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 Interpretation
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 claim limitations “transmission unit”, “reception unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language (e.g., “configure to…”) without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: (see Figs. 11, 19-22, [0174]- [0181]).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC§ 102
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)(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, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al(US 2024/0107507 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Wang ‘507 teaches, a terminal ([0006], [0159] and Figs. 4, 8, discloses a terminal device) comprising:
a transmission unit configured to report, to a base station, a number of antenna ports that can perform band switching as capability information ([0070], [0091], [0093] and Fig. 3, the UE’s transmission unit sends a first message to a network device (base station) containing capability information. This capability information can indicate a “number of antenna ports that are in the Mi antenna ports and that can be switched to the Jth carried”),
in a transmission switching scheme in which at least one antenna port of a plurality of antenna ports can switch bands across two or more bands and the plurality of antenna ports in total switch bands for transmission across three or more bands ([0059], [0078], [0080] and Fig. 1, 4, disclosed is a multi-band switching architecture where individual antenna ports can be switched to different carriers through switches. Antenna port (e.g. antenna port 0) can be switched between a 2.1GHz carrier, a2.6 GHz carrier and a 4.9 GHz carrier (i.e. three or more frequency bands)); and
a reception unit configured to receive, from the base station, information on an antenna port that is a target for which band switching is performed, or information on an antenna port that is not a target for which band switching is performed ([0135], [0136], [0138] and Fig. 3, the UE receives configuration and scheduling information from the network device. The network device selects an appropriate antenna port for the UE to send uplink data on a specific carrier and will ‘indicate the selected antenna port by using scheduling information”).
Regarding claim 2, Wang ‘507 teaches, a terminal ([0006], [0159] and Figs. 4, 8, discloses a terminal device) comprising:
a transmission unit configured to report, to a base station, information of a band that an antenna port by which band switching is not performed uses as capability information([0062], [0071], [0078], [0080], [0082] and Figs. 1, 3, 4, UE reporting it capability information to the base station indicating the specific carriers/bands supported by each antenna port for example, reporting that the 4.9 GHz carrier supports antenna port 3, where antenna port 3 is connected to a single crystal oscillator without a switch which indicates that it cannot be switched between different carries), in a transmission switching scheme in which at least one antenna port of a plurality of antenna ports can switch bands across two or more bands and the plurality of antenna ports in total switch bands for transmission across three or more bands([0059], [0078], [0080] and Fig. 1, 4, disclosed is a multi-band switching architecture where individual antenna ports can be switched to different carriers through switches. Antenna port (e.g. antenna port 0) can be switched between a 2.1GHz carrier, a2.6 GHz carrier and a 4.9 GHz carrier (i.e. three or more frequency bands)); and
a reception unit configured to receive, from the base station, information on an antenna port that is a target for which band switching is performed, or information on an antenna port that is not a target for which band switching is performed ([0135], [0136], [0138] and Fig. 3, the UE receives configuration and scheduling information from the network device. The network device selects an appropriate antenna port for the UE to send uplink data on a specific carrier and will ‘indicate the selected antenna port by using scheduling information”).
Regarding claim 4, Wang ‘507 teaches, wherein the transmission unit reports information on a band of a switching candidate in each antenna port ([0096]-[0099] and Fig. 3, 4, reporting the specific candidate bands (frequency domain units) that each antenna port can switch to).
Regarding claim 5, Wang ‘507 teaches, a base station ([0051], [0067], [0161] and Figs. 2, 9, a network device described as an access network device such as a base station (e.g. eNB)) comprising:
a reception unit configured to receive, from a terminal, a number of antenna ports that can perform band switching as capability information ([0014], [0070], [0078], [0080], [0093] and Figs. 1, 3, 4, the base station receiving first message including capability information from a terminal device. This capability information can indicate a “number of antenna ports that are in the Mi antenna ports and that can be switched to the Jth carried”),
in a transmission switching scheme in which at least one antenna port of a plurality of antenna ports can switch bands across two or more bands and the plurality of antenna ports in total switch bands for transmission across three or more bands ([0059], [0078], [0080] and Fig. 1, 4, disclosed is a multi-band switching architecture where individual antenna ports can be switched to different carriers through switches. Antenna port (e.g. antenna port 0) can be switched between a 2.1GHz carrier, a2.6 GHz carrier and a 4.9 GHz carrier (i.e. three or more frequency bands)); and
a transmission unit configured to transmit, to the terminal, information on an antenna port that is a target for which band switching is performed, or information on an antenna port that is not a target for which band switching is performed ([0135], [0136], [0138] and Fig. 3, base station transmitting to the UE configuration and scheduling information from. The network device selects an appropriate antenna port for the UE to send uplink data on a specific carrier and will ‘indicate the selected antenna port by using scheduling information”).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ‘507 in view of Xing (US 2023/0224691 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wang ‘507 teaches all of the claim limitations, Wang ‘507 further teaches, when there is an antenna port in which band switching is not performed([0062], [0071], [0078], [0080], [0082] and Figs. 1, 3, 4, UE reporting it capability information to the base station indicating the specific carriers/bands supported by each antenna port for example, reporting that the 4.9 GHz carrier supports antenna port 3, where antenna port 3 is connected to a single crystal oscillator without a switch which indicates that it cannot be switched between different carries).
Wang ‘507 does not explicitly teach, the transmission unit reports that a number of MIMO layers of a band that the antenna port uses is two.
Xing ‘691 teaches, the transmission unit reports that a number of MIMO layers of a band that the antenna port uses is two ([0112], [0125] and Figs. 19, 22, when multi-band operation is activated, the actual MIMO reception capability is 2-MIMO-layer reception capability in cell A, band X and cell B, band Y and the terminal reports the new two-layer capability to the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Wang ‘507 by incorporating the teaching of Xing ‘691, since such modification enables a network device to receive at least two sets of communication capabilities reported by a terminal device in an initial access procedure of the terminal device which enables the network device to perform network configuration based on the reported capabilities, as suggested by Xing ‘691([0005]).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, which can be found: http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; or (3) EFS WEB. Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AWET A HAILE whose telephone number is (571)270-3114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571)272-2832. 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.
/AWET HAILE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights