DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross Reference to Related Applications
2. The present Application is a 371 national stage filing of International PCT Application No. PCT/CN2022/088984 by Zhang et al. entitled "GROUP-COMMON BANDWIDTH PART SWITCHING," filed April 25, 2022, which is assigned to the assignee hereof, and which is expressly incorporated by reference.
Claims status
3. This office action is a response to an application filed on September 03, 2024 in which claims 1-30 are pending for examination.
Drawings
4. The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on September 03, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statements submitted on September 03, 2024; January 15, 2026 and March 13, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
(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.
7. 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 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abdelghaffar (US 2022/0014345 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated September 03, 2024), hereinafter “Abdelghaffar”.
Regarding claim 1, Abdelghaffar discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Figs. 7, 9, 11, wireless communications including resource format indicators in bandwidth part management), comprising:
a processor; memory coupled with the processor (Figs. 12-19, apparatus including a processor, memory coupled with the processor, and instructions stored in the memory); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
communicate with a network entity on a first bandwidth part (Figs. 9, 11, paragraphs [0246], [0233], operating BWP 905 and/or operating BWP (active BWP) including a first set of frequency resources in carrier bandwidth);
receive a group-common downlink control information message (Figs. 9, 11, paragraphs [0111], [0220], [0235], [0247], GC-DCI message including RFI) indicating that the UE is to communicate with the network entity (Figs. 9, 11, paragraphs [0111], [0220], [0235], [0247], RFI indicating second set of resources) on a second bandwidth part (Figs. 9, 11, paragraphs [0111], [0220], [0235], [0247], BWP 905-a and/or modified BWP), the group-common downlink control information message being for a plurality of UEs including the UE (Fig. 11, paragraphs [0111], [0220], [0235], [0247], GC-DCI message for a plurality of UEs including the UE); and
communicate with the network entity on the second bandwidth part (Figs. 9, 11, paragraphs [0147], [0235], [0249], [0250], using modified BWP) based at least in part on receiving the group-common downlink control information message (Figs. 9, 11, paragraphs [0147], [0235], [0249], [0250], according to modified operating BWP).
Regarding claim 2, Abdelghaffar discloses the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify, in the group-common downlink control information message, a UE-specific field for the UE indicating the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity (paragraphs [0146], [0175], [0224], GC-DCI message may be an example of any DCI message transmitted to multiple recipients; the message may include control information for multiple UEs 115, such that a UE 115 receiving the GC-DCI message may determine a portion of the control information intended for the UE 115; UE specific information from DCI).
Regarding claim 7, Abdelghaffar discloses the UE communicates with the network entity on the first bandwidth part using frequency division duplexing in a full- duplex mode, and the UE communicates with the network entity on the second bandwidth part using time-division duplexing in a half-duplex mode (Fig. 9, paragraphs [0233], [0235], SFI indicating a set of frequency resources 915 (e.g., frequency resources 915-a), modify the operating BWP 905 based on the set of frequency resources 915, and communicate with the base station using the modified BWP).
Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1 from perspective of a network entity.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1 from perspective of a network entity.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2 from perspective of the network entity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21, 27, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar (US 2022/0014345 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated September 03, 2024), hereinafter “Abdelghaffar” in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0075579 A1), hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding claim 3, Abdelghaffar discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Abdelghaffar does not explicitly disclose “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify, in the group-common downlink control information message, a common field for the plurality of UEs indicating the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity”.
However, Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify, in the group-common downlink control information message, a common field for the plurality of UEs indicating the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity (Fig.6, paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0154], frequency hopping pattern via group common signaling or group-DCI (G-DCI) signaling).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify, in the group-common downlink control information message, a common field for the plurality of UEs indicating the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity” as taught by Liu, in the system of Abdelghaffar, so that it would provide spectrum sharing to extend the benefit of NR technologies to operating entities to avoiding collisions when communicating in a shared spectrum or an unlicensed spectrum (Liu, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Abdelghaffar discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Abdelghaffar does not explicitly disclose “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity based at least in part on an implicit indication of the second bandwidth part in the group-common downlink control information message”.
However, Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity based at least in part on an implicit indication of the second bandwidth part in the group-common downlink control information message (Figs.3, 6, 8, 16, paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0152], one or more BWP hopping patterns (e.g., the frequency hopping patterns 604 and 804) for a plurality of BWPs; each BWP may be within a subband (e.g., the subbands 310) of a shared frequency band or an unlicensed band (e.g., the frequency band 301)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity based at least in part on an implicit indication of the second bandwidth part in the group-common downlink control information message” as taught by Liu, in the system of Abdelghaffar, so that it would provide spectrum sharing to extend the benefit of NR technologies to operating entities to avoiding collisions when communicating in a shared spectrum or an unlicensed spectrum (Liu, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Abdelghaffar discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Abdelghaffar does not explicitly disclose “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity based at least in part on a bandwidth part switching pattern”.
However, Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity based at least in part on a bandwidth part switching pattern (Figs.3, 6, 8, 16, paragraphs [0100], [0104], [0152], one or more BWP hopping patterns (e.g., the frequency hopping patterns 604 and 804) for a plurality of BWPs; each BWP may be within a subband (e.g., the subbands 310) of a shared frequency band or an unlicensed band (e.g., the frequency band 301)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: identify the second bandwidth part on which to communicate with the network entity based at least in part on a bandwidth part switching pattern” as taught by Liu, in the system of Abdelghaffar, so that it would provide spectrum sharing to extend the benefit of NR technologies to operating entities to avoiding collisions when communicating in a shared spectrum or an unlicensed spectrum (Liu, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 4 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 5 from perspective of the network entity.
11. Claims 6, 8, 14, 16, 22, 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdelghaffar (US 2022/0014345 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated September 03, 2024), hereinafter “Abdelghaffar” in view of ABOTABL et al. (US 2022/0022209 A1), hereinafter “Abotabl”.
Regarding claim 6, Abdelghaffar discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Abdelghaffar does not explicitly disclose “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the group-common downlink control information message indicating that the UE is to communicate with the network entity on the second bandwidth part based at least in part on the UE being restricted from communicating on the first bandwidth part”.
However, Abotabl from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the group-common downlink control information message indicating that the UE is to communicate with the network entity on the second bandwidth part based at least in part on the UE being restricted from communicating on the first bandwidth part (Figs. 13, 15, paragraph [0147], the second BWP is designated as a new BWP for the UE based on the active BWP being deactivated; the second BWP is designated as a new BWP for the UE when the active BWP is deactivated).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive the group-common downlink control information message indicating that the UE is to communicate with the network entity on the second bandwidth part based at least in part on the UE being restricted from communicating on the first bandwidth part” as taught by Abotabl, in the system of Abdelghaffar, so that it would provide configuring bandwidth parts for a scheduled entity in networks supporting full duplex slot formats relate to wireless communication systems (Abotabl, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Abdelghaffar discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Abdelghaffar does not explicitly disclose “the UE communicates with the network entity on the first bandwidth part using time-division duplexing in a half- duplex mode, and the UE communicates with the network entity on the second bandwidth part using frequency-division duplexing in a full-duplex mode”.
However, Abotabl from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the UE communicates with the network entity on the first bandwidth part using time-division duplexing in a half- duplex mode, and the UE communicates with the network entity on the second bandwidth part using frequency-division duplexing in a full-duplex mode (Figs. 10, 15, paragraphs [0121], [0147], UE may switch from an anchor BWP (e.g., 1014) to the complementary BWP (e.g., 1016) and back when the UE transitions from a HD to a FD slot, and then back to HD again).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the UE communicates with the network entity on the first bandwidth part using time-division duplexing in a half- duplex mode, and the UE communicates with the network entity on the second bandwidth part using frequency-division duplexing in a full-duplex mode” as taught by Abotabl, in the system of Abdelghaffar, so that it would provide configuring bandwidth parts for a scheduled entity in networks supporting full duplex slot formats relate to wireless communication systems (Abotabl, paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8 from perspective of the network entity.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 6 from perspective of the network entity.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights