DETAILED ACTION
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvreau et al (Patent No: 11,095,421), and further in view of Palle Venkata et al (Pub No: 2025/0254712).
As to claim 1, Gauvreau teaches a method (Gauvreau, Fig 4, a method), comprising:
transmitting, by a processor of an apparatus, a capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth in band combination level to a network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits an indication of bandwidth aggregation capability), wherein each of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across component carriers (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, bandwidth aggregation capability which indicates max total bandwidth across aggregated carriers and/or aggregated contiguous carriers);
transmitting, by the processor, a feature set per component-carrier, which includes channel bandwidths, to the network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits for a single component carrier largest bandwidth supported (feature set) to the eNB) for determining a channel bandwidth configuration set according to the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 415-420 Col 6 L 23-42, the eNB uses the indications signaled to determine a uplink/downlink RRC configuration signaled via MAC CE); and
communicating, by the processor, with the network node based on the channel bandwidth configuration set (Gauvreau, Fig 5 Col 6 L 34-42, the WTRU monitors and processes component carriers according to the reconfiguration signaled).
Gauvreau does not explicitly teach a plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth.
However, Palle Venkata teaches a plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth (Palle Venkata, [0073][0082], the UE reports carrier aggregation capability of maximum aggregated bandwidth on a per band combination (plurality)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of capability signaling” as taught by Palle Venkata in the system of Gauvreau, so that it would simplify support for a net aggregated bandwidth for complex frequency range bandwidth classes (Palle Venkata, [0074]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches wherein the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth includes a capability signaling of frequency division duplexing aggregated bandwidth, and the capability signaling of frequency division duplexing aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across frequency division duplexing component carriers (Gauvreau, Col 1 L 40 and Fig 4, the capability signaling and maximum aggregate bandwidth is across component carriers, which are frequency divided blocks).
As to claim 4, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth includes a capability signaling of total aggregated bandwidth, and the capability signaling of total aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum total aggregated bandwidth across all component carriers (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, bandwidth aggregation capability which indicates max total bandwidth across aggregated (all) carriers and/or aggregated contiguous carriers).
As to claim 5, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier are used for uplink communication (Gauvreau, Col 3 L1-15, the capability signaling is for WTRU communication in uplink and downlink).
As to claim 6, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier are used for downlink communication (Gauvreau, Col 3 L1-15, the capability signaling is for WTRU communication in uplink and downlink).
As to claim 8, Gauvreau teaches a method (Gauvreau, Fig 4, a method),, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth in band combination level from a user equipment (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits an indication of bandwidth aggregation capability), wherein each of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidths across component carriers (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, bandwidth aggregation capability which indicates max total bandwidth across aggregated carriers and/or aggregated contiguous carriers);
receiving, by the processor, a feature set per component-carrier, which includes channel bandwidths, from the user equipment (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits for a single component carrier largest bandwidth supported (feature set) to the eNB);
determining, by the processor, a channel bandwidth configuration set according to the capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 415-420 Col 6 L 23-42, the eNB uses the indications signaled to determine a uplink/downlink RRC configuration signaled via MAC CE); and
communicating, by the processor, with the user equipment based on the channel bandwidth configuration set (Gauvreau, Fig 5 Col 6 L 34-42, the eNB with the WTRU monitors and processes component carriers according to the reconfiguration signaled).
Gauvreau does not explicitly teach a plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth.
However, Palle Venkata teaches a plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth (Palle Venkata, [0073][0082], the UE reports carrier aggregation capability of maximum aggregated bandwidth on a per band combination (plurality)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of capability signaling” as taught by Palle Venkata in the system of Gauvreau, so that it would simplify support for a net aggregated bandwidth for complex frequency range bandwidth classes (Palle Venkata, [0074]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth includes a capability signaling of frequency division duplexing aggregated bandwidth, and the capability signaling of frequency division duplexing aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across frequency division duplexing component carriers (Gauvreau, Col 1 L 40 and Fig 4, the capability signaling and maximum aggregate bandwidth is across component carriers, which are frequency divided blocks).
As to claim 11, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth includes a capability signaling of total aggregated bandwidth, and the capability signaling of total aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum total aggregated bandwidth across all component carriers (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, bandwidth aggregation capability which indicates max total bandwidth across aggregated (all) carriers and/or aggregated contiguous carriers).
As to claim 12, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier are used for uplink communication (Gauvreau, Col 3 L1-15, the capability signaling is for WTRU communication in uplink and downlink).
As to claim 13, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier are used for downlink communication (Gauvreau, Col 3 L1-15, the capability signaling is for WTRU communication in uplink and downlink).
As to claim 15, Gauvreau teaches an apparatus (Gauvreau, Fig 1 110, a WTRU), comprising: a transceiver (Gauvreau, Fig 3, a transceiver) which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with a network node (Gauvreau, Fig 1 110, communicates with a eNB); and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations (Gauvreau, Fig 3, a processor) comprising:
transmitting, via the transceiver, a capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth in band combination level to the network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits an indication of bandwidth aggregation capability), wherein each of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across component carriers (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, bandwidth aggregation capability which indicates max total bandwidth across aggregated carriers and/or aggregated contiguous carriers);
transmitting, via the transceiver, a feature set per component-carrier, which includes channel bandwidths, to the network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits for a single component carrier largest bandwidth supported (feature set) to the eNB) for determining a channel bandwidth configuration set according to the capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 415-420 Col 6 L 23-42, the eNB uses the indications signaled to determine a uplink/downlink RRC configuration signaled via MAC CE); and
communicating, via the transceiver, with the network node based on the channel bandwidth configuration set (Gauvreau, Fig 5 Col 6 L 34-42, the WTRU monitors and processes component carriers according to the reconfiguration signaled).
Gauvreau does not explicitly teach a plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth.
However, Palle Venkata teaches a plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth (Palle Venkata, [0073][0082], the UE reports carrier aggregation capability of maximum aggregated bandwidth on a per band combination (plurality)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a plurality of capability signaling” as taught by Palle Venkata in the system of Gauvreau, so that it would simplify support for a net aggregated bandwidth for complex frequency range bandwidth classes (Palle Venkata, [0074]).
As to claim 17, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches wherein the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth includes a capability signaling of frequency division duplexing aggregated bandwidth, and the capability signaling of frequency division duplexing aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across frequency division duplexing component carriers (Gauvreau, Col 1 L 40 and Fig 4, the capability signaling and maximum aggregate bandwidth is across component carriers, which are frequency divided blocks).
As to claim 18, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches wherein the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth includes a capability signaling of total aggregated bandwidth, and the capability signaling of total aggregated bandwidth indicates a maximum total aggregated bandwidth across all component carriers (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, bandwidth aggregation capability which indicates max total bandwidth across aggregated (all) carriers and/or aggregated contiguous carriers).
As to claim 19, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth and the feature set per component-carrier are used for uplink or downlink communication (Gauvreau, Col 3 L1-15, the capability signaling is for WTRU communication in uplink and downlink).
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvreau and Pelle Venkata as applied to claims above, and further in view of Feuersaenger et al (Pub No: 2019/0028980).
As to claim 2, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth, and indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across component carriers (Gauvreau, Col 7 L1-27).
The combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches does not explicitly teach a capability signaling of time division duplexing bandwidth, and the capability signaling indicates across time division duplexing component carriers.
However, Feuersaenger teaches a capability signaling of time division duplexing bandwidth, and the capability signaling indicates across time division duplexing component carriers (Feuersaenger, [0116], a TDD deployment for UL and DL component carriers and aggregation capability of component carriers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a time division duplexing across carriers” as taught by Feuersaenger in the system of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata, so that it would simplify support for a net aggregated bandwidth for providing high bit rates for LTE and radio access (Feuersaenger, [0003] [0116]), a typical deployment for carrier aggregation).
As to claim 9, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth, and indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across component carriers (Gauvreau, Col 7 L1-27).
The combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches does not explicitly teach a capability signaling of time division duplexing bandwidth, and the capability signaling indicates across time division duplexing component carriers.
However, Feuersaenger teaches a capability signaling of time division duplexing bandwidth, and the capability signaling indicates across time division duplexing component carriers (Feuersaenger, [0116], a TDD deployment for UL and DL component carriers and aggregation capability of component carriers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a time division duplexing across carriers” as taught by Feuersaenger in the system of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata, so that it would simplify support for a net aggregated bandwidth for providing high bit rates for LTE and radio access (Feuersaenger, [0003] [0116]), a typical deployment for carrier aggregation).
As to claim 16, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth, and indicates a maximum aggregated bandwidth across component carriers (Gauvreau, Col 7 L1-27).
The combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches does not explicitly teach a capability signaling of time division duplexing bandwidth, and the capability signaling indicates across time division duplexing component carriers.
However, Feuersaenger teaches a capability signaling of time division duplexing bandwidth, and the capability signaling indicates across time division duplexing component carriers (Feuersaenger, [0116], a TDD deployment for UL and DL component carriers and aggregation capability of component carriers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “a time division duplexing across carriers” as taught by Feuersaenger in the system of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata, so that it would simplify support for a net aggregated bandwidth for providing high bit rates for LTE and radio access (Feuersaenger, [0003] [0116]), a typical deployment for carrier aggregation).
Claim(s) 7, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gauvreau and Palle Venkata as applied to claims above, and further in view of Pals et al (Pub No: 2020/0329369).
As to claim 7, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches transmitting, by the processor, the feature set per component-carrier, which includes the channel bandwidths, to the network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits for a single component carrier largest bandwidth supported (feature set) to the eNB) for determining the channel bandwidth configuration set according to the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth, and the feature set per component-carrier (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 415-420 Col 6 L 23-42, the eNB uses the indications signaled to determine a uplink/downlink RRC configuration signaled via MAC CE).
The combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata does not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor, a capability signaling of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) to the network node, wherein the capability signaling of MIMO indicates a maximum number of spatial multiplexing layers; and determining configuration based on the MIMO capability signaling.
However, Pals teaches transmitting, by the processor, a capability signaling of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) to the network node, wherein the capability signaling of MIMO indicates a maximum number of spatial multiplexing layers; and determining configuration based on the MIMO capability signaling (Pals, [0007], a UE transmitting maximum MIMO capability which indicates layers of spatial multiplexing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “MIMO capability” as taught by in the system of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata, so that it would improve telecommunication standards and multiaccess technologies (Pals, [0003-0004]).
As to claim 14, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches transmitting, by the processor, the feature set per component-carrier, which includes the channel bandwidths, to the network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits for a single component carrier largest bandwidth supported (feature set) to the eNB) for determining the channel bandwidth configuration set according to the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth, and the feature set per component-carrier (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 415-420 Col 6 L 23-42, the eNB uses the indications signaled to determine a uplink/downlink RRC configuration signaled via MAC CE).
The combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata does not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor, a capability signaling of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) to the network node, wherein the capability signaling of MIMO indicates a maximum number of spatial multiplexing layers; and determining configuration based on the MIMO capability signaling.
However, Pals teaches transmitting, by the processor, a capability signaling of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) to the network node, wherein the capability signaling of MIMO indicates a maximum number of spatial multiplexing layers; and determining configuration based on the MIMO capability signaling (Pals, [0007], a UE transmitting maximum MIMO capability which indicates layers of spatial multiplexing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “MIMO capability” as taught by in the system of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata, so that it would improve telecommunication standards and multiaccess technologies (Pals, [0003-0004]).
As to claim 20, the combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata teaches transmitting, by the processor, the feature set per component-carrier, which includes the channel bandwidths, to the network node (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 410 Col 7 L1-27, the WTRU transmits for a single component carrier largest bandwidth supported (feature set) to the eNB) for determining the channel bandwidth configuration set according to the plurality of capability signaling of aggregated bandwidth, and the feature set per component-carrier (Gauvreau, Fig 4 Step 415-420 Col 6 L 23-42, the eNB uses the indications signaled to determine a uplink/downlink RRC configuration signaled via MAC CE).
The combination of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata does not explicitly teach transmitting, by the processor, a capability signaling of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) to the network node, wherein the capability signaling of MIMO indicates a maximum number of spatial multiplexing layers; and determining configuration based on the MIMO capability signaling.
However, Pals teaches transmitting, by the processor, a capability signaling of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) to the network node, wherein the capability signaling of MIMO indicates a maximum number of spatial multiplexing layers; and determining configuration based on the MIMO capability signaling (Pals, [0007], a UE transmitting maximum MIMO capability which indicates layers of spatial multiplexing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to provide “MIMO capability” as taught by in the system of Gauvreau and Palle Venkata, so that it would improve telecommunication standards and multiaccess technologies (Pals, [0003-0004]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Wang et al (Pub No: 2024/0113845). [0015][0021][0055]-[0093]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian N Moore can be reached at 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 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.
/AFSHAWN M TOWFIGHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights