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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 8, 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12113749. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Chou (US-20180183551).
As to claim 1: Chou teaches a method for processing Bandwidth Parts (BWPs), comprising: receiving, by a terminal device, Downlink Control Information (DCI), the DCI carrying indication information ([0109-111]); and performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on a second BWP ([0109-111] The UE may switch to configured BWP 890A based on the decoded BWP index) and deactivation processing on a first BWP based on an information field of the indication information ([0112, 126, 127] On or before the UE switching to configured BWP 890A, default BWP 880A is de-activated).
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Chou (US-20180183551).
As to claim 2, 9, 16: Chou teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the indication information comprises first indication information, the first indication information comprises a first information field ([0109, 126] DCI message may include a Bandwidth Part indicator field (BIF)), and the terminal device performs activation processing on the second BWP ([0109-111] When configured BWP 890A is activated by DCI #1, the UE may know how to receive the CORESET of configured BWP 890A) and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on a value of the first information field (TABLE 1 [0126-128] after receiving the DCI, for example, having a CIF (e.g., pointing to SCell #1) and a BIF (e.g., BIF=01), the UE may know that it needs to activate/de-activate BWP configuration #1 in SCell #1).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US-20180183551) in view of 3GPP TS 38.213 v.15.1.0, 3GPP TS 38.321 v15.1.0.
As to claim 3, 10: Chou teaches the method of claim 2.
Chou may not explicitly teach wherein performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on the second BWP and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on the information field of the indication information comprises: if the first information field is a first value. However, TS38.213 teaches wherein performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on the second BWP and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on the information field of the indication information comprises: if the first information field is a first value (p.66 If a bandwidth part indicator field is configured in DCI format 1_1, the bandwidth part indicator field value indicates the active DL BWP, from the configured DL BWP set, for DL receptions).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement BWP fields, taught by TS38.213, into the communication system, taught by Chou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and enable activation of BWP. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine TS38.213 and Chou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Chou may not explicitly teach performing, by the terminal device, deactivation processing on the first BWP when activating the second BWP. However, TS38.321 teaches performing, by the terminal device, deactivation processing on the first BWP when activating the second BWP (p.42 The BWP switching for a Serving Cell is used to activate an inactive BWP and deactivate an active BWP at a time).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement activate / deactivate BWP, taught by TS38.321, into the communication system, taught by Chou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and control activation / deactivation of BWP and conserve resources. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chou and TS38.321 in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 4, 11: Chou teaches the method of claim 3.
Chou may not explicitly teach wherein performing deactivation processing on the first BWP comprises: performing deactivation processing on the first BWP meeting a deactivation condition. However, TS38.213 teaches wherein performing deactivation processing on the first BWP comprises: performing deactivation processing on the first BWP meeting a deactivation condition (p.43 bwp-InactivityTimer).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement BWP fields, taught by TS38.213, into the communication system, taught by Chou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and trigger activation / deactivation of BWP. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine TS38.213 and Chou in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 12, 14, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US-20180183551) in view of Lee (US-20190103954).
As to claim 5, 12, 17: Chou teaches the method of claim 1.
Chou may not explicitly teach wherein the indication information comprises second indication information, the second indication information comprises a third information field and the third information field is a bitmap, and the terminal device performs activation processing on the second BWP and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on a value of a bit in the bitmap. However, Lee teaches wherein the indication information comprises second indication information, the second indication information comprises a third information field and the third information field is a bitmap ([0084, 93] DCI may include a bitmap in which each bit indicates activated and deactivated BWPs in accordance with the order of the number of BWPs), and the terminal device performs activation processing on the second BWP and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on a value of a bit in the bitmap ([0084, 93] The UE 115-a, upon receiving the DCI, may activate the BWPs indicated as active, and deactivate any previously active BWPs that are no longer indicated as being active).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement bitmap, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Chou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and control multiple BWP. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chou and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 7, 14: Chou teaches the method of claim 5.
Chou may not explicitly teach wherein the second BWP comprises a plurality of BWPs, and performing activation processing on the second BWP comprises activating the plurality of BWPs simultaneously; and wherein the first BWP comprises a plurality of BWPs, and performing deactivation processing on the first BWP comprises deactivating the plurality of BWPs simultaneously. However, Lee teaches wherein the second BWP comprises a plurality of BWPs ([0097, 98]), and performing activation processing on the second BWP comprises activating the plurality of BWPs simultaneously ([0079] the base station 105 may simultaneously activate the secondary CC and one or more BWPs of the secondary CC by using the first DCI); and wherein the first BWP comprises a plurality of BWPs ([0097, 98]), and performing deactivation processing on the first BWP comprises deactivating the plurality of BWPs simultaneously ([0097, 98] UE 115 may deactivate each of the other BWPs 310 at point 350, which may be prior to the expiration of the BWP time period).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement bitmap, taught by Lee, into the communication system, taught by Chou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and control multiple BWP. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chou and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chou (US-20180183551), Lee (US-20190103954) in view of Feuersanger (US-20130039202).
As to claim 6, 13: Chou teaches the method of claim 5.
Chou may not explicitly teach wherein performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on the second BWP and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on the information field of the indication information comprises: when the value of a bit is a first value, performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on the second BWP which corresponds to the bit; and when the value of the bit is a second value, performing, by the terminal device, deactivation processing on the first BWP which corresponds to the bit. However, Feuersanger teaches wherein performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on the second BWP and deactivation processing on the first BWP based on the information field of the indication information comprises: when the value of a bit is a first value, performing, by the terminal device, activation processing on the second BWP which corresponds to the bit ([0197, 213] a bit set to 0 could mean that the corresponding component carrier is to be deactivated and the bit set to 1 could mean the activation of the component carrier, or vice versa); and when the value of the bit is a second value, performing, by the terminal device, deactivation processing on the first BWP which corresponds to the bit ([0197, 214, 217] the mobile terminal would determine whether there is a change of the activation state for a component carrier and activates or deactivates the respective component carrier accordingly).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement bit activation / deactivation, taught by Feuersanger, into the communication system, taught by Chou, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and efficiently activate / deactivate BWP. In addition, it would have been obvious to combine Chou and Feuersanger in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights