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 .
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 recites the limitation “the associated ID for the second cell.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims depend on claims 1 and 11 and are rejected based on their dependence.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation “the plurality of sets of RRC configurations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 and 13 recites “the first set of RRC reconfigurations.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 and 13 recites “the first associated ID group of the second cell.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 and 14 recites “the second cell associated ID.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “substantially immediately” in claims 4 and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially immediately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how this term limits “activation time.”
Claim 5 and 15 recites “the second cell the delta configuration.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 and 16 recites “the difference.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 and 17 recites “the RRC configurations associated with the one or more common associated IDs.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 and 18 recites “a number of one or common associated IDs.”
Claim 9 and 19 recites “that is used activate an associated ID of the second cell.”
Claim 10 and 20 recites “the indication is received via a system information block (SIB).” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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 rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bai (US 20220321314 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses:
“A wireless transceiver/receiver unit (WTRU) comprising: a processor configured to:” ([¶ 0052]: “The transceiver may be used by a processor (e.g., the controller/processor 280) and the memory 282 to perform aspects of any of the methods described herein (e.g., with reference to FIGS. 4-10).”)
“receive configuration information, wherein the configuration information comprises a plurality of associated identification (ID) groups, one or more associated identifiers (IDs) associated with each associated ID group of the plurality of associated ID groups, and a plurality sets of radio resource control (RRC) configurations, wherein each set of RRC configurations is associated with an associated ID;” ([¶ 0095]: “As shown in connection with reference number 505, the first cell 102a may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication of at least a first TCI state and a second TCI state. For example, the first cell 102a may transmit the indication as described above in connection with reference number 405 of FIG. 4.”; [¶ 0081]: “In some aspects, the first BWP may be associated with RRC parameters for the first cell 102a, and the second BWP may be associated with RRC parameters for the second cell 102e.”)
“receive information that indicates that a first associated ID group of the plurality of associated ID groups is associated with a first cell and a second associated ID group of the plurality of associated ID groups is associated with a second cell;” ([¶ 0095]: “In some aspects, the first cell 102a may further transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication that the first TCI state is associated with the first cell 102a and that the second TCI state is associated with the second cell 102e (e.g., as described above in connection with FIG. 3).”)
“activate the first cell using first set of RRC configurations of the plurality of sets of RRC configurations; receive an activation message to activate the second cell; and” ([¶ 0098]: “As shown in connection with reference number 510, the first cell 102a may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication to switch from the first TCI state to the second TCI state.” Wherein it is implied that to switch from the first TCI state to the second TCI state, the first TCI state was previously activated.)
“perform an activation procedure to activate the second cell based on (i) the first associated ID group associated with the first cell and the second associated ID group associated with the second cell and (ii) the associated ID for the second cell.” ([¶¶ 0099-0100]: “Accordingly, as shown in connection with reference number 515, the UE 120 may determine, based at least in part on one or more rules stored in the memory of the UE 120, that the first BWP is associated with the first cell 102a and that the second BWP is associated with the second cell 102e. For example, the UE 120 may use the rule(s) as described above to determine that the first BWP is associated with the first cell 102a and that the second BWP is associated with the second cell 102e. Accordingly, as shown in connection with reference number 520, the UE 120 may apply the second TCI state.”)
Regarding claim 2, Bai discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Bai further discloses “wherein, to perform the activation procedure, the processor is configured to perform the activation procedure to activate the second cell based on (i) the first associated ID group associated with the first cell being the same as the second associated ID group associated with the second cell and (ii) the associated ID for the second cell.” ([¶ 0082]: “In some aspects, the first BWP may be associated with RRC parameters common to the first cell 102a and the second cell 102e, with cell-specific RRC parameters for the first cell 102a, and with cell-specific RRC parameters for the second cell 102e. Additionally, or alternatively, the second BWP may be associated with RRC parameters common to the first cell 102a and the second cell 102e, with cell-specific RRC parameters for the first cell 102a, and with cell-specific RRC parameters for the second cell 102e. In any of the aspects described above, the RRC parameters common to the first cell 102a and the second cell 102e may include a frequency raster, an SCS, and/or another transmission parameter shared by the first cell 102a and the second cell 102e.”)
Regarding claim 3, Bai discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Bai further discloses “to perform the activation procedure, the processor is configured to activate the second cell using the first set of RRC reconfigurations upon a condition that the first associated ID group of the second cell is the same as a third associated ID group of a third cell, and wherein (i) the third cell is the first cell and the third associated ID group is the first associated ID group, (ii) the third cell is a primary cell (Pcell), or (iii) the third cell is a primary secondary group cell (PScell) that the WTRU received via the second activation message.” (This claim’s condition requires that “the first associated ID group of the second cell is the same as a third associated ID group of a third cell” but also states that “the third cell is the first cell and the third associated ID group is the first associated ID group” and thus the condition is always met.)
Regarding claim 4, Bai discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Bai further discloses “wherein, to perform the activation procedure, the processor is configured to activate an associated ID of the second cell associated ID in accordance with an activation time, wherein the activation time is substantially immediately.” ([¶ 0105]: “FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an example 600 associated with BWP switching using a timer, in accordance with the present disclosure.”; In Fig. 5, there is no timer, thus implying that it occurs immediately.)
Claims 11-14 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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 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(s) 5-6 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US 20220321314 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20240064065 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bai discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Bai further discloses “wherein, to perform the activation procedure, the processor is configured to … activate the second cell the delta configuration based upon a condition that the first associated ID group of the first cell is not the same as the second associated ID group of the second cell.” ([¶ 0098]: “As shown in connection with reference number 510, the first cell 102a may transmit, and the UE 120 may receive, an indication to switch from the first TCI state to the second TCI state.”)
Bai does not explicitly disclose “receive a delta configuration.”
However, Kumar discloses the missing feature “receive a delta configuration.” ([¶ 0095]: “In some aspects, the parameter set configuration information 516 and/or the parameter set 514 may provide one or more the parameter sets 514 as delta information. As used herein, in some aspects, “delta information” (6) may refer to the difference between a reference parameter set and a parameter set. Further, in some aspects, a UE 504 may receive generate a parameter set by combining a reference parameter set and delta information corresponding to the parameter set in order to reduce storage and bandwidth usage.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Bai and Kumar, to modify the configurations as disclosed by Bai, to be based on a reference and delta configuration as disclosed by Kumar. The motivation for utilizing the is, as discussed in paragraph 95 of Kumar, to reduce storage and bandwidth usage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bai with Kumar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Bai discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Bai does not explicitly disclose “wherein the delta configuration is the difference between a reference configuration and a RRC configuration to be used for the second cell.”
However, Kumar discloses the missing feature “wherein the delta configuration is the difference between a reference configuration and a RRC configuration to be used for the second cell.” ([¶ 0095]: “In some aspects, the parameter set configuration information 516 and/or the parameter set 514 may provide one or more the parameter sets 514 as delta information. As used herein, in some aspects, “delta information” (6) may refer to the difference between a reference parameter set and a parameter set. Further, in some aspects, a UE 504 may receive generate a parameter set by combining a reference parameter set and delta information corresponding to the parameter set in order to reduce storage and bandwidth usage.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Bai and Kumar, to modify the configurations as disclosed by Bai, to be based on a reference and delta configuration as disclosed by Kumar. The motivation for utilizing the is, as discussed in paragraph 95 of Kumar, to reduce storage and bandwidth usage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bai with Kumar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 15-16 are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US 20220321314 A1) in view of Farag (US 20250267750 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bai discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Bai does not explicitly disclose “wherein the indication is received via a system information block (SIB).”
However, Farag discloses the missing feature “wherein the indication is received via a system information block (SIB)..” ([¶ 0398]: “In one example, a UE (e.g., the UE 116) receives a TCI state configuration of an entity, by receiving a common channel of an entity (e.g., system information block (SIB) of an entity) that includes the TCI state configuration of the entity.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Bai and Farag, to modify the technique as disclosed by Bai, to be utilize SIB as disclosed by Farag. The motivation for doing so is that it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Bai with Farag to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 20 is similar to claim 10 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 17-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, of the closest prior arts Bai (US 20220321314 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20240064065 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Bai (US 20220321314 A1) in view of Kumar does not disclose “when a number of one or more common associated IDs that are associated with both the first associated ID group and the second associated ID group is greater than an associated ID threshold, the reference configuration comprises the RRC configurations associated with the one or more common associated IDs.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 7 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 17 is similar to claim 7 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 8, of the closest prior arts Bai (US 20220321314 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20240064065 A1) discloses all the features of the parent claim. However, Bai (US 20220321314 A1) in view of Kumar does not disclose “when a number of one or common associated IDs associated with both the first associated ID group and the second associated ID group is less than an associated ID threshold, the reference configuration comprises an RRC configuration that is not part of the the sets of RRC configurations associated with the one or more associated IDs.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 8 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 9 depend on claim 8 and contain allowable subject matter based on their dependence. Claims 18-19 are similar to claims 8-9 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights