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 .
Initial Examination
Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/24, including preliminary amendments filed on 12/19/24, has been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the respective claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18877094 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are broader versions of the reference claims. For instance, instant claim 1 has the UE configure parameters of a BWP, including additional requirements. The reference claim 1 has the UE configure a DL/UL BWP and claim 2 utilizes a LO to do so (i.e., “additional requirement” of instant claim 1). Consequently, under BRI, the broader scope of the instant claims requires a provisional DP Rejection relative to the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-14, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20220166594 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a user equipment (UE) [fig. 11], comprising:
at least one memory [fig. 11 “Memory”]; and
at least one processor [fig. 11 no. 702] coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
determine a capability to configure transmission parameters of a bandwidth part (UE considers M delays and/or delay between first/second BWP (i.e., transmission parameter) [fig. 7 no. 501, fig. 9 no. 710]);
determine additional requirements for the transmission parameters of the bandwidth part (UE determines N parameters and/or quantity of MIMO layers (i.e., additional requirements) [fig. 7 no. 510, fig. 9 no. 720]); and
activate the bandwidth part within a time interval based on the additional requirements (Eventually, the UE activates the BWP within the duration (i.e., time interval based on additional reqs) [fig. 7 no. 540, fig. 9 no. 760]).
Regarding claim 15, it is substantially similar to claim 1, except is in method claim format, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, it substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Zhang further discloses processor [fig. 11 no. 702] for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller [fig. 11 no. 701] coupled with at least one memory [fig. 11 “Memory”].
Regarding claim 20, it substantially similar to claim 1, except is from the perspective of the network, and is rejected under substantially similar reasoning, where Zhang further discloses a base station [fig. 13], comprising: at least one memory [fig. 13 no. 8021]; and at least one processor [fig. 13 no. 8022].
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the time interval depends on the additional requirements (Based on the scenario (i.e., additional reqs), the time period is determined [par. 0265-266]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the additional requirements for transmission parameters depend on a frequency band [par. 0263].
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the time interval is a first switching time for a first set of additional requirements [fig. 7 no. 510].
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the time interval is a second switching time for a second set of additional requirements [fig. 9 no. 720].
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the bandwidth part comprises an uplink bandwidth part [Abstract].
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the bandwidth part comprises a downlink bandwidth part [Abstract].
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit information indicating the capability to configure the transmission parameters of the bandwidth part [fig. 7 no. 520-530, fig. 9 no. 730-740].
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to receive information indicating the additional requirements for the transmission parameters of the bandwidth part (The terminal receives the reconfiguration message, which is based on and used to further configure the BWP to be used by the terminal (i.e., info “indicating” additional reqs) [fig. 6 no. 412]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to autonomously determine the additional requirements for the transmission parameters of the bandwidth part (The additional reqs are determined by the UE based on UE capability and known by the UE [fig. 7 no. 501-510, fig. 9 no. 710-720]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to transmit information indicating the additional requirements for the transmission parameters of the bandwidth part [fig. 7 no. 520-530, fig. 9 no. 730-740].
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 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 15 respectively, and further in view of Frank (US 10951255 B1, cited by Applicant of Record).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Zhang discloses wherein the additional requirements for the transmission parameters, as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose comprises a frequency of a local oscillator. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Frank.
In the same field of endeavor, Frank discloses:
comprises a frequency of a local oscillator [fig. 8-9].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with Frank. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of better controlling extent of unwanted power leakage into nearby channels [Frank col. 1 ln. 53 – col. 2 ln. 4].
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claims 1 and 15 respectively, and further in view of Liu (US 20240195440 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Zhang discloses wherein the additional requirements for the transmission parameters, as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose comprises a bandwidth of a transmit filter. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Liu.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu discloses:
comprises a bandwidth of a transmit filter [par. 0132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with Liu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of reducing the probability that the signal cannot be correctly received [Liu par. 0004].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Awad (US 20250119906 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses everything claimed, as applied above.
Although Zhang discloses wherein the additional requirements for the transmission parameters, as discussed above, Zhang does not explicitly disclose depend on a power class. However, these concepts are well known as disclosed by Awad.
In the same field of endeavor, Awad discloses:
depend on a power class [par. 0105].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang with Awad. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of efficiently handling communications in wireless communications systems that use different types of terminal devices [Awad par. 0008].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Walter J DiVito whose telephone number is (571)272-2556. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8 am - 6 pm (PST).
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/WALTER J DIVITO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
