MarDETAILED 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 § 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 2-3, 8, 10-11, 16 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.
For example, in claim 2-3, 8, 10-11, and 16, the number n, m and formular
C
m
n
need to be defined as integers and a combination of integers.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okamura; Masaya et al. US PGPUB 20250088331 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Okamura teaches A reporting method, performed by user equipment (UE), comprising:
reporting capability indication information to a network side device, ([0065] The terminal 20 may report the terminal capability related to the positioning measurement used for the XDD configuration or the dynamic DL-UL switching to the base station 10.)
wherein the capability indication information indicates whether frequency bands in a frequency band combination support simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability. ( [0073] The terminal capability information may be information indicating a parameter of the duplex method or the dynamic DL-UL switching that is capable of transmitting or receiving PRSs. For example, the terminal capability information may be information indicating the frequency band for supporting the duplex method or the dynamic DL-UL switching, and may be the frequency band of FR1 alone, the frequency band of FR2 alone, or the frequency band of both FR1 and FR2.)
Regarding claim 9. Okamura teaches A reporting method, performed by a network side device, comprising: receiving capability indication information reported by user equipment (UE), ([0065] The terminal 20 may report the terminal capability related to the positioning measurement used for the XDD configuration or the dynamic DL-UL switching to the base station 10.)
wherein the capability indication information indicates whether frequency bands in a frequency band combination support simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability. ([0073] The terminal capability information may be information indicating a parameter of the duplex method or the dynamic DL-UL switching that is capable of transmitting or receiving PRSs. For example, the terminal capability information may be information indicating the frequency band for supporting the duplex method or the dynamic DL-UL switching, and may be the frequency band of FR1 alone, the frequency band of FR2 alone, or the frequency band of both FR1 and FR2.)
Regarding claim 19. Okamura teaches A communication device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor (Fig. 21 and Fig. 22) ; wherein the processor is configured perform the method in claim 1. It is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20. Okamura teaches A communication device, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor; (Fig. 21 and Fig. 22) wherein the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 9. It is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 23. Okamura teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon, wherein when the instructions are executed by a processor, (Fig. 21 and 22) the processor is caused to perform the method according to claim 1. It is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 24. Okamura teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having instructions stored thereon, wherein when the instructions are executed by a processor, (Fig. 21 and 22) the processor is caused to perform the method according to claim 9. It is rejected for the same reason.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VAN LIESHOUT; Gert Jan et al. US PGPUB 20190110190 A1.
Regarding claim 2. Okamura teaches The method according to claim 1, but it does not teach wherein the capability indication information comprises at least one indication bit, each indication bit corresponds to a frequency band combination, the frequency band combination comprises n frequency bands, n≥3, and an indication code carried on the indication bit indicates whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability.
However, VAN LIESHOUT teaches
wherein the capability indication information comprises at least one indication bit, each indication bit corresponds to a frequency band combination, the frequency band combination comprises n frequency bands, n≥3, and an indication code carried on the indication bit indicates whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability. ([0012] The UE capability signalling may comprise one of the following options: a single bit (per UE) indicating whether the UE supports the new optional feature regardless of the UE's configuration; a bit per frequency band, allowing the UE to indicate that it supports the new optional feature for some frequency bands but not for others (for instance, half duplex, 256 QAM in download); a bit per frequency band combination; or a bit per frequency band within a band combination.)
in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information. ([0016))
Okamura and Van LIESHOUT are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Okamura with the technique of frequency band capability indication in Van LIESHOUT in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information.
Regarding claim 4. Okamura and Van LIESHOUT teach The method according to claim 2, but Okamura does not teach
wherein the indication code carried on the indication bit indicating whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability comprises:
in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a first value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability;
and in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a second value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination do not support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability.
However, Van LIESHOUT teaches wherein the indication code carried on the indication bit indicating whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability comprises:
in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a first value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability;
and in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a second value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination do not support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability.
([0012] The UE capability signalling may comprise one of the following options: a single bit (per UE) indicating whether the UE supports the new optional feature regardless of the UE's configuration; … UE capability signalling for new optional features is evaluated on a case by case basis. Clearly, however, the desire to preserve maximum flexibility directly conflicts with efforts to constrain the growth of UE E-UTRA capability information.)
in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information. ([0016))
Okamura and Van LIESHOUT are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Okamura with the technique of frequency band capability indication in Van LIESHOUT in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information.
Regarding claim 5. Okamura teaches The method according to claim 1, but it does not teach wherein reporting capability indication information to a network side device comprises: reporting capability indication information to the network side device through signaling.
However, VAN LIESHOUT teaches
wherein reporting capability indication information to a network side device comprises: reporting capability indication information to the network side device through signaling. ([0012] To determine the appropriate option requires a trade-off between flexibility and optimal use of UE capabilities versus complexity and signalling overhead. Consequently, UE capability signalling for new optional features is evaluated on a case by case basis.)
in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information. ([0016))
Okamura and Van LIESHOUT are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Okamura with the technique of frequency band capability indication in Van LIESHOUT in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information.
Regarding claim 10. Okamura teaches The method according to claim 9, but it does not teach wherein the capability indication information comprises at least one indication bit, each indication bit corresponds to a frequency band combination, the frequency band combination comprises n frequency bands, n≥3, and an indication code carried on the indication bit indicates whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability.
However, VAN LIESHOUT teaches
wherein the capability indication information comprises at least one indication bit, each indication bit corresponds to a frequency band combination, the frequency band combination comprises n frequency bands, n≥3, and an indication code carried on the indication bit indicates whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability. ([0012] The UE capability signalling may comprise one of the following options: a single bit (per UE) indicating whether the UE supports the new optional feature regardless of the UE's configuration; a bit per frequency band, allowing the UE to indicate that it supports the new optional feature for some frequency bands but not for others (for instance, half duplex, 256 QAM in download); a bit per frequency band combination; or a bit per frequency band within a band combination.)
in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information. ([0016))
Okamura and Van LIESHOUT are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Okamura with the technique of frequency band capability indication in Van LIESHOUT in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information.
Regarding claim 12. Okamura and Van LIESHOUT teach The method according to claim 9, but Okamura doesn’t teach wherein the indication code carried on the indication bit indicating whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability comprises: in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a first value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability; and in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a second value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination do not support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability.
However, Van LIESHOUT teaches wherein the indication code carried on the indication bit indicating whether the frequency bands in the frequency band combination corresponding to the indication bit support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability comprises:
in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a first value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability;
and in response to determining that the indication code carried by the indication bit is a second value, the indication code indicating that the frequency bands in the corresponding frequency band combination do not support the simultaneous uplink and downlink transmission capability.
([0012] The UE capability signalling may comprise one of the following options: a single bit (per UE) indicating whether the UE supports the new optional feature regardless of the UE's configuration; … UE capability signalling for new optional features is evaluated on a case by case basis. Clearly, however, the desire to preserve maximum flexibility directly conflicts with efforts to constrain the growth of UE E-UTRA capability information.)
in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information. ([0016))
Okamura and Van LIESHOUT are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Okamura with the technique of frequency band capability indication in Van LIESHOUT in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information.
Regarding claim 13. Okamura teaches The method according to claim 9, but it does not teach wherein receiving capability indication information reported by UE comprises: receiving capability indication information reported by the UE through signaling.
However, VAN LIESHOUT teaches
wherein reporting capability indication information to a network side device comprises: reporting capability indication information to the network side device through signaling. ([0012] To determine the appropriate option requires a trade-off between flexibility and optimal use of UE capabilities versus complexity and signalling overhead. Consequently, UE capability signalling for new optional features is evaluated on a case by case basis.)
in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information. ([0016))
Okamura and Van LIESHOUT are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Okamura with the technique of frequency band capability indication in Van LIESHOUT in order to constrain the volume of UE E-UTRA capability information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3, 8, 11, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/MARCUS SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights