CTNF 18/716,259 CTNF 98874 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 This action is in response to communications filed 06/04/2024. Claims 25-43 are currently pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 29 recites: “ two and only radio receivers ”. Examiner believes this was a typographical error and meant to read as ‘two radio receivers’, as such examiner will be interpreting this limitation in this manner. Please correct the claim to reflect the intended claim language . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 35, 37, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Qualcomm (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #116-e, 8.12.2.1, Support for fallback operation for RedCap UEs, R2-2109446) . Regarding claim 35, Qualcomm teaches A method (Qualcomm 2.1: performing steps (method)) comprising: performing as a user equipment of a first type (Qualcomm 2.1 paragraphs 1-4: UE as a RedCap (first type)) ; determining, based on system information of a cell, whether the cell supports user equipments of the first type (Qualcomm pg. 3: “UE can determine from the system information of the target cell whether it should access as a RedCap UE or non-RedCap UE”) , and responsive to determining that the cell does not support the user equipments of the first type, suppressing indicating to the cell that the user equipment is of the first type (Qualcomm proposal 4: when a RedCap UE capable of fallback operation accesses through a legacy cell, it should update CN by NAS signaling that it operates as non-RedCap) , and providing to the cell an indication of radio access capabilities of the user equipment (Qualcomm proposal 5: a RedCap UE capable of fallback operation keeps two versions of its UE capabilities report, one for cells in which it is capable of functioning as a spec-compliant non-RedCap UE) . Regarding claim 37, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the user equipment complies with a bandwidth criterion which comprises either a maximum bandwidth of 20 MHz within a frequency range of 600 - 6000 MHz (Qualcomm 2.1: 20 MHz max bandwidth, 2496 MHz) , or a maximum bandwidth of 100 MHz within a frequency range of 26 - 47 GHz. Regarding claim 40, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the method comprises performing the suppressing of the indicating to the cell that the user equipment is of the first type in a random access procedure (Qualcomm 2.2: when acting as a non RedCap device- will not behave as RedCap device and will therefore not send a RedCap indication in Msg3) . Regarding claim 41, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 40 (the limitations of parent claim 40 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the method comprises performing the suppressing the indicating to the cell that the user equipment is of the first type in a msg3 message of the random access procedure (Qualcomm 2.2: when acting as a non RedCap device- will not behave as RedCap device and will therefore not send a RedCap indication in Msg3) . Regarding claim 42, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the method comprises providing to the cell the indication of radio access capabilities of the user equipment as two sub-indications, a first sub-indication of radio access capabilities of user equipments of the first type for a first frequency range and a second sub-indication of radio access capabilities of user equipments not of the first type for a second frequency range. (Qualcomm Pg. 2: Option 1. A RedCap UE capable of fallback operation keeps two versions of its UE capabilities report (two indications), one for cells in which it is capable of functioning as a spec-compliant non-RedCap UE, and another for cells in which it can function only as a RedCap UE, “UE explicitly indicates whether it supports RedCap only or RedCap with fallback capability during capability signaling. The capability for fallback operation is per-band”, UE capability signaling, feasibility of fallback operation depends on frequency band. Therefore, UE’s fallback capability should be per-band. (different frequency ranges)) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 25-34, 36, 38-39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qualcomm (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #116-e, 8.12.2.1, Support for fallback operation for RedCap UEs, R2-2109446) in view of Li (Pub. No.: US 2024/0389134 A1) . Regarding claim 25, Qualcomm teaches …perform as a user equipment of a first type (Qualcomm 2.1 paragraphs 1-4: UE as a RedCap (first type)) ; determine, based on system information of a cell, whether the cell supports user equipments of the first type (Qualcomm pg. 3 proposal 9: RedCap can learn from neighbor cells which one of them supports RedCap. If there is no neighbor cell that supports RedCap but at least one neighbor cell to which the UE can access as a non-RedCap UE, then the source cell may handover the UE to one of those legacy neighbor cells. The UE can determine from the system information of the target cell whether it should access as a RedCap UE or non-RedCap UE) , and responsive to determining that the cell does not support the user equipments of the first type, suppress indicating to the cell that the user equipment is of the first type (Qualcomm proposal 4: when a RedCap UE capable of fallback operation accesses through a legacy cell, it should update CN by NAS signaling that it operates as non-RedCap) , and provide to the cell an indication of radio access capabilities of the user equipment (Qualcomm proposal 5: a RedCap UE capable of fallback operation keeps two versions of its UE capabilities report, one for cells in which it is capable of functioning as a spec-compliant non-RedCap UE) . Qualcomm does not explicitly teach the structure elements for performing the steps. However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches An apparatus comprising at least one processing core (Li [0008]: apparatus with processor) , at least one memory including computer program code (Li [0072-0075]: memory with computer-executable code) , the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to:… It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and include an apparatus with a processing core and memory with computer code. Doing so would provide structure for implementing the recited steps and improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 26, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches …wherein the reduced capability user equipment has reduced capability with respect to user equipments not of the first type in regard to one or more of the following: a maximum bandwidth, a number of radio receivers, a number of downlink multiple input multiple output layers (Qualcomm pg. 2 proposal 5: number of DL (downlink) MIMO (multiple input multiple output) layers) , a maximum supported modulation order and duplex operation capability. Qualcomm does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the first type comprises a fifth generation, 5G, reduced capability user equipment. However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches …wherein the first type comprises a fifth generation, 5G, reduced capability user equipment (Li [0027-0028] and [0004-0007]: 5G for RedCap UEs) ,… It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and have the first type comprises a fifth generation, 5G, reduced capability user equipment. Doing so would improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 27, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the user equipment complies with a bandwidth criterion which comprises either a maximum bandwidth of 20 MHz within a frequency range of 600 - 6000 MHz (Qualcomm 2.1: 20 MHz max bandwidth, 2496 MHz) , or a maximum bandwidth of 100 MHz within a frequency range of 26 - 47 GHz. Regarding claim 28, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm appears to be silent regarding the apparatus comprising one and only one radio receiver. However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches wherein the apparatus comprises one and only one radio receiver (Li fig. 13) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and have the apparatus comprising one and only one radio receiver. Doing so would improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 29, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm does not appear to explicitly teach the apparatus comprising two radio receivers. However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches wherein the apparatus comprises two and only radio receivers (Li fig. 2: 2 radio receivers (254)) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and have the apparatus comprising two radio receivers. Doing so would improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 30, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to suppress the indicating to the cell that the user equipment is of the first type in a random access procedure (Qualcomm 2.2: when acting as a non RedCap device- will not behave as RedCap device and will therefore not send a RedCap indication in Msg3) . Regarding claim 31, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 30 (the limitations of parent claim 30 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein apparatus is configured to perform the suppressing of the indicating to the cell that the user equipment is of the first type in a msg3 message of the random access procedure (Qualcomm 2.2: when acting as a non RedCap device- will not behave as RedCap device and will therefore not send a RedCap indication in Msg3) . Regarding claim 32, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to provide to the cell the indication of radio access capabilities of the user equipment as two sub- indications, a first sub-indication of radio access capabilities of user equipments of the first type for a first frequency range and a second sub-indication of radio access capabilities of user equipments not of the first type for a second frequency range. (Qualcomm Pg. 2: Option 1. A RedCap UE capable of fallback operation keeps two versions of its UE capabilities report (two indications), one for cells in which it is capable of functioning as a spec-compliant non-RedCap UE, and another for cells in which it can function only as a RedCap UE, “UE explicitly indicates whether it supports RedCap only or RedCap with fallback capability during capability signaling. The capability for fallback operation is per-band”, UE capability signaling, feasibility of fallback operation depends on frequency band. Therefore, UE’s fallback capability should be per-band. (different frequency ranges)) Regarding claim 33, Qualcomm modified by Li teaches The apparatus according to claim 25 (the limitations of parent claim 25 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to provide to the cell the indication of radio access capabilities of the user equipment as radio access capability of user equipments not of the first type. (Qualcomm Pg. 2: Option 1. A RedCap UE capable of fallback operation keeps two versions of its UE capabilities report, one for cells in which it is capable of functioning as a spec-compliant non-RedCap UE, and another for cells in which it can function only as a RedCap UE, “UE explicitly indicates whether it supports RedCap only or RedCap with fallback capability during capability signaling. The capability for fallback operation is per-band”) Regarding claim 34, Qualcomm teaches …perform as a user equipment of a first type (Qualcomm 2.1 paragraphs 1-4: UE as a RedCap (first type)) ; receive system information from a cell and determine, based on the system information, whether the cell supports user equipments of the first type (Qualcomm pg. 3: “UE can determine from the system information of the target cell whether it should access as a RedCap UE or non-RedCap UE”) , and consider the cell as barred to the user equipment as a response to determining that the cell does not support the user equipments of the first type (Qualcomm 2.2 cell re-/selection: “RedCap UE capable of fallback operation should always operate as a RedCap UE in a RedCap-supporting cell, e.g. even when the cell signals RedCap UEs are being barred, UEs capable of fallback should not attempt access to this cell as a non-RedCap UE. When a cell indicates RedCap UEs being barred, a RedCap UE capable of fallback operation should not attempt access to this cell as a non-RedCap UE”) . Qualcomm does not appear to explicitly teach an apparatus comprising at least one processing core, at least one memory including computer program code However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches … An apparatus comprising at least one processing core (Li [0008]: apparatus with processor) , at least one memory including computer program code (Li [0072-0075]: memory with computer-executable code) , the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the apparatus at least to:… It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and include an apparatus with a processing core and memory with computer code. Doing so would provide structure for implementing the recited steps and improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 36, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches …wherein the reduced capability user equipment has reduced capability with respect to user equipments not of the first type in regard to one or more of the following: a maximum bandwidth, a number of radio receivers, a number of downlink multiple input multiple output layers (Qualcomm pg. 2 proposal 5: number of DL (downlink) MIMO (multiple input multiple output) layers) , a maximum supported modulation order and duplex operation capability…. Qualcomm does not appear to teach wherein the first type comprises a fifth generation, 5G, reduced capability user equipment . However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches …wherein the first type comprises a fifth generation, 5G, reduced capability user equipment (Li [0027-0028] and [0004-0007]: 5G for RedCap UEs) ,… It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and have the first type comprises a fifth generation, 5G, reduced capability user equipment . Doing so would improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 38, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm does not appear to teach wherein the apparatus comprises one and only one radio receiver. However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches wherein the apparatus comprises one and only one radio receiver (Li fig. 13) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and have the apparatus comprising one radio receiver. Doing so would improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 39, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm does not appear to teach wherein the apparatus comprises two and only two radio receivers. However, Li, in the analogous art of reduced capability UEs, teaches wherein the apparatus comprises two and only two radio receivers (Li fig. 2: 2 radio receivers (254)) . It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Qualcomm to incorporate the teachings of Li and have the apparatus comprising two radio receivers. Doing so would improve wireless communication systems to overcome various challenges (Li [0003]). Regarding claim 43, Qualcomm teaches The method according to claim 35 (the limitations of parent claim 35 as indicated above) , Qualcomm further teaches wherein the method comprises providing to the cell the indication of radio access capabilities of the user equipment as radio access capability of user equipments not of the first type. (Qualcomm Pg. 2: Option 1. A RedCap UE capable of fallback operation keeps two versions of its UE capabilities report, one for cells in which it is capable of functioning as a spec-compliant non-RedCap UE, and another for cells in which it can function only as a RedCap UE, “UE explicitly indicates whether it supports RedCap only or RedCap with fallback capability during capability signaling. The capability for fallback operation is per-band”) Conclusion 07-96 The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Jan et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0080821 A1) discloses configuring a DL BWP (downlink bandwidth part) of a RedCap UE through an IE (information element). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL E MARKS whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-6pm. 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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571)270-7191. 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. /R.E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 2 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 3 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 4 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 5 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 6 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 7 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 8 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 9 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 10 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 11 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 12 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 13 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 14 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 15 Art Unit: 2412 Application/Control Number: 18/716,259 Page 16 Art Unit: 2412
Prosecution Insights