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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102(a)2
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 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 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) 16-20,22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Kim (US 11638311 B2).
Regarding claim(s) 16,22, Lee discloses a method performed by a reduced capability user equipment (Redcap UE) in a wireless communication system (See ¶ 43), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a master information block (MIB) including resource allocation information for control resource set (CORESET) #0 (See Fig(s). 2B, See ¶ 51-52, The terminal receives necessary information from the base station before the terminal enters the RRC_CONNECTED state, such as SIB2 reception, paging reception, and random access response message reception by using the CORESETs and SSs configured in SIB1. CORESET #0 2B-02 configured in MIB and CORESET #0);
receiving, from the base station, a configuration for initial downlink bandwidth part (DL BWP) for the Redcap UE (See ¶ 51, CORESET #0 and SS #0 may be configured in the IBWP.); and
in case that the initial DL BWP does not contain the CORESET #0, configuring a first common search space for random access (RA) based on the configuration for the initial DL BWP for the Redcap UE, (See ¶ 42, 52, 72-73, The RedCap UE uses the values indicated in the MIB when controlResourceSetZero_RedCap and searchSpaceZero_RedCap are not included in PDCCH-ConfigCommon2 and controlResourceSetZero and searchSpaceZero are not included in PDCCH-ConfigCommon. …See ¶ 63, TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 DownlinkConfigCommon This is a common downlink configuration of the serving cell. It consists of subfields such as frequencyInfoDL, initialDownlinkBWP….See Fig(s). 3, See ¶ 55, In a network consisting of a RedCap UE 3A-01, a base station 3A-03 and an AMF 3A-05, the RedCap UE receives system information, determines whether to bar a cell, performs cell reselection, monitors a paging message, selects and applies cell common configuration information and transmits and receives RRC control messages.), and
configuring a second common search space for paging and system information based on the CORESET #0 (See ¶ 145, The integer indicating the configuration of the second CORESET0, the integer indicating the configuration of the second SS0, and the first random access search space are included in the first PDCCH (Physical Downlink Control Channel) common configuration information of the downlink initial bandwidth part configuration information.).
Further with regards to claim 22, Lee discloses a transceiver and controller (See Fig(s). 5A)
Regarding claim(s) 17,23, Lee discloses wherein the configuration for initial DL BWP is received in a radio resource control (RRC) message (See Fig(s). 3, See ¶ 55, In a network consisting of a RedCap UE 3A-01, a base station 3A-03 and an AMF 3A-05, the RedCap UE receives system information, determines whether to bar a cell, performs cell reselection, monitors a paging message, selects and applies cell common configuration information and transmits and receives RRC control messages.).
Regarding claim(s) 18, 24,Lee discloses wherein the configuration for initial DL BWP does not include search space for paging (See ¶ 73).
Regarding claim(s) 19,25, Lee discloses where in the configuration for initial DL BWP does not include search space for other system information (See ¶ 72-73, The RedCap UE uses the values indicated in the MIB when controlResourceSetZero_RedCap and searchSpaceZero_RedCap are not included in PDCCH-ConfigCommon2 and controlResourceSetZero and searchSpaceZero are not included in PDCCH-ConfigCommon ).
Regarding claim(s) 20,26, Lee discloses , in case that a bwp-inactivity timer associated with an active DL BWP expires, performing BWP switching based on the configuration for initial DL BWP for the Redcap UE (See Fig(s). 2A, See ¶ 45, With Bandwidth Adaptation (BA), the receive and transmit bandwidth of a UE need not be as large as the bandwidth of the cell and can be adjusted: the width can be ordered to change (e.g. to shrink during period of low activity to save power); the location can move in the frequency domain (e.g. to increase scheduling flexibility); and the subcarrier spacing can be ordered to change (e.g. to allow different services). A subset of the total cell bandwidth of a cell is referred to as a Bandwidth Part (BWP) and BA is achieved by configuring the UE with BWP(s) and telling the UE which of the configured BWPs is currently the active one. See ¶ 78 ra-ContentionResolutionTimer_RedCap. msg1-SubcarrierSpacing included in RACH-ConfigCommon is applied to both normal UEs and RedCap UEs..).
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 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.
Claim(s) 21,27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 11638311 B2). in view of Chen (US 20220377798 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 21,27, Chen discloses in case that a physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions are not configured for an active uplink (UL) BWP; switching the active UL BWP to a BWP indicated by the configuration for initial UL BWP for the Redcap UE (See Fig(s). 7 step S414, See ¶ 196,227,236, The RedCap UE determines whether to perform initial DL BWP switch or not based on the DL BWP in the DCI).
A RedCap UE in a dedicated iBWP, the RedCap UE may need to switch between the dedicated BWP and the primary BWP for RS reception on the serving cells to reduce interruptions.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chen within Lee, so as to maintain continuous communications with devices of interest.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of Claim(s) 16 and 22, Applicant contends inter alia “…The claimed invention is premised on the initial DL BWP for the RedCap UE not including CORESET #0. Whereas, Kim is premised on a case where the base station has not configured resources for the RedCap UE through an RRC message to the UE. Accordingly, Applicants submit that Kim is clearly distinct from the claimed invention.…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, first off Anticipatory reference need not duplicate, word for word, what is in the claims; anticipation can occur when claimed limitation is “inherent” or otherwise implicit in relevant reference (Standard Havens products Incorporated v. Gencor Industries Incorporated, 21 USPQ2d1321).
Second, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
With that said, Examiner asserts Kim explicitly teachs/suggests “from the base station, a configuration for initial downlink bandwidth part (DL BWP) for the Redcap UE (See ¶ 51, CORESET #0 and SS #0 may be configured in the IBWP. One CORESET and a plurality of SSs may be additionally configured in the IBWP.) Further see Table 4 which illustrates IBWP for first and second downlink IBWP.
Applicant further contends inter alia “…Kim does not discloses a scenario where CORESET #0 is absent from initial DL BWP…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, Kim discloses (See ¶ 51, CORESET #0 and SS #0 may be configured in the IBWP. ). It is noted the Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. The Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Thus with that said, Examiner asserts that one of skill in the art will appreciate that Kim although does not explicitly state as verbatim DL BWP does not contain CORESET #0 however it can be interpreted and argued that the teaching of Kim is implied that CORESET #0 can be either present or absent since Kim states that CORESET#0 may be configured within the IBWP.
Applicant is advised a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention." MPEP §2141.02.VI, (Rev. 6, Sept. 2007) (citing W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
Furthermore in order t0 establish a case of patentability (against an Office Action), the Applicant must provide some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the conclusion that the cited reference(s) fails to teach/suggest the contended limitation(s). The Applicant must do more than merely "recite" each limitation and claim as being not taught within the referenced art(s).
While Examiner believes all of Applicant’s contentions have been appropriately addressed in this Office Action, however, failure to address a specific issue or comment, does not signify agreement with or concession of that issue or comment. Finally, the arguments made above are not intended to be exhaustive, and therefore nothing in this Action should be construed as an intent to concede with any issue with regard to any claim, except as specifically stated in this Office Action.
Thus, based on the foregoing reasoning’s’ Examiner asserts the cited references either alone or in combination teach/suggest limitations of claims 16-26 and therefore the rejection to said claims is sustained.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ JAIN whose telephone number is (571)-272-3145. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached 571-272-2123. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RAJ JAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights