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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 06/17/24 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a signal per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 15-16 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ericsson (“FL summary #4 on reduced maximum UE bandwidth for RedCap”, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG1 Meeting #106bis-e, R1-2110380, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson discloses a bandwidth part (BWP) switching method (Switching between separate initial BWPs [Qualcomm pg. 10]), comprising:
in a case that a first preset condition is met, performing, by a terminal, a predetermined operation in a second BWP, or switching from a first BWP to the second BWP, wherein the first BWP is an initial BWP, and the second BWP is a separate initial BWP (Separate initial BWPs [pg. 25]); and the performing a predetermined operation comprises at least one of the following:
receiving a system message;
receiving or monitoring a paging message;
receiving or monitoring an advance indication signal;
performing a random access process (Separate initial BWP configured for random access [ZTE pg. 50]);
performing radio resource management (RRM) measurement;
performing radio link monitoring (RLM) and/or beam failure detection (BFD); or
performing cell selection or reselection.
Regarding claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ericsson further discloses a terminal (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1]), comprising a processor (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]) and a memory (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]), wherein the memory stores a program or instructions running on the processor (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]).
Regarding claim 18, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in CRM claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ericsson further discloses a readable storage medium (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]), wherein the readable storage medium stores a program or instructions (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]).
Regarding claim 19, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ericsson further discloses a chip (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]), comprising a processor (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]) and a communication interface (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]), wherein the communication interface is coupled to the processor (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1, inherent]).
Regarding claim 20, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in apparatus claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Ericsson further discloses a communication device (RedCap NR devices [pg. 1]).
Regarding claim 2, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein before the performing, by a terminal, a predetermined operation in a second BWP, or switching from a first BWP to the second BWP, (The below signals are received prior to the operation [pg. 31-32]) the method further comprises:
receiving, by the terminal, configuration information of a non-cell defining synchronization signal and PBCH block (NCD SSB) of the second BWP from a network side device (Entire CORESET not configured (i.e., non-cell defining sync) [pg. 31] and NCD-SSB (i.e., non-cell defining) [pg. 32]).
Regarding claim 3, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein before the performing, by a terminal, a predetermined operation in a second BWP, the method further comprises: performing the predetermined operation in the first BWP (During and after initial access indicates that initial access can be performed on first BWP with switch occurring later [pg. 2]).
Regarding claim 4, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the first preset condition comprises at least one of the following:
the configuration information of the NCD SSB or the second BWP is received from a first network side device;
a bandwidth of the first BWP exceeds a bandwidth of the terminal;
a carrier bandwidth, a channel bandwidth, or a system bandwidth exceeds the bandwidth of the terminal (non-RedCap UE wider BW than RedCap UE BW [pg. 3]);
a bandwidth of the second BWP is less than or equal to the bandwidth of the terminal;
measurement performance of the first BWP is lower than or equal to a first preset threshold;
measurement performance of the second BWP is higher than or equal to a second preset threshold;
measurement performance of the terminal in a current cell is higher than a third preset threshold;
measurement performance of the terminal in a neighboring cell is lower than a fourth preset threshold;
the terminal is in a center of a cell or not at an edge of a cell; the terminal meets an S-measure mechanism;
the terminal does not enable neighboring cell measurement;
a second network side device sends the NCD SSB in the second BWP, and the second network side device is a network side device corresponding to the neighboring cell;
the terminal performs cell selection or reselection;
the terminal is in low mobility or a stationary state;
a random number corresponding to the terminal is within a preset range;
a specific reference signal exists in the second BWP; or
a first indication of the first network side device is received.
Regarding claim 5, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the method further comprises:
receiving a third indication of the first network side device, wherein the third indication indicates the first preset condition (Indications use SIB or DCI (i.e., third indication) [pg. 18]).
Regarding claim 6, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the first indication indicates at least one of the following:
the terminal performs the predetermined operation in the second BWP, or switches from the first BWP to the second BWP (Switches [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]);
the second BWP can be used for performing the predetermined operation or switching from the first BWP to the second BWP (Switches [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]);
a load of the current cell or the first BWP is higher than a fifth preset threshold;
the current cell or the first BWP does not support a type of the terminal;
the terminal performs cell selection or reselection based on measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP;
the terminal performs cell selection or reselection based on the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP and measurement performance of a cell defining synchronization signal and PBCH block (CD SSB) of the first BWP;
an R criterion used by the terminal to perform selection or reselection based on the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP;
an S criterion used by the terminal to perform selection or reselection based on the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP; or
the measurement performance of the current cell is determined based on the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP, or the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP can represent the measurement performance of the current cell, or the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP can replace the measurement performance of the CD SSB of the first BWP.
Regarding claim 7, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the bandwidth of the terminal comprises at least one of the following:
a bandwidth supported by the terminal;
a channel bandwidth of the terminal; or
a BWP bandwidth supported by the terminal; and/or
the bandwidth of the first BWP comprises at least one of the following:
a bandwidth, a minimum bandwidth, or a maximum bandwidth configured for the first BWP;
a system bandwidth configured for the first BWP; or
a channel bandwidth configured for the first BWP; and/or
the bandwidth of the second BWP comprises at least one of the following:
a bandwidth, a minimum bandwidth, or
a maximum bandwidth configured for the second BWP;
a system bandwidth configured for the second BWP; or
a channel bandwidth configured for the second BWP (The non-RedCap and RedCap BWs provide options for terminals (i.e., supported by UEs) [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]).
Regarding claim 8, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein the carrier bandwidth, the channel bandwidth, or the system bandwidth is configured by the network side device or agreed on in a protocol (The BW parts are communicated (i.e., configured) by the network side device [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]).
Regarding claim 10, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein in a case that the terminal is in a connected state, the first indication is sent through a radio resource control (RRC) message (When connected RRC is used for communication [pg. 24]); and
in a case that the terminal is in an idle state or an inactive state, the first indication is sent through at least one of the following messages: a broadcast system message, a paging message, a paging advance indication message, or a dedicated RRC message (When not connected system messaging is used (e.g., SIB) [pg. 24]).
Regarding claim 11, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein the configuration information of the NCD SSB or the second BWP comprises at least one of the following:
transmit power information of the NCD SSB, comprising a transmit power of the NCD SSB and/or a transmit power difference between the NCD SSB and the CD SSB;
time domain information of the NCD SSB, comprising a time domain location of the NCD SSB and/or time synchronization information of the NCD SSB and the CD SSB (NCD-SSB necessary for performing sync [pg. 32]);
frequency domain information of the NCD SSB, comprising a frequency domain location of the NCD SSB and/or a frequency domain location difference between the NCD SSB and the CD SSB (NCD-SSB necessary for performing sync [pg. 32]);
a quasi-co-location relationship between the NCD SSB and the CD SSB; or
a measurement periodicity and a length SSB measurement timing configuration (SMTC) corresponding to the NCD SSB.
Regarding claim 12, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses further comprising:
in a case that a second preset condition is met, performing the predetermined operation in the first BWP, or switching from the second BWP to the first BWP (The BWP that meets the UE requirements is used (i.e., first or second) [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]).
Regarding claim 13, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the second preset condition comprises at least one of the following:
the configuration information of the NCD SSB or the second BWP is not received from the first network side device;
the bandwidth of the first BWP does not exceed the bandwidth of the terminal (BWP does not exceed that of non-RedCap devices [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]);
the carrier bandwidth, the channel bandwidth, or the system bandwidth does not exceed the bandwidth of the terminal;
the bandwidth of the first BWP is less than or equal to the bandwidth of the terminal;
the measurement performance of the second BWP is lower than or equal to a ninth preset threshold;
the measurement performance of the first BWP is higher than or equal to a tenth preset threshold;
the measurement performance of the terminal in the current cell is lower than an eleventh preset threshold;
the measurement performance of the terminal in the neighboring cell is higher than a twelfth preset threshold;
the terminal is at the edge of the cell or not in the center of the cell;
the terminal does not meet the S-measure mechanism;
the second network side device does not send the NCD SSB in the second BWP, and the second network side device is a network side device corresponding to the neighboring cell;
the terminal enables the neighboring cell measurement;
the terminal is not in the low mobility or the stationary state, or the terminal is in medium to high mobility;
the random number corresponding to the terminal is not within the preset range;
the specific reference signal does not exist in the second BWP; or
a second indication of the first network side device is received.
Regarding claim 15, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses wherein the second indication indicates at least one of the following:
the terminal performs the predetermined operation in the first BWP, or switches from the second BWP to the first BWP (Switches [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]);
the second BWP cannot be used for performing the predetermined operation or switching from the first BWP to the second BWP (Switches [pg. 2, 10, 25, 31]);
the load of the current cell or the first BWP is lower than the fifth preset threshold; the current cell or the first BWP supports the type of the terminal;
the terminal performs cell selection or reselection based on the measurement performance of the CD SSB of the first BWP;
the R criterion used by the terminal to perform selection or reselection based on the measurement performance of the CD SSB of the second BWP;
the S criterion used by the terminal to perform selection or reselection based on the measurement performance of the CD SSB of the second BWP; or
the measurement performance of the current cell cannot be determined based on the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP, or the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP cannot represent the measurement performance of the current cell, or the measurement performance of the NCD SSB of the second BWP cannot replace the measurement performance of the CD SSB of the first BWP.
Regarding claim 16, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Ericsson further discloses:
wherein in a case that the terminal is in the connected state, the second indication is sent through the RRC message (When connected RRC is used for communication [pg. 24]); and
in a case that the terminal is in the idle state or the inactive state, the second indication is sent through at least one of the following messages: the broadcast system message, the paging message, the paging advance indication message, or the dedicated RRC message (When not connected system messaging is used (e.g., SIB) [pg. 24]).
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shrivastava (US 20250133499 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Ericsson discloses UEs, as discussed above, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose wherein that the terminal is in low mobility or a stationary state comprises at least one of the following: a measurement performance change amount of the terminal in the current cell is less than a sixth preset threshold or a first reference threshold; a beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is less than a seventh preset threshold or a second reference threshold; or a number of beams whose beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than the seventh preset threshold is less than an eighth preset threshold. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Shrivastava.
In the same field of endeavor, Shrivastava discloses:
wherein that the terminal is in low mobility or a stationary state [par. 0068] comprises at least one of the following:
a measurement performance change amount of the terminal in the current cell is less than a sixth preset threshold or a first reference threshold [par. 0068];
a beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is less than a seventh preset threshold or a second reference threshold; or
a number of beams whose beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than the seventh preset threshold is less than an eighth preset threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson with Shrivastava. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing the number of beams for measurement operation and reducing power consumption [Shrivastava par. 0068].
Regarding claim 14, Ericsson discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Ericsson discloses UEs, as discussed above, Ericsson does not explicitly disclose wherein that the terminal is in medium to high mobility comprises at least one of the following: the measurement performance change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than a sixteenth preset threshold or the first reference threshold; the beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than a seventeenth preset threshold or the second reference threshold; or a number of beams whose beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than the seventeenth preset threshold is greater than an eighteenth preset threshold. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Shrivastava.
In the same field of endeavor, Shrivastava discloses:
wherein that the terminal is in medium to high mobility (Where medium to high if not in low category [par. 0068]) comprises at least one of the following:
the measurement performance change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than a sixteenth preset threshold or the first reference threshold (Where the measurements and thresholds are medium to high if they are not in the low category [par. 0068]);
the beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than a seventeenth preset threshold or the second reference threshold; or
a number of beams whose beam measurement change amount of the terminal in the current cell is greater than the seventeenth preset threshold is greater than an eighteenth preset threshold.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ericsson with Shrivastava. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing the number of beams for measurement operation and reducing power consumption [Shrivastava par. 0068].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights