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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites reporting terminal capability information to a network device, obtaining a resource allocation in response, and sending or receiving information on the resource. At a high level, this is directed to collecting information, using the information to determine a resource allocation, and communicating data based on the result, which is an abstract idea. The recited terminal device, network device, bandwidths, resource blocks, MCS index, transport block size, and scheduling limitations are merely data inputs or field-of-use limitations and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a specific technical improvement in wireless communication or a particular implementation mechanism. Accordingly, the claim does not include significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is noted that the dependent claims merely add additional capability-related limitations to the abstract idea already recited in the independent claims. The additional limitations further specify the type of information reported or used for resource allocation, but do not recite a specific technical improvement, unconventional implementation, or other significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not alter the eligibility analysis and remain ineligible under § 101.
Claims 9-12 and 19-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to the abstract idea of collecting device capability information, using that information to determine resource allocation, and transmitting information on the allocated resource. The recited processors and memory are generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea in a conventional manner. The claim does not recite a specific technical improvement to wireless communication systems or any nonconventional technical mechanism. The capability parameters recited in the claim are merely data inputs to the abstract process. Therefore, claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. It is noted that the dependent claims merely add additional capability-related limitations to the abstract idea already recited in the independent claims. The additional limitations further specify the type of information reported or used for resource allocation, but do not recite a specific technical improvement, unconventional implementation, or other significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the dependent claims do not alter the eligibility analysis and remain ineligible under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the recited “first capability” and “second capability” are unclear. The claim recites that the first capability comprises, inter alia, “a maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth,” “a maximum radio frequency processing capability,” “a maximum channel bandwidth,” “that the terminal device supports information transmission on N resource blocks,” “that the terminal device supports a bandwidth decrease,” and “that the terminal device supports scheduling limitation,” while the second capability comprises, inter alia, “a maximum baseband processing bandwidth,” “a maximum baseband processing capability,” “that the terminal device supports information transmission on M resource blocks,” “that the terminal device does not support a bandwidth decrease,” “a maximum transport block size,” “a maximum modulation and coding scheme (MCS) index,” “a scaling factor,” and “that the terminal device does not support scheduling limitation.” It is unclear:
what distinguishes the first capability from the second capability;
whether these are categories, sets, modes, or merely collections of unrelated parameters;
what is meant by “maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth” as distinct from “maximum channel bandwidth” and “maximum baseband processing bandwidth”;
what is meant by “supports a bandwidth decrease” or “does not support a bandwidth decrease”;
what is meant by “supports scheduling limitation” or “does not support scheduling limitation”; and
what constitutes reporting “at least one of the first capability or the second capability,” i.e., whether one parameter, an entire set, or some other subset must be reported.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it introduces “a first capability parameter,” “a second capability parameter,” “a third capability parameter,” and “a fourth capability parameter” without clearly defining the scope or content of each parameter or how each differs from the others. The phrase “reporting … based on” such parameters is also unclear as to whether the parameters identify, encode, select, define, or merely relate to the recited capability. In addition, claim 2 depends from indefinite claim 1 and therefore inherits the ambiguities of the “first capability” and “second capability.”
Claim 3 is indefinite because the term “predefined” lacks a clear point of reference. It is unclear whether “predefined” means predefined:
in the terminal device,
in the network device,
in a standard,
in memory prior to reporting,
or by prior configuration signaling.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the recited alternatives involving the “fifth capability parameter” do not clearly define the scope of the claim. In particular, it is unclear whether the fifth capability parameter:
merely indicates support for reporting,
indicates lack of support for reporting,
indicates a third capability,
or can simultaneously perform multiple such functions.
Additionally, claim 4 introduces “the third capability” without adequately defining its relationship to the first and second capabilities. The phrase “supports reporting” is also unclear as to whether it refers to protocol support, implementation support, configuration state, or another concept.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it recites “independently reporting the maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth … and the maximum baseband processing bandwidth” without clearly defining the meanings of those two bandwidths. It is unclear whether “independently reporting” means in separate messages, separate fields, separate information elements, separate procedures, or merely separately identifiable values.
Claim 14 is indefinite because, although it recites that “the maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth is different from the maximum baseband processing bandwidth,” the scope remains unclear since the underlying terms “maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth” and “maximum baseband processing bandwidth” are themselves indefinite for the reasons stated above.
Claims 5-8, 15-18 and 9-12 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for reasons similar to those set forth above with respect to claims 1-4, and 13-14. These claims incorporate limitations containing the same unclear terminology and ambiguous relationships, and therefore also fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0099991 A1 (“Liu”) in view of US 2024/0373413 A1 (“Hill”), and further in view of US 2023/0087902 A1 (“Zheng”).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a UE reporting capability information to a base station and, based on that capability information, receiving a downlink grant for resources under a resource allocation scheme associated with the UE type and a supported BWP, monitoring the channel, and receiving the data transmission. See Liu, Abstract; ¶¶ [0014]-[0017], [0109]-[0110]; FIGS. 19-22. Liu further teaches reduced-capability UE operation using different resource allocation schemes, including interleaved/discontinuous RB allocation, low coding rate, repetition, and BWP-based allocation. See Liu, ¶¶ [0117]-[0121], [0129]-[0133], [0157]-[0168]; FIGS. 2-10.
Hill teaches capability-based BWP/resource configuration, including transmitting resource allocation information associated with a first BWP, transmitting a control message causing the UE to transmit or receive in a second BWP different from the first BWP, and using UE capability information to support such configuration. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0042]-[0056], [0053]-[0064]; FIGS. 4-10.
Zheng teaches reporting a reduced-capability terminal type to a network device, wherein a capability parameter includes a first capability set that includes a supported channel bandwidth and a quantity of transmit antennas, and further may include HARQ process quantity, maximum modulation scheme, and PDSCH/PUSCH processing capability. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶¶ [0007]-[0011], [0060]-[0074].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Liu, Hill, and Zheng because all three references are directed to UE capability-based wireless resource configuration. Liu provides the primary framework of reporting UE capability and allocating resources in response thereto. Hill teaches that such capability information may be used to configure communication resources across different BWPs. Zheng teaches that the capability information may include specific reduced-capability parameters such as supported bandwidth, antenna count, HARQ capability, modulation capability, and processing capability. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to incorporate the known detailed capability parameters of Zheng into the capability-reporting/resource-allocation framework of Liu, as further informed by Hill’s BWP/resource-configuration teaching, in order to permit the network to more precisely allocate resources suitable for the UE capability, with predictable results.
It is noted claim 1 recites more specific capability labels such as radio frequency processing bandwidth, baseband processing bandwidth, maximum transport block size, maximum MCS index, scaling factor, or scheduling limitation, such parameters would have been obvious implementations or variants of the detailed capability information taught by Zheng within the capability-driven resource allocation framework of Liu and the BWP/resource configuration framework of Hill.
Regarding claim 2, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Liu teaches reporting UE capability to a network device and obtaining a resource allocation/grant in response thereto. See Liu, Abstract; ¶¶ [0109]-[0110]; FIGS. 19-22. Hill teaches capability-driven BWP/resource configuration. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0042]-[0056]. Zheng teaches detailed reduced-capability reporting using multiple information/parameter forms. Claim 2 further requires that the reporting of the first capability and/or the second capability comprises:
reporting the first capability based on a first capability parameter,
or reporting the second capability based on a second capability parameter,
or reporting the first capability or the second capability based on a third capability parameter,
or reporting the first capability and the second capability based on a fourth capability parameter.
Zheng teaches these alternative reporting forms. In particular:
Zheng teaches that the terminal may send “first information” to the network device, where the first information indicates that the terminal is a first-type terminal and that the corresponding capability parameter includes a first capability set. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0007]. This teaches reporting a first capability based on a first capability parameter.
Zheng further teaches that the method may include sending “second information” to the network device, where the second information indicates that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal further includes at least one of additional capability sets. See Zheng, ¶ [0014]. This teaches reporting a second capability based on a second capability parameter.
Zheng further teaches sending “third information” indicating an application scenario of the terminal device, where the application scenario has an association relationship with at least one of the additional capability sets. See Zheng, ¶ [0016]. This teaches reporting the first capability or the second capability based on a third capability parameter.
Zheng also teaches that the first information may indicate not only the first capability set but also that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal further includes at least one additional capability set. See Zheng, ¶ [0013]. This teaches reporting both the first capability and the second capability based on a single parameter, i.e., a fourth capability parameter.
Thus, Zheng expressly teaches multiple alternative capability-reporting parameter arrangements corresponding to the alternatives recited in claim 2. Therefore,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the multiple parameterized capability-reporting forms of Zheng in the capability-reporting/resource-allocation framework of Liu, as further informed by the BWP/resource-configuration teachings of Hill, because doing so would have predictably allowed the network device to receive capability information in different signaling formats depending on implementation preference, overhead, or configuration granularity.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed for claims 1-2, Liu teaches the overall framework of UE capability reporting and network resource allocation in response thereto. See Liu, Abstract; ¶¶ [0109]-[0110]; FIGS. 19-22. Hill teaches capability-based BWP/resource configuration. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0042]-[0056]. Zheng teaches multiple forms of reduced-capability reporting using different parameters and capability sets. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶¶ [0013]-[0016]. Claim 3 further recites, in relevant part:
the first capability is indicated by the first capability parameter or the third capability parameter, and the second capability is predefined; or
the first capability is predefined, and the second capability is indicated by the second capability parameter or the third capability parameter.
Zheng teaches this distinction between explicitly indicated capability information and predefined capability information. Specifically, Zheng teaches that:
the terminal sends first information indicating that it is a first-type terminal device, and that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal device includes a first capability set; see Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0007];
the first information may indicate that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal device further includes additional capability set information; see Zheng, ¶ [0013];
alternatively, the method may include sending second information indicating that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal device further includes at least one additional capability set; see Zheng, ¶ [0014];
additionally, the method may include sending third information indicating an application scenario of the terminal device, and the application scenario has an association relationship with at least one capability set; see Zheng, ¶ [0016].
Most importantly, Zheng expressly states that: “the first information indicates only the first capability set, and the second information explicitly indicates at least one of the second capability set, the third capability set, the fourth capability set, the fifth capability set, the sixth capability set, or the seventh capability set. It may be considered that the first capability set indicated by the first information is a mandatory capability set …”See Zheng, ¶ [0014]. Zheng also states that capability sets may be:
directly indicated by first information,
directly indicated by second information,
or indirectly indicated by third information through the application scenario. See Zheng, ¶¶ [0013]-[0016].
Thus, Zheng teaches:
one capability set being explicitly reported by a capability parameter (first information, second information, or third information), while
another capability set is predefined/mandatory for the first-type terminal device.
This corresponds to the alternatives of claim 3:
the first capability may be indicated by the first capability parameter or third capability parameter, while the second capability is predefined; and
the first capability may be predefined, while the second capability is indicated by the second capability parameter or third capability parameter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the capability-reporting framework of Liu, as modified by Hill, using the explicit-versus-predefined capability distinction taught by Zheng, because doing so would predictably reduce signaling overhead while preserving the ability of the network to infer default/mandatory capabilities for a reduced-capability UE and receive explicit indications only for variable or optional capability sets.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Liu teaches the general framework in which a UE reports capability information to a base station and, based on that capability information, receives a downlink grant for allocated resources and receives a corresponding data transmission. See Liu, Abstract; FIGS. 19-22. Hill teaches capability-based resource/BWP configuration by the network. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0042]-[0056]. Zheng teaches reporting a first-type/reduced-capability terminal and using different information parameters to indicate capability sets. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶¶ [0007]-[0016]. Claim 4 further recites that the method includes:
sending a fifth capability parameter to the network device, wherein
the fifth capability parameter indicates that the terminal device supports reporting of at least one of the first capability or the second capability, or
the fifth capability parameter indicates that the terminal device does not support reporting of at least one of the first capability or the second capability; or
the fifth capability parameter indicates a third capability of the terminal device, wherein the third capability comprises at least the maximum channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device.
Zheng teaches that the terminal may send multiple pieces of capability-related information to the network, including different information items that indicate what capability sets are included or supported in the report. For example, Zheng teaches: “A terminal device sends first information to a network device, where the first information indicates that the terminal device is a first-type terminal device, a capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal device includes a first capability set, the first capability set includes a channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device and a quantity of transmit antennas…” See Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0007]. Zheng further teaches that “the first information indicates that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal device further includes at least one of the second capability set, the third capability set, the fourth capability set, the fifth capability set, the sixth capability set, or the seventh capability set.” See Zheng, ¶ [0013]. Zheng also teaches that the terminal may send second information indicating that additional capability sets are included: “The method further includes: The terminal device sends second information to the network device, where the second information indicates that the capability parameter corresponding to the first-type terminal device further includes at least one of the second capability set, the third capability set, the fourth capability set, the fifth capability set, the sixth capability set, or the seventh capability set.” See Zheng, ¶ [0014].
These teachings show that Zheng discloses a separate capability-related parameter/information item that tells the network whether the terminal supports reporting additional capability information beyond a baseline capability set. That corresponds to the claimed fifth capability parameter indicating support for reporting at least one of the first capability or the second capability. Further, Zheng expressly teaches that the reported capability parameter may indicate a capability including maximum channel bandwidth, because the first capability set includes the “channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device.” See Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0007]. This corresponds to the alternative in claim 4 in which the fifth capability parameter indicates a third capability comprising at least the maximum channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additional capability-indicating information of Zheng in the capability-reporting and resource-allocation framework of Liu, as further informed by the capability-driven resource/BWP configuration of Hill, because doing so would predictably allow the network device to determine not only the reported UE capability itself, but also whether the UE supports reporting additional capability categories and/or the specific third capability such as supported channel bandwidth. This would improve network-side resource selection and configuration with predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Liu teaches a UE reporting UE capability information to a base station and receiving a resource allocation/grant in response thereto for communication on the allocated resource. See Liu, Abstract; FIGS. 19-22. Hill teaches capability-based resource/BWP configuration responsive to UE capability information. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0042]-[0056]. Zheng teaches that a reduced-capability terminal may report specific capability parameters, including a channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device, and also teaches multiple capability sets including processing-related capabilities. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶¶ [0007]-[0011], [0013]-[0016]. Claim 13 further recites that the reporting of at least one of the first capability or the second capability comprises:
independently reporting the maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth included in the first capability, and
the maximum baseband processing bandwidth included in the second capability.
Zheng expressly teaches independent capability reporting using separate information items and separate capability sets. For example: the first information indicates that the capability parameter includes a first capability set that includes the channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device; see Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0007]; second information may separately indicate that the capability parameter further includes additional capability sets; see Zheng, ¶ [0014]; third information may separately indicate an application scenario associated with one or more capability sets; see Zheng, ¶ [0016]. Thus, Zheng teaches that different capability aspects may be conveyed using separate capability information items, i.e., independently reported.
Further, Zheng teaches both: a bandwidth-related capability (the first capability set includes the supported channel bandwidth), and processing-related capability information, including PDSCH processing capability and PUSCH processing capability. See Zheng, ¶ [0010]. While Zheng does not use the exact phrase “maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth” and “maximum baseband processing bandwidth,” Zheng does disclose separate reporting of: a bandwidth capability, and a processing capability.
Hill reinforces the distinction between different capability dimensions by teaching BWP-dependent operation and UE switching/configuration performance for different BWPs, i.e., capability information relevant to the UE’s supported bandwidth/resource handling. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0050]-[0066].
Liu further teaches that the resource allocation scheme depends on the UE type and supported BWP, thereby making separate reporting of bandwidth-related capability and processing-related capability useful for resource selection. See Liu, Abstract; FIGS. 19-22.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to independently report: a bandwidth-related capability parameter, and a processing-related capability parameter, within the capability-reporting framework of Liu, as informed by Hill and Zheng, because doing so would predictably permit the network to distinguish between: the bandwidth extent the UE can support, and the processing limitations/capabilities of the UE, thereby enabling more precise selection of the resource allocation scheme and BWP configuration. Separate reporting of different capability dimensions is an obvious design choice where the prior art already teaches separate capability sets/information items for different technical functions.
Regarding claim 14, as discussed for claims 1 and 13, Liu teaches a UE reporting capability information to a base station, with the base station allocating resources based on the UE capability and supported bandwidth part (BWP). See Liu, Abstract; FIGS. 19-22. Zheng teaches that the UE capability may include a channel bandwidth supported by the terminal device and may further include processing-related capability information, such as PDSCH processing capability and PUSCH processing capability. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0010]. Hill teaches capability-based communication using a first BWP and a second BWP, where the second BWP is different from the first BWP, and further teaches UE switching/configuration performance associated with such BWP operation. See Hill, Abstract; ¶¶ [0042]-[0056], [0066]. Claim 6 further recites:
“wherein the maximum radio frequency processing bandwidth is different from the maximum baseband processing bandwidth.”
The combined references render this obvious. In particular:
Zheng teaches separate reporting of a bandwidth capability and separate processing capabilities, thereby teaching distinct bandwidth-related and processing-related capability dimensions. See Zheng, Abstract; ¶ [0010].
Hill teaches operation across different BWPs, including a first BWP and a second BWP that are different, and thus teaches that different bandwidth/resource regimes may be associated with different UE capability constraints. See Hill, Abstract (“the second BWP is different from the first BWP”).
Liu teaches that reduced-capability UEs may operate using different resource allocation schemes based on UE type and supported BWP, including subset/subband-based allocations and other constrained configurations. See Liu, Abstract; FIGS. 2-10; FIGS. 19-22.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a UE’s reported bandwidth-related capability and its processing-related capability need not be identical, and may be different, because:
the prior art already treats bandwidth support and processing capability as separate reportable parameters (Zheng), and
different BWPs/resource configurations may be selected and used depending on such capability constraints (Hill and Liu).
Stated differently, once the art teaches separate reporting of bandwidth capability and processing capability, it would have been an obvious and predictable implementation choice that the maximum bandwidth associated with RF support could differ from the maximum bandwidth that can be fully processed in baseband, particularly in reduced-capability UE designs where hardware and processing constraints are intentionally limited.
Regarding claims 5-8, 15-18 and 9-12 and 19-20, which are also rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0099991 A1 (“Liu”) in view of US 2024/0373413 A1 (“Hill”), and further in view of US 2023/0087902 A1 (“Zheng”) for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1-4, and 13-14. These claims recite similar limitations to those recited in claims 1-4, and 13-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY QUOC NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-3139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights