CTNF 18/735,115 CTNF 94960 DETAILED ACTION 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of following informalities: The abstract contains phrases, “Subsequent to this signaling, the network can allocate resource blocks within the frequency band to the UE” (lines 6-7) which refer to purported merits of the invention. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 6-10 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informality: Claim 6 recites, “-- resource block restriction --” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “-- the resource block restriction --” for more clarity. Claim 8 recites, “-- meet emission requirement.” (line 2). It is suggested to replace it with “-- meet the emission requirement.” for more clarity. Claim 16 is objected to at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8. Claims 7-10 and 17-18 are also objected to since they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the objected claims, as set forth above. Appropriate correction is required. 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 4-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US Publication No. 2023/0345231 A1) in view of Li et al (US Publication No. 2020/0022131 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses, a method comprising: processing first signaling of a network indicating an emission requirement with which a user equipment (UE) is to comply for a frequency band [abstract; ¶0011 and 0085, a terminal receives from a base station, information for indicating one or a plurality of values indicating requirements related to spectrum emission in a frequency band; further see ¶0050, in a FR1 (Frequency Range 1), the terminal 20 obtains requirements related to spectrum emission via “Network signalling label” indicated by the network] ; sending, to the network, second signaling indicating whether a resource block restriction within the frequency band is needed to meet the emission requirement [see ¶0043, the terminal 20 transmits “UECapabilityInformation”, i.e., a report of UE capability to the base station 10 and ¶0044, the “UECapabilityInformation” includes an information element “RF-Parameters” including an information element “ modifiedMPR-Behaviour ” indicating a capability related to MPR (Maximum Power Reduction); further seep ¶0057, modifiedMPR-Behaviour” included in the “RF-Parameters” is used for an indication for a case where the MPR or A-MPR supported by the terminal 20, is introduced or changed in a future release version; and ¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that in case where “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is configured in the “RF-Parameters as described in e.g., ¶0055-0056, “in a case where the frequency band is “n41”, the leftmost bit of the bitmap indicates whether a specification related to EN-DC contiguous intraband MPR is supported”, the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour is considered as indicating that NOT all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block restriction) ] . Although Takahashi discloses, processing first signaling of a network indicating an emission requirement with which a user equipment (UE) is to comply for a frequency band; sending, to the network, second signaling indicating whether a resource block restriction within the frequency band is needed to meet the emission requirement” as set forth above, Takahashi does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized and bold limitations), determining, after the second signaling is sent, an allocation of a resource block within the frequency band ; and sending, to the network, uplink traffic by at least using the resource block . However, Li discloses, determining, after the second signaling is sent, an allocation of a resource block within the frequency band; and sending, to the network, uplink traffic by at least using the resource block [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0106-0114, after a bandwidth capability information is reported (S410), the base station allocates a resource in the subband (S420) and performs resource scheduling (S430), and the terminal transmits a signal based on the allocated resource] . It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Takahashi with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Li to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Li into the system of Takahashi would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to reduce uplink latency and improve network efficiency through dynamic resource block allocation, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)). Regarding claim 4, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the second signaling includes an indication of a modified maximum power reduction (MPR) behavior [¶0043-0044 and 0057-0058, UECapbilityinofmraiton including modiifedMPR-Behaviour is transmitted as a second signaling] . Regarding claim 5, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 4 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the indication includes a field, wherein one or more bits of the field are set to indicate whether the resource block restriction is needed to meet the emission requirement [¶0043-0044 and 0057 -0058, the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is an information element for indicating a bitmap of eight bits for each frequency band] . Regarding claim 6, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 5 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the one or more bits are set to a value indicating that the emission requirement is met without resource block restriction [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that the bitmap is set to indicate that all of the NS values are supported for the terminal (i.e., the resource block is unrestricted) ] . Regarding claim 7, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 6 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the allocation of the resource block is unrestricted within the frequency band based on the value of the one or more bits [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block is unrestricted) based on the bitmap ] . Regarding claim 8, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 5 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the one or more bits are set to a value indicating that the resource block restriction is needed to meet emission requirement [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that in case where “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is configured in the “RF-Parameters as described in e.g., ¶0055-0056, “in a case where the frequency band is “n41”, the leftmost bit of the bitmap indicates whether a specification related to EN-DC contiguous intraband MPR is supported”, the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that NOT all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block restriction) to meet emission requirement ] . Regarding claim 9, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 8 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the allocation of the resource block is restricted within the frequency band based on the value of the one or more bits Takahashi discloses, wherein the one or more bits are set to a value indicating that the resource block restriction is needed to meet emission requirement [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that in case where “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is configured in the “RF-Parameters as described in e.g., ¶0055-0056, “in a case where the frequency band is “n41”, the leftmost bit of the bitmap indicates whether a specification related to EN-DC contiguous intraband MPR is supported”, the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that NOT all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block restriction) based on the bitmap ] . Regarding claim 11, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Takahashi further discloses, wherein the resource block restriction [see ¶0058 of Takahashi; supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1 ] is associated with a contiguous set of resource blocks that can be allocated within the frequency band [¶0135, a bandwidth part (BWP) which means a subset of consecutive common RBs; further see [¶0135, a bandwidth part (BWP) which means a subset of consecutive common RBs] . Regarding claim 12, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Takahashi further discloses, wherein the resource block restriction [see ¶0058 of Takahashi; supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1 ] is associated with a set of resource blocks that can be allocated within the frequency band and that can be configured for the UE [¶0135, a bandwidth part (BWP) which means a subset of consecutive common RBs] based on corresponding subcarrier frequencies [¶0131, a resource block (RB) including one or a plurality of consecutive subcarriers in terms of frequency domain] . Regarding claim 13, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the resource block restriction [see ¶0058 of Takahashi; supra rejections as set forth above in claim 1 ] is associated with a set of resource blocks that can be allocated within the frequency band and that can be configured for the UE [¶0135, a bandwidth part (BWP) which means a subset of consecutive common RBs] based on a channel within the frequency band [¶0131, a resource block (RB) including one or a plurality of consecutive subcarriers in terms of frequency domain; note that consecutive subcarriers can be read into a channel in a wireless communication ] . Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features. Thus, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1. Regarding claim 15, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 14 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the second signaling indicates that the emission requirement is met without the resource block restriction [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that the emission requirement is met with the terminal supporting all of the NS values (i.e., without the resource block restriction)] , and wherein the allocation of the resource block is unrestricted within the frequency band based on the second signaling [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block is unrestricted) based on the bitmap ] . Regarding claim 16, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 14 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the second signaling indicates that the resource block restriction is needed to meet emission requirement [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that in case where “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is configured in the “RF-Parameters as described in e.g., ¶0055-0056, “in a case where the frequency band is “n41”, the leftmost bit of the bitmap indicates whether a specification related to EN-DC contiguous intraband MPR is supported”, the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that NOT all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block restriction) ] . Regarding claim 17, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 16 as set forth above. Takahashi discloses, wherein the allocation of the resource block is restricted within the frequency band based on the second signaling [¶0058, in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that in case where “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is configured in the “RF-Parameters as described in e.g., ¶0055-0056, “in a case where the frequency band is “n41”, the leftmost bit of the bitmap indicates whether a specification related to EN-DC contiguous intraband MPR is supported”, the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that NOT all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block restriction) based on the bitmap ] . Regarding claim 19, Takahashi discloses, an apparatus [FIG. 3; its related descriptions; terminal 20] , comprising: processing circuitry configured to be communicatively coupled with a transmitter and to perform operations [FIG. 14; its related descriptions; ¶0068, control unit 240/processing circuitry coupled with a transmitting unit and to perform operations; note that every terminal device has at least one processor ] . Since claim 19 recites similar feature to claim 1 without additional features, claim 19 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US Publication No. 2023/0345231 A1) in view of Li et al (US Publication No. 2020/0022131 A1) and further in view of Tervo et al (US Publication No. 2023/0156630 A1) . Regarding claim 2, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Takahashi in view of Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Tervo discloses, wherein a power class of the UE is associated with a maximum power reduction (MPR) [¶0030, for power class 3 (handheld UE), the MPR values are defined in the 3GPP Specification] , and wherein the emission requirement is met without an additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) [¶0036, the Total MPR may be determined based on RI-MPR and MPR values (e.g., without the A-MPR value ); note that the MPR is used to meet emission requirements ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Tervo in the system of Takahashi in view of Li in order to provide the system with enhanced flexibility in selecting a total maximum power reduction value [e.g., ¶0036 of Tervo] . Regarding claim 10, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 8 as set forth above. Although Takahashi in view of Li discloses, wherein the allocation of the resource block is unrestricted within the frequency band [ see ¶0058 of Takahashi , in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block is unrestricted) based on the bitmap ] , and wherein the uplink traffic is transmitted from the UE to the network . . . [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0106-0114, after a bandwidth capability information is reported (S410), the base station allocates a resource in the subband (S420) and performs resource scheduling (S430), and the terminal transmits a signal (i.e., uplink traffic from the terminal is received) based on the allocated resource] [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0106-0114, after a bandwidth capability information is reported (S410), the base station allocates a resource in the subband (S420) and performs resource scheduling (S430), and the terminal transmits a signal based on the allocated resource] , Takahashi in view of Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Terso discloses, wherein a power class of the UE is associated with a maximum power reduction (MPR) [¶0030, for power class 3 (handheld UE), the MPR values are defined in the 3GPP Specification] , wherein the uplink traffic is transmitted from the UE to the network without an additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) [¶0036, the Total MPR may be determined based on RI-MPR and MPR values (e.g., without the A-MPR value ); note that the MPR is used to meet emission requirements ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Tervo in the system of Takahashi in view of Li for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2. Regarding claim 18, Takahashi in view of Li discloses, the method of claim 16 as set forth above. Although Takahashi in view of Li discloses, wherein the allocation of the resource block is unrestricted within the frequency band [ see ¶0058 of Takahashi , in a case where the “modifiedMPR-Behaviour” is not configured in the “RF-Parameters”: the base station 10 may identify that the terminal 20 supports all of the NS values that are specified for the corresponding frequency band, and are explained with reference to FIG. 7 and FIG. 9; which means that the bitmap of modifiedMPR-Behaviour (i.e., second signaling) is considered as indicating that all of the NS values are supported (i.e., resource block is unrestricted) based on the bitmap ] and wherein the uplink traffic is received . . . [FIG. 4; its related descriptions; ¶0106-0114, after a bandwidth capability information is reported (S410), the base station allocates a resource in the subband (S420) and performs resource scheduling (S430), and the terminal transmits a signal (i.e., uplink traffic from the terminal is received) based on the allocated resource] , Takahashi in view of Li does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Tervo discloses, wherein a power class of the UE is associated with a maximum power reduction (MPR) [¶0030, for power class 3 (handheld UE), the MPR values are defined in the 3GPP Specification] , wherein the uplink traffic is received without an additional maximum power reduction (A-MPR) [¶0036, the Total MPR may be determined based on RI-MPR and MPR values (e.g., without the A-MPR value ); note that the MPR is used to meet emission requirements ] . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Tervo in the system of Takahashi in view of Li for similar rationales set forth above in claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al (US Publication No. 2023/0345231 A1) in view of Li et al (US Publication No. 2020/0022131 A1) and further in view of Tervo et al (US Publication No. 2023/0156630 A1) and further in view of “PC2 A-MPR for bands n7 and n28”, 3GPP TSG-RAN4 Meeting #108bis Xiamen, China, 9-13 October 2023 (R4-2316694) (hereinafter “3GPP1”) . Regarding claim 3, Takahashi in view of Li and Tervo discloses, the method of claim 2 as set forth above. Takahashi in view of Li and Tervo does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but 3GPP1 discloses, wherein the first signaling indicates that the frequency band is frequency band number twenty-eight (n28) [section 2.2, while dual duplexer assumption has been applied for LTE and PC3 for NR, the actual design trends are moving towards a single duplexer which covers the full band n28 ] , wherein the power class is a power class two (PC2) or a power class three (PC3) [section 2.2, while dual duplexer assumption has been applied for LTE and PC3 for NR, the actual design trends are moving towards a single duplexer which covers the full band n28] , and wherein the uplink traffic is transmitted from the UE to the network by using at least a full-band duplexer of the UE [section 2.2, while dual duplexer assumption has been applied for LTE and PC3 for NR, the actual design trends are moving towards a single duplexer which covers the full band n28 ] . It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a well-known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide well-established standard of providing the above-mentioned well-known feature, as taught by 3GPP1 in the system of Takahashi in view of Li and Tervo, so that it would provide interoperability and compatibility between telecommunication equipment vendors and service providers, thereby providing users with easier and faster seamless transition regardless where the users are located in the country/world Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ioffe et al (US Publication No. 2023/0345229 A1) [¶0024] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm(M-T). 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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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. /SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/735,115 Page 2 Art Unit: 2469
Prosecution Insights