DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/19/2024 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected for not being descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 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 § 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al. (US Pub. 20210314946 A1) in view of Sutton et al. (US Pub. 20080176523 A1).
For Claims 1 and 19, Ang discloses a user equipment (UE) (Figs. 2 and 14. UE 115 is the claimed user equipment.) ¶[0107], comprising: at least one memory (Figs. 2 and 14. Memory 282 stores the instructions and BWP parameters.) ¶[0107]–[0108]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE (Figs. 2, 12 and 14. Controller/processor 280 executes stored instructions and controls the UE.) ¶[0107] to:
configure a downlink bandwidth part (BWP) for a time division duplex band (Figs. 5A–5D and 14. The defined downlink BWP is configured for half-duplex TDD slots on the component carrier. Paragraph 73 supplies the TDD operation; paragraph 75 identifies the legacy half-duplex BWP pair.) ¶[0064], [0073], [0075], [0108]; and
configure an uplink BWP for the time division duplex band (Figs. 5A–5D and 14. The same component carrier has an uplink BWP for the complementary half-duplex TDD slots.) ¶[0073], [0075], [0108],
But Ang doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the uplink BWP is different from the downlink BWP.
However, Sutton discloses wherein the uplink BWP is different from the downlink BWP (Figs. 1 and 3. Apply the disclosed asymmetric TDD allocation: constrain the uplink portion while allowing the downlink to span the operating band. This supplies the difference in configured frequency extent. Sutton calls these allocated bandwidths rather than NR BWPs; the ground applies that allocation to the configured BWP pair.) ¶[0067], [0106].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang with Sutton to ensure different bandwidth can be used for data communication, thus, improving network efficiency.
For Claims 12 and 20, Ang discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising (Figs. 2 and 14. UE 115 is the claimed user equipment.) ¶[0107]: at least one memory (Figs. 2 and 14. Memory 282 stores the instructions and BWP parameters.) ¶[0107]–[0108]; and
at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE (Figs. 2, 12 and 14. Controller/processor 280 executes stored instructions and controls the UE.) ¶[0107] to:
receive data on an uplink bandwidth part (BWP) (Figs. 4A, 13 and 14. GAP: paragraph 69 places uplink reception at base station 105d. The UE transmits uplink and receives downlink.) ¶[0069]–[0071], [0107],
wherein the uplink BWP is configured for a time division duplex band (Figs. 5A–5D. The defined uplink BWP occupies component-carrier resources used in TDD half-duplex slots.) ¶[0073], [0075],
a downlink BWP is configured for the time division duplex band (Figs. 5A–5D. A corresponding downlink BWP is defined on the same component carrier and used in the downlink TDD interval.) ¶[0073], [0075], and
But Ang doesn’t explicitly teach the uplink BWP is different from the downlink BWP.
However, Sutton discloses the uplink BWP is different from the downlink BWP (Figs. 1 and 3. Apply the disclosed asymmetric TDD allocation: constrain the uplink portion while allowing the downlink to span the operating band. This supplies the difference in configured frequency extent. Sutton calls these allocated bandwidths rather than NR BWPs; the ground applies that allocation to the configured BWP pair.) ¶[0067], [0106].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang with Sutton to ensure different bandwidth can be used for data communication, thus, improving network efficiency.
For claims 2 and 13, Ang as modified by Sutton, Sutton further discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to configure a frequency of a common local oscillator (LO) for the uplink BWP and the downlink BWP at a center of the uplink BWP ¶[0095], [0031]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 3 and 14, Ang as modified by Sutton, Sutton further discloses the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to configure a baseband transmit filter (Figs. 3 and 4. Mode controller 390 and bandwidth controller 430 configure variable filter 340 in the baseband transmit chain.) ¶[0093], [0108]–[0112] such that the baseband transmit filter contains the uplink BWP (Figs. 3 and 4. Set the filter to pass the entire configured uplink allocation, using the maximum-allocatable-uplink option in paragraph 68.) ¶[0013], [0068] and a bandwidth of the baseband transmit filter is less than a carrier bandwidth (Figs. 3 and 4. The reduced-emission filter is narrower than the full operating band, that operating band is the configured carrier bandwidth.) ¶[0013], [0068], [0093-0095]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 4 and 15, Ang as modified by Sutton, Sutton further discloses the bandwidth of the baseband transmit filter corresponds to a bandwidth of an allowed carrier bandwidth for a given frequency band ¶[0098], [0142], [0145]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 5 and 16, Ang as modified by Sutton, Sutton further discloses the bandwidth of the baseband transmit filter corresponds to a bandwidth of a smallest allowed carrier bandwidth for the given frequency band larger than a bandwidth of the uplink BWP ¶[0098], [0142], [0145]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
Claim(s) 6-10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al. (US Pub. 20210314946 A1) in view of Sutton et al. (US Pub. 20080176523 A1) in further view of Frank (US Pat. 10951255 B1).
For claims 6 and 17, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Frank.
Frank discloses a maximum power reduction (MPR) allowed to meet emissions requirements is a reduced MPR relative to the MPR that is allowed if no BWP is configured for uplink (Figs. 6–8. The smaller-bandwidth MPR rule expressly selects a lower MPR when available. Apply it to the configured uplink BWP instead of the legacy full-carrier emission case. The full-carrier/no-uplink-BWP comparison can be implemented.) (col. 7, lines 18–28 and 45–56; col. 8, lines 53–67; col. 9, lines 1–3).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Frank to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
For claims 7 and 18, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Frank.
Frank discloses a maximum power reduction (MPR) an MPR allowed to meet emissions constraints is the MPR allowed for a carrier bandwidth larger than a bandwidth of the uplink BWP but smaller than the configured carrier bandwidth (Figs. 7 and 8. The reference permits the MPR of a smaller channel when the LO and resource allocation fit that channel. The configuration confines the whole BWP inside that channel with positive margin, making its bandwidth strictly greater than the BWP and smaller than the configured carrier.) (col. 6, lines 10–44; col. 8, lines 53–67; col. 9, lines 1–3).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Frank to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
For claim 8, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Frank.
Frank discloses a maximum power reduction (MPR) an MPR allowed to meet emissions constraints is the MPR for a smallest carrier bandwidth larger than a bandwidth of the uplink BWP (col. 8, lines 53–67; col. 9, lines 1–3).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Frank to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
For claim 9, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Frank.
Frank discloses an additional MPR (A-MPR) allowed to meet additional emissions requirements is a reduced A-MPR relative to the A-MPR that is allowed if no BWP is configured for uplink (Figs. 6 and 7. Option 3 reduces A-MPR relative to option 2, which has the same A-MPR as the single component carrier covering the channel. Implement that full-carrier case as the no-uplink-BWP baseline; use the BWP-centered transmit LO and the expressly lower A-MPR when the BWP is configured.) (col. 6, lines 23–44; col. 8, lines 53–67).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Frank to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
For claim 10, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Frank.
Frank discloses an additional MPR (A-MPR) A-MPR allowed to meet additional emissions constraints is the A-MPR allowed for a carrier bandwidth larger than a bandwidth of the uplink BWP but smaller than the configured carrier bandwidth (Figs. 7 and 8. Use the smaller-channel A-MPR rule for a BWP placed wholly inside that channel, with positive bandwidth margin. The selected channel remains narrower than the configured carrier.) (col. 6, lines 10–44; col. 8, lines 53–67; col. 9, lines 1–3).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Frank to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ang et al. (US Pub. 20210314946 A1) in view of Sutton et al. (US Pub. 20080176523 A1) in further view of Umeda et al. (US Pub. 20240298272 A1).
For claim 8, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Umeda.
Umeda discloses a maximum power reduction (MPR) an MPR allowed to meet emissions constraints is the MPR for a smallest carrier bandwidth larger than a bandwidth of the uplink BWP (Figs. 7 and 8. gives BWP edge distances of 3 and 2.4 MHz, so its width is 5.4 MHz. Of supported carrier widths 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz, 10 MHz is the smallest strictly larger than 5.4 MHz. The UE applies the A-MPR for 10 MHz in the 20 MHz carrier. This specific embodiment satisfies the claim; the general rule based on twice the larger edge distance is not always equivalent to a rule based only on BWP width.) ¶[0070]–[0074].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Umeda to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
For claim 11, Ang, as modified by Sutton, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Ang, as modified by Sutton, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Umeda.
Umeda discloses an additional MPR (A-MPR)A-MPR allowed to meet additional emissions constraints is the A-MPR for a smallest carrier bandwidth larger than a bandwidth of the uplink BWP (Figs. 7 and 8. gives BWP edge distances of 3 and 2.4 MHz, so its width is 5.4 MHz. Of supported carrier widths 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz, 10 MHz is the smallest strictly larger than 5.4 MHz. The UE applies the A-MPR for 10 MHz in the 20 MHz carrier. This specific embodiment satisfies the claim; the general rule based on twice the larger edge distance is not always equivalent to a rule based only on BWP width.) ¶[0070]–[0074].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing different frequencies with different bandwidth part used in a mobile network; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ang and Sutton with Umeda to ensure different power schemes can be used for data transmission optimization, thus, improving energy efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12323973 B2 US 11516786 B2 US 20210345389 A1
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
