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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejection have been considered and they are moot because they do not apply to the new reference used in the current office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20230217498) in view of Fang (US 20230072513).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a communication operation execution method, comprising:
executing, by a terminal, a communication operation based on a relaxed processing capability ([0076][0083], allowing a RedCap UE to support a relaxed processing time/capability, the RedCap UE may be allowed to transmit each message with a relaxed processing time while performing the RA), wherein the relaxed processing capability is a relaxed processing capability in time ([0083], the RedCap UE may be allowed to transmit each message with a relaxed processing time while performing the RA. For example, the processing time required for the RedCap UE in the RA procedure may be configured/defined to be longer than the processing time required for the legacy UE) , and
the communication operation comprises at least one of the following:
a communication operation associated with initial access ([0147], the relaxed initial access message transmission timing of the RedCap UE may be calculated as follows); or
a communication operation associated with random access (fig. 4, [0082-83], the RedCap UE may be allowed to transmit each message with a relaxed processing time while performing the random access).
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the executing, by a terminal, a communication operation based on the relaxed processing capability comprises:
executing, by the terminal, the communication operation based on the relaxed processing
capability in a case of meeting a first condition; wherein the first condition comprises:
a bandwidth occupied by a scheduled/configured frequency domain resource for downlink reception exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of a baseband side of the terminal.
Fang discloses wherein the executing, by a terminal, a communication operation based on the relaxed processing capability comprises:
executing, by the terminal, the communication operation based on the relaxed processing
capability in a case of meeting a first condition (Fang, [0053][0057], reduced capability (RedCap) wireless communication devices (or UEs) may have smaller bandwidth than the bandwidth allowed by the wireless network for each UE, relaxed processing capabilities compared to other UEs, the initial DL BWP configured for normal NR wireless communication devices (or UEs) is greater than 100 MHz, e.g., the maximum UE bandwidth of the reduced capability wireless communication device (RedCap UE). As such, the reduced capability wireless communication device (or UE) retunes to a new center frequency); wherein the first condition comprises:
a bandwidth occupied by a scheduled/configured frequency domain resource for downlink reception exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of a baseband side of the terminal (Fang, [0057], the initial DL BWP configured for normal NR wireless communication devices (or UEs) is greater than 100 MHz, e.g., the maximum UE bandwidth of the reduced capability wireless communication device (RedCap UE)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Lee with the teachings given by Fang. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the UE power consumption (Fang, [0002]).
It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Claims 13, 17 are rejected similarly as claim 1 noting that Lee discloses a processor and readable medium (fig. 13).
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the relaxed processing capability comprises a downlink relaxed processing capability (Lee, [0098], the RA-RNTI used for CRC-scrambling of the PDCCH for scheduling the Msg2 PDSCH may be determined differently for the RedCap UE and the legacy UE).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the downlink relaxed processing capability comprises:
a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) relaxed processing capability (Lee, [0098], the RA-RNTI used for CRC-scrambling of the PDCCH for scheduling the Msg2 PDSCH may be determined differently for the RedCap UE and the legacy UE);
wherein based on the PDSCH relaxed processing capability, the number of PDSCHs supported or processed by the terminal in a target time period is N, the PDSCH is a PDSCH scrambled with a radio network temporary identifier (RNTI) and carrying a plurality of different transport blocks, and N is an integer greater than or equal to 1 ([0098], the RA-RNTI used for CRC-scrambling of the PDCCH for scheduling the Msg2 PDSCH may be determined differently for the RedCap UE and the legacy UE. Here, the number of PDSCH support4ed is at least one).
Regarding claims 4, 14, 18, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the terminal is configured with the relaxed processing capability, the terminal is further configured with a target characteristic, wherein the target characteristic comprises at least one of the following:
a maximum supported bandwidth is less than or equal to a preset bandwidth threshold; or a data rate is less than or equal to a preset rate threshold ([0077-79][0146], the UE maximum bandwidth of the RedCap UE may be smaller than the UE maximum bandwidth of the Non-RedCap UE).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case that the terminal is configured with the relaxed processing capability, the terminal is further configured with a first processing capability; wherein a processing time of the relaxed processing capability is longer than a processing time of the first processing capability ([0083][0139], the processing time required for the RedCap UE in the RA procedure may be configured/defined to be longer than the processing time required for the legacy UE).
Regarding claims 6, 15, 19, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a subcarrier spacing (SCS) to which the relaxed processing capability is applicable comprises at least one of the following:
15 KHz SCS, or 30 KHz SCS ([0048]); wherein
PDSCH decoding times are different for different SCSs in the relaxed processing capability ([0048][0133][0146][0152], table 6, different decoding times for different configurations).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein for the relaxed processing capability, the terminal needs to report/indicate support of the relaxed processing capability through a terminal capability ([0075][0130], a UE Capability Report message is exchanged based on an RRC connection).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the communication operation associated with initial access comprises at least one of the following:
uplink transmission in an initial access procedure; or
downlink reception in an initial access procedure ([0141-0145]); and
the communication operation associated with random access comprises at least one of the following:
uplink transmission in a random access procedure; or
downlink reception in a random access procedure ([0141-0145]).
It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Regarding claims 9, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein
the first condition further comprises at least one of the following:
a network-side device has configured/enabled/indicated a bandwidth part (BWP) for the terminal ([0083-84], the processing time required for the RedCap UE in the RA procedure may be configured/defined to be longer than the processing time required for the legacy UE; it is assumed that the RedCap UE is configured with an initial UL/DL BWP);
a network-side device has configured/enabled/indicated a common search space (CSS) for the terminal;
a network-side device has configured/enabled/indicated, for the terminal, early identification of the terminal enabled/executed through a physical random access channel (PRACH);
a network-side device has configured/enabled/indicated, for the terminal, early identification of the terminal enabled/executed through a PUSCH;
a bandwidth of an initial BWP exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of a baseband side of the terminal;
a bandwidth of a control resource set configured by a master information block (MIB) exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of a baseband side of the terminal;
or
a bandwidth occupied by a scheduled/configured frequency domain resource for uplink transmission exceeds a maximum bandwidth capacity of a baseband side of the terminal.
It is noted that the applicant uses selective language in this claim and the examiner is only showing one of the claimed options.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
in a case that the terminal does not meet the first condition, executing, by the terminal, the communication operation based on a first processing capability; wherein a processing time of the relaxed processing capability is longer than a processing time of the first processing capability ([0076][0083], allowing a RedCap UE to support a relaxed processing time/capability, the RedCap UE may be allowed to transmit each message with a relaxed processing time while performing the RA; the processing time required for the RedCap UE in the RA procedure may be configured/defined to be longer than the processing time required for the legacy UE).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the following related to the communication operation is determined based on the relaxed processing capability:
uplink transmission timeline ([0049][0083], UE may be allowed to transmit each message with a relaxed processing time (related to transmission timeline or time) while performing the RA).
Claims 12, 21-22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Fang further in view of ZTE ("Potential UE complexity reduction features", 3GPP DRAFT; R1-2005474, 8 August 2020, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, Lee and Fang disclose the method according to claim 11,
Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein
in a case that the communication operation comprises transmitting a PUSCH scheduled by a random access response (RAR) uplink grant, a shortest time between a PDSCH carrying the RAR uplink grant and the PUSCH is determined by the relaxed processing capability; and/or
in a case that the communication operation comprises transmitting a PUSCH scheduled by a fallback RAR, a shortest time between a PDSCH carrying the fallback RAR and the PUSCH is determined by the relaxed processing capability.
ZTE discloses wherein
in a case that the communication operation comprises transmitting a PUSCH scheduled by a random access response (RAR) uplink grant, a shortest time between a PDSCH carrying the RAR uplink grant and the PUSCH is determined by the relaxed processing capability; and/or
in a case that the communication operation comprises transmitting a PUSCH scheduled by a fallback RAR, a shortest time between a PDSCH carrying the fallback RAR and the PUSCH is determined by the relaxed processing capability (ZTE. Section 2.4, for example, the processing time between RAR PDSCH and Msg3 PUSCH is NTT,1+ NT,₂ +0.5, wherein NT,1 =N1, NT,2 = N₂; there are one agreement of relaxed UE processing time: For UE complexity reduction through relaxed UE processing time, study a more relaxed UE processing time in terms of N1/N2 ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to combine the teachings as given by Lee with the teachings given by ZTE. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the UE complexity (ZTE, Introduction).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected similarly with claims 11 and 12.
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 ZHENSHENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00am-6:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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.
/ZHENSHENG ZHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights