DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority as a 371 of PCT/JP2022/017881 filed 4/14/2022 is acknowledged.
Preliminary Amendment filed 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 have been cancelled.
Claims 7-9 are newly added and remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2024 and 12/9/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 7 and 9, it is unclear what is meant by the final limitation of these claims, in the case where the initial bandwidth part “that is equivalent to that of the non-function-reduced terminal exceeds the maximum bandwidth of the terminal in which the first function is reduced” and how the control unit then determines to use “an initial bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of a terminal in which a second function is reduced for random access”. For examination purposes, this last limitation will be treated as using a second/different function for random access when the initial bandwidth part exceeds the maximum bandwidth of the terminal, compared to the first case where a first function is used for random access when the initial bandwidth part does not exceed the maximum bandwidth of the terminal.
Claim 8 is further rejected based on its dependence from claim 9. Additionally in claim 8, the abbreviation “FR1” is used to refer to “(Frequency Range 2)”, creating ambiguity between FR1 and FR2, and the abbreviation “UE” is used to refer to “(User Equipment)” after “UE” has already been used several times previously in the claim. The explanation of the abbreviation should be provided after the 1st instance of “UE”.
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.
Claims 7-9 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US20250274846A1), hereafter Kim, in view of Koskinen et al. (US20250039770A1), hereafter Koskinen.
Regarding claims 7 and 9,
Kim discloses a communication method performed by a terminal (Fig. 10-18, UE) in which a first function is reduced (i.e. RedCap UE; paragraph 4, 8, 200, etc.) comprising, in a case where an initial bandwidth part of a non-function-reduced terminal does not exceed a maximum bandwidth of the terminal in which the first function is reduced (paragraph 200, 330-338, 378; SIB1 received through CORESET #0 if bandwidth < RedCap max bandwidth as compared to normal UE), a control unit (Fig. 18, control unit 120) configured to determine to use an initial bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of the non-function-reduced terminal for random access (paragraph 134; initial access procedure for DL/UL BWP of normal UE) and a communication unit (Fig. 18, communication unit 110) configured to perform random access in the initial bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of the non-function-reduced terminal (Fig. 7, S703-706; Fig. 10-11; paragraph 138, 159-168; perform RACH procedure).
Kim further discloses, in a case where the initial bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of the non-function-reduced terminal exceeds the maximum bandwidth of the terminal in which the first function is reduced (paragraph 200, 330-338, 378; SIB1-R received through CORESET #0-R if bandwidth > RedCap max bandwidth as compared to normal UE), the control unit determines to use an initial bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of a terminal in which a function is reduced for random access (paragraph 134; initial access procedure for DL/UL BWP of normal UE).
Kim does not expressly disclose determining to use bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of a terminal in which a second, different function is reduced for random access.
Koskinen discloses analogous art (Title: Network Interoperability; Fig. 4-5) including determining to use bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of a terminal in which a second, different function is reduced for random access (paragraph 41-45; UE receives SIB of initial BWP based on supported reduced capability UE sub-indications for FR1/first function and FR2/second, different function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Kim by determining to use bandwidth part that is equivalent to that of a terminal in which a second, different function is reduced for random access, as shown by Koskinen, thereby enabling efficient cell attachment and operation for UEs having different sets of capabilities.
Regarding claim 8,
The combination of Kim and Koskinen discloses the control unit supports a UE capability of supporting reduced peak data rate in FR1/FR2 (Koskinen: paragraphs 41-45; separate sub-indications for FR1/FR2), a UE capability of supporting one or two reception branches and a UE capability of supporting a maximum number of downlink MIMO layers corresponding to the supported number of reception branches (Kim: paragraphs 3, 6, 257, 274, 296-300; Koskinen: paragraphs 35; based on number of Rx branches and MIMO layers; Koskinen: ), a UE capability of not supporting CA and/or DC or a UE capability of supporting a relaxed UE processing timeline for a downlink shared channel (Kim: paragraphs 255-273, 365; Koskinen: paragraphs 35; lack support for carrier aggregation/dual connectivity). See motivation above.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights