).
Although Ljung teaches a plurality of frequency-separated initial bandwidth parts used for initial access: (Ljung, pg. 13, lines 20-23; Ljung, pg. 15, lines 15-19), Ljung does not explicitly disclose sending an uplink transmission on a second initial bandwidth part based on failure to decode a transmission received in a first initial bandwidth part.
However, Ljung in view of Lee discloses and transmitting, based on a failure to decode a first transmission received in the first initial BWP, to the BS, an uplink transmission using the second initial BWP because Lee teaches detecting a problem for an activated bandwidth part, including a case where the WTRU does not receive a PDCCH or a DCI during a certain duration, and, based on detecting a problem for the first bandwidth part, using a second bandwidth part and performing uplink transmission via the second bandwidth part: (Lee, para [130]-[135], “In step S830, if the UE detects a problem of activated BWP, the UE may deactivate or de-configure the activated BWP . . . if the UE does not receive a PDCCH or a DCI during a certain duration, the UE may deactivate or de-configure the activated BWP”; Lee, para [151]-[152], “the UE may activate a second bandwidth part among the multiple bandwidth parts”; Lee, para [145], “the UE may perform uplink transmission to the base station via the activated second BWP”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ljung’s multiple-initial-bandwidth-part initial access arrangement (used to improve initial access performance and mitigate interference in unlicensed spectrum) to incorporate Lee’s problem detection and use of a second bandwidth part such that, upon failure to decode a transmission (e.g., failure to receive or decode a PDCCH or DCI) on a first initial bandwidth part, the WTRU sends an uplink transmission using a second initial bandwidth part, because Lee provides an analogous recovery mechanism for maintaining and repairing communications when decoding failures or lost control information occur on a currently used bandwidth part, thereby predictably improving initial access robustness; and because Ljung already provides the second initial bandwidth part as part of the plurality of concurrently configured initial bandwidth parts, the combination uses Ljung’s second initial bandwidth part for the failure-based uplink transmission taught by Lee.
Regarding claim 2, (Original) Ljung discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the first initial BWP indicates a location of a first set of resource blocks (RBs) in the frequency domain and the second initial BWP indicates a location of a second set of resource blocks (RBs) in the frequency domain, because Ljung teaches that a bandwidth part consists of a group of contiguous physical resource blocks, and that multiple initial bandwidth parts are provided, each corresponding to its own frequency-domain PRB/RB set (i.e., a location in the frequency domain): (Ljung, pg. 9, lines 1-4 “a bandwidth part consists of a group of contiguous physical resource blocks (PRBs)”; Ljung, pg. 14, lines 16-19 “bandwidth allocation 41 is further segmented into bandwidth parts 47-49. Bandwidth allocation 42 is further segmented into bandwidth parts 50-52”).
Regarding claim 3, (Original) Ljung discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the first set of RBs and the second set of RBs are different, because Ljung teaches multiple initial bandwidth parts that are distinct bandwidth parts (different frequency portions), and further explains that a bandwidth part is a contiguous PRB group, such that different initial bandwidth parts correspond to different PRB/RB sets: (Ljung, pg. 9, lines 1-4 “a bandwidth part consists of a group of contiguous physical resource blocks (PRBs)”; Ljung, pg. 14, lines 16-19 “bandwidth allocation 41 is further segmented into bandwidth parts 47-49. Bandwidth allocation 42 is further segmented into bandwidth parts 50-52”).
Regarding claim 5, (Original) Ljung in view of Lee discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, based on failure to decode a second transmission received using the first initial BWP, from the BS, a downlink transmission using the second initial BWP, as Lee further teaches that if a WTRU fails to receive or detect a PDCCH on an active downlink bandwidth part, the WTRU uses a second bandwidth part and monitors the second bandwidth part, including where the second bandwidth part may be used for monitoring paging or system information: (Lee, para [156], “if the UE fails to detect a PDCCH on the active DL BWP even though the network has sent the PDCCH, the UE should switch the active DL BWP to the particular BWP”; Lee, para [151], “a bandwidth part where the UE monitors a paging or system information”; Lee, para [145], “the UE may monitor the second BWP”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Ljung and Lee is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, (Original) Ljung discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration information is a system information block 1 (SIB1), because Ljung teaches broadcasting control information including SIB1 that is received by the wireless device, where SIB1/control information is used to convey information on initial bandwidth parts and associated random access resources: (Ljung, pg. 9, lines 20-23 “the public broadcast channel (PBCH), and system information block 1 (SIB1)”; Ljung, pg. 10, lines 1-4 “the additional information can include system information block 1 (SIB1)”).
Regarding claim 8, (Original) Ljung discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the first initial BWP comprises at least one of a first initial uplink BWP or a first initial downlink BWP, because Ljung teaches that an initial bandwidth part is also known as an initial uplink bandwidth part and refers to a bandwidth part used for random access by a wireless device: (Ljung, pg. 9, lines 5-9 “an initial bandwidth part (also known as an initial uplink bandwidth part) refers to a bandwidth part used for random access by a wireless device”).
Regarding claim 9, (Original) Ljung discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the second initial BWP comprises at least one of a second initial uplink BWP or a second initial downlink BWP, because Ljung teaches multiple initial bandwidth parts over which random access transmission may be performed, including transmitting a random access preamble on either of multiple initial bandwidth parts to initiate uplink communication: (Ljung, pg. 15, lines 12-14 “Electronic device 60 can transmit a random access preamble (RACH initiation) on either initial bandwidth part 50 or initial bandwidth part 51 to initiate uplink communication”; Ljung, pg. 16, lines 1-7 “the network node 84 can configure and/or provide multiple initial bandwidth parts over which random access transmission may be performed”).
Regarding claim 10, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) comprising: a transceiver; and a processor, wherein the transceiver and the processor are configured to: receive, from a base station (BS), configuration information indicating a plurality of simultaneous initial bandwidth parts (BWPs) that comprise a first initial BWP and a second initial BWP, wherein the first initial BWP and the second initial BWP are separated in a frequency domain to avoid interference on at least one of the plurality of initial BWPs; and transmit, based on a failure to decode a first transmission received in the first initial BWP, to the BS, an uplink transmission using the second initial BWP. Claim 10 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the first initial BWP indicates a location of a first set of resource blocks (RBs) in the frequency domain and the second initial BWP indicates a location of a second set of resource blocks (RBs) in the frequency domain. Claim 11 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 11, wherein the first set of RBs and the second set of RBs are different. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the processor and the receiver are further configured to receive, based on failure to decode a second transmission received using the first initial BWP, from the BS, a downlink transmission using the second initial BWP. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the configuration information is a system information block 1 (SIB1). Claim 16 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the first initial BWP comprises at least one of a first initial uplink BWP or a first initial downlink BWP. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the second initial BWP comprises at least one of a second initial uplink BWP or a second initial downlink BWP. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, (New) Ljung discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the first initial BWP and the second initial BWP are separately located in the frequency domain and exist during a same time frame, subframe, duration, period, or symbols in a time domain, because Ljung teaches that the plurality of initial bandwidth parts are concurrently configured and provided to the wireless device and are separated in the frequency domain for spectrum diversity, such that the first initial bandwidth part and the second initial bandwidth part are separately located in the frequency domain and exist during a same time frame: (Ljung, pg. 16, lines 13-14 “BWPs 47 and 48 can be configured as initial BWPs provided by node 43”; Ljung, pg. 14, lines 16-19 “bandwidth allocation 41 is further segmented into bandwidth parts 47-49. Bandwidth allocation 42 is further segmented into bandwidth parts 50-52”). Accordingly, the rationale to combine Ljung and Lee is the same as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, (New) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the first initial BWP and the second initial BWP are separately located in the frequency domain and exist during a same time frame, subframe, duration, period, or symbols in a time domain. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 6, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ljung (WO 2020/163672 A1) in view of Lee (WO 2019/059729) and further in view of Shih (US 10,701,734 B2).
Regarding claim 4, (Original) even though Ljung in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1: (Ljung, pg. 16, lines 1-7; Lee, para [130]-[135]), Ljung in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose that the uplink transmission comprises one or more preambles that are sent using a physical random access channel (PRACH).
However, Ljung in view of Lee and further in view of Shih discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission comprises one or more preambles that are sent using a physical random access channel (PRACH), because Shih teaches transmitting a random access preamble using PRACH, including instructing the physical layer to transmit the preamble using the selected PRACH, and allocating PRACH resources for Msg1 transmission when a random access procedure is initiated (Shih, col. 14, lines 39-43; Shih, col. 25, lines 12-16; Shih, col. 25, lines 17-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ljung in view of Lee to implement the random access preamble transmission using PRACH as taught by Shih, because Shih provides an explicit PRACH-based mechanism for transmitting the random access preamble on a selected bandwidth part, yielding a predictable implementation detail for the uplink preamble transmission contemplated by Ljung and Lee. Ljung and Lee are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, (Original) even though Ljung in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 5: (Ljung, pg. 16, lines 1-7; Lee, para [145]), Ljung in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose that the downlink transmission is a random access response (RAR).
However, Ljung in view of Lee and further in view of Shih discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the downlink transmission is a random access response (RAR), because Shih teaches that Msg2 is a Random Access Response (RAR) of the random access procedure, including referring to Msg2 (RAR) and stating that Msg2 could be a Random Access Response of the random access procedure (Shih, col. 21, lines 49-52; Shih, col. 25, lines 17-19).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Ljung in view of Lee with Shih for the same reasons set forth for claim 4 above. Ljung and Lee are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 10, wherein the uplink transmission comprises one or more preambles that are sent using a physical random access channel (PRACH). Claim 13 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, (Original) the claim recites: The WTRU of claim 14, wherein the downlink transmission is a random access response (RAR). Claim 15 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights