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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 11/20/2024 is received prior to the examination of the instant application and has not introduced any new matter, thus, has been entered and is examined on the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the instant specification has identified an US Patent application No. 17/286,606 as a parent application, but however, the US Patent application No. 17/286,606 is currently an US Patent. Thus, for a purpose of clarification, it is suggested to amend the instant specification to update the status of the parent application.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 27-44 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 in view of US 2020/0014523 A1 to Huang et al. (hereafter refers as Huang).
Regarding claim 27, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 claims a baseband processor (claim 1), configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving a first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second configuration associated with a second BWP, the respective configurations including a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) parameter (claim 1);
determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (claim 1); and
communicating based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (after the determined interruption, cause communication with the base station on the second BWP, claim 1).
However, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 does not explicitly claim communicating “via an interface with radio frequency circuitry”.
Huang teaches a baseband processor, configured to perform operations (UE is including a baseband processor configured to perform operations/method, paragraphs [22, 38, 59, 90, 155, 179-180] and Fig. 2):
determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP (determining an allowed interruption based on whether the BWP switching would require a retuning involving a modification of the RF chains, i.e. MIMO layers, paragraphs [46, 60, 92, 117]); and
communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry (RF circuitry 218, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [84-87]), based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (the UE communicates, via the RF circuitry, after the interruption and BWP switching, paragraphs [208-211] and Fig. 7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry, based on the determination that the interruption is allowed as taught by Huang, with the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication by using the interface with radio frequency circuitry for communication, thus allowing the baseband processor to be compatible with the radio communication (see Huang, paragraphs [208-211] and Fig. 2, 7B).
Regarding claim 28, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise determining that an interruption is not allowed when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is the same as the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (claim 1).
Regarding claim 29, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the interruption defines a time period during which communication with a base station is not performed (claim 1).
Regarding claim 30, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to a downlink control information including a switching request that indicates a switch from the first BWP to the second BWP (claim 2).
Regarding claim 31, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to expiration of a timer associated with BWP switching (claim 3).
Regarding claim 32, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations include determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch based on a timing advance (TA) (claim 4).
Regarding claim 33, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 claims a user equipment (UE) (claim 17), comprising:
a memory (claim 17); and
a baseband processor (claim 17) coupled to the memory and configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to perform operations (claim 17) comprising:
receiving a first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second configuration associated with a second BWP, the respective configurations including a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) parameter (claim 17);
determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (claim 17); and
communicating based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (claim 17).
However, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 does not explicitly claim communicating “via an interface with radio frequency circuitry” and the UE includes the “radio frequency circuitry”.
Huang teaches a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, element 211), comprising:
radio frequency circuitry (RF circuitry, Fig. 2, element 218);
a memory (memory, Fig. 2, element 203); and
a baseband processor coupled to the memory and configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to perform operations (UE is including a baseband processor coupled to the memory, and configured to perform operations/method when executing instructions stored in the memory, paragraphs [22, 38, 59, 90, 155, 179-180] and Fig. 2) comprising:
determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP (determining an allowed interruption based on whether the BWP switching would require a retuning involving a modification of the RF chains, i.e. MIMO layers, paragraphs [46, 60, 92, 117]); and
communicating, via the radio frequency circuitry (RF circuitry 218, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [84-87]), based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (the UE with the baseband circuitry communicates, via the RF circuitry, after the interruption and BWP switching, paragraphs [208-211] and Fig. 7B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of a user equipment (UE) comprising radio frequency circuitry and communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry, based on the determination that the interruption is allowed as taught by Huang, with the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication by using the interface with radio frequency circuitry for communication, thus allowing the baseband processor to be compatible with the radio communication (see Huang, paragraphs [208-211] and Fig. 2, 7B).
Regarding claim 34, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise determining that an interruption is not allowed when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is the same as the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (claim 17).
Regarding claim 35, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the interruption defines a time period during which communication with a base station is not performed (claim 17).
Regarding claim 36, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to a downlink control information including a switching request that indicates a switch from the first BWP to the second BWP (claim 18).
Regarding claim 37, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to expiration of a timer associated with BWP switching (claim 19).
Regarding claim 38, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations include determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch based on a timing advance (TA) (claims 1, 4 and 17).
Regarding claim 39, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 claims:
transmitting a first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second configuration associated with a second BWP, the respective configurations including a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) parameter (receiving a first configuration of a first BWP with MIMO parameter and a second configuration of a second BWP with MIMO parameter, see claim 1);
determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (see claim 1); and
communicating based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (see claim 1).
However, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 does not explicitly teach “a baseband processor, configured to perform operations comprising” transmitting the first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and the second configuration associated with a second BWP and communicating “via an interface with radio frequency circuitry”.
Huang teaches a baseband processor (see Fig. 2, element baseband circuitry 251), configured to perform operations comprising:
transmitting a first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second configuration associated with a second BWP (transmitting information regarding a set of measurement gaps, each associated with particular BWP, paragraphs [58, 111, 208-211]);
determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining an allowed interruption based on whether the BWP switching would require a retuning involving a modification of the RF chains, i.e. MIMO layers, paragraphs [46, 60, 92, 117, 208-210] and Fig. 7A) ; and
communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry, based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry, Fig. 2 and paragraph [78]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry, based on the determination that the interruption is allowed as taught by Huang, with the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2, for a purpose of increase efficiency in communication by using the interface with radio frequency circuitry for communication, thus allowing the baseband processor to be compatible with the radio communication (see Huang, paragraphs [208-211] and Fig. 2, 7B).
Regarding claim 40, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise determining that an interruption is not allowed when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is the same as the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 41, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the interruption defines a time period during which communication with a base station is not performed (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 42, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to a downlink control information including a switching request that indicates a switch from the first BWP to the second BWP (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 43, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to expiration of a timer associated with BWP switching (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 44, U.S. Patent No. 12,185,315 B2 further claims wherein the operations include determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch based on a timing advance (TA) (see claim 4).
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.
Claims 27-31, 33-37 and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0128427 A1 to Hwang et al. (hereafter refers as Hwang) in view of US 2021/0219112 A1 to Shilov et al. (hereafter refers as Shilov).
Regarding claims 27 and 33, Hwang teaches a baseband processor, configured to perform operations, a user equipment (UE) (UE is including a processor to process a plurality of baseband parameters, i.e. PDCC monitoring periodicity, search space configuration(s) and etc..., paragraphs [30-32, 38] and Fig. 2, provisional 62/754,700, hereafter refers as provisional, pages 4-5), comprising:
radio frequency circuitry (the UE includes a transceiver, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [31-32] and provisional, pages 4-5);
a memory (the UE includes a memory, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [31-32] and provisional, pages 4-5); and
a baseband processor (UE is including a processor to process a plurality of baseband parameters, i.e. PDCC monitoring periodicity, search space configuration(s) and etc..., paragraphs [30-32, 38] and Fig. 2, provisional 62/754,700, hereafter refers as provisional, pages 4-5) coupled to the memory and configured to (coupled to the memory, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [30-32], provisional, pages 4-5), when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to perform (when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the UE to perform the functions/method, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [30-32], provisional, pages 4-5) operations comprising:
receiving a first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second configuration associated with a second BWP, the respective configurations including a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) parameter (receiving multiple BWP configurations, wherein each of the multiple BWP configurations is including at least a MIMO parameter, i.e. number of MIMO layer, paragraphs [11, 28-29, 33, 37, 43] and Fig. 4, provisional 62/754,700, page 3-5);
determining that an interruption during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining whether an interruption occurred during a BWP switching between the first BWP and the second BWP when there is an RF parameter adjustment, i.e. retuning a local oscillator and/or reconfiguring the RF chain, in response to a number of the MIMO layer in the first BWP configuration is different from a number of the MIMO layer of the second BWP configuration, the RF parameter adjustment requires a long transition time that creates an interruption in communication, paragraphs [36-38], provisional 62/754,700, pages 5-6); and
communicating, via the radio frequency circuitry, based on the determination that the interruption (the UE communicates with the base station, via the transceiver, paragraphs [30-32], provisional, pages 3-5, using the second BWP, after the interruption when performing the BWP switching, paragraphs [39-40, 43, 46], provisional 62/754,700, pages 3-5).
However, Hwang does not explicitly teach determining whether the interruption is “allowed”.
Shilov teaches determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining that an interruption is not allowed during a BWP switching when only baseband parameter change, paragraphs [46-47, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3); and
communicating based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (communicating after the interruption when the interruption is allowed, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch as taught by Shilov, with the teachings of determining that the interruption during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration as taught by Hwang, for a purpose of reducing the disruption during the BWP switching by determining whether to allow the interruption during the BWP switch using the MIMO parameter (see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Regarding claims 28 and 34, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the operations comprise determining that an interruption is not allowed when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is the same as the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining that an interruption is not allowed when only baseband parameter is changed, i.e. which is not the RF parameter(s) including the MIMO parameter, see Hwang, paragraph [38], provisional 62/754,700, pages 5-6, see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Regarding claims 29 and 35, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the interruption defines a time period during which communication with a base station is not performed (wherein the interruption is a time period in which communication with a base station is not performed, see Hwang, paragraph [36], provisional 62/754,700, pages 5-6, see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Regarding claims 30 and 36, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to a downlink control information including a switching request that indicates a switch from the first BWP to the second BWP (wherein the initiating of the BWP switch is in response to an DCI including a switching request for switching the BWP, see Hwang’427, paragraphs [32, 39, 40, 44], provisional 62/754,700, pages 2, 6, see Shilov, abstract and paragraphs [77,80], provisional 62/755,117, page 7).
Regarding claims 31 and 37, Hwang further teaches wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to expiration of a timer associated with BWP switching (the UE initiates the BWP switch in response to determining that a BWP-inactivity timer has expired, see Hwang, paragraphs [29, 33, 40, 46, 47], provisional 62/754,700, pages 6-7).
Regarding claim 39, Hwang teaches a baseband processor, configured to perform operations (base station includes a processor to process a plurality of baseband parameters, i.e. PDCC monitoring periodicity, search space configuration(s) and etc..., paragraphs [30-32, 38] and Fig. 2, provisional 62/754,700, hereafter refers as provisional, pages 4-5) comprising:
transmitting a first configuration associated with a first bandwidth part (BWP) and a second configuration associated with a second BWP, the respective configurations including a multiple input multiple output (MIMO) parameter (transmitting multiple BWP configurations, wherein each of the multiple BWP configurations is including at least a MIMO parameter, i.e. number of MIMO layer, paragraphs [11, 28-29, 33, 37, 43] and Fig. 4, provisional 62/754,700, page 3-5);
determining that an interruption during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining whether an interruption occurred during a BWP switching between the first BWP and the second BWP when there is an RF parameter adjustment, i.e. retuning a local oscillator and/or reconfiguring the RF chain, in response to a number of the MIMO layer in the first BWP configuration is different from a number of the MIMO layer of the second BWP configuration, the RF parameter adjustment requires a long transition time that creates an interruption in communication, paragraphs [36-38], provisional 62/754,700, pages 5-6); and
communicating, via an interface with radio frequency circuitry, based on the determination that the interruption (the BS communicates with the UE, via the transceiver, paragraphs [30-32], provisional, pages 3-5, using the second BWP, after the interruption when performing the BWP switching, paragraphs [39-40, 43, 46], provisional 62/754,700, pages 3-5).
However, Hwang does not explicitly teach determining whether the interruption is “allowed”.
Shilov teaches determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining that an interruption is not allowed during a BWP switching when only baseband parameter change, paragraphs [46-47, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3); and
communicating based on the determination that the interruption is allowed (communicating after the interruption when the interruption is allowed, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of determining that an interruption is allowed during a BWP switch as taught by Shilov, with the teachings of determining that the interruption during a BWP switch between the first BWP and the second BWP when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is different from the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration as taught by Hwang, for a purpose of reducing the disruption during the BWP switching by determining whether to allow the interruption during the BWP switch using the MIMO parameter (see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the operations comprise determining that an interruption is not allowed when the value of the MIMO parameter in the first configuration is the same as the value of the MIMO parameter in the second configuration (determining that an interruption is not allowed when only baseband parameter is changed, i.e. which is not the RF parameter(s) including the MIMO parameter, see Hwang, paragraph [38], provisional 62/754,700, pages 5-6, see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the interruption defines a time period during which communication with a base station is not performed (wherein the interruption is a time period in which communication with a base station is not performed, see Hwang, paragraph [36], provisional 62/754,700, pages 5-6, see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to a downlink control information including a switching request that indicates a switch from the first BWP to the second BWP (wherein the initiating of the BWP switch is in response to an DCI including a switching request for switching the BWP, see Hwang’427, paragraphs [32, 39, 40, 44], provisional 62/754,700, pages 2, 6, see Shilov, abstract and paragraphs [77,80], provisional 62/755,117, page 7).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the operations comprise initiating the BWP switch in response to expiration of a timer associated with BWP switching (the UE initiates the BWP switch in response to determining that a BWP-inactivity timer has expired, see Hwang, paragraphs [29, 33, 40, 46, 47], provisional 62/754,700, pages 6-7).
Claims 32, 38 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0128427 A1 to Hwang et al. (hereafter refers as Hwang) in view of US 2021/0219112 A1 to Shilov et al. (hereafter refers as Shilov) as applied to claims above, and further in view of US 2020/0351837 A1 to Hwang et al. (hereafter refers as Hwang’837).
Regarding claims 32, 38 and 44, the combination of Hwang and Shilov further teaches wherein the operations include determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch (determining BWP switching delay for the BWP switch, see Hwang, paragraphs [36-38], provisional 62/754,700, pages 3-5, see Shilov, paragraphs [46-47, 69, 83], provisional 62/755,117, page 3).
However, the combination of Hwang and Shilov does not explicitly the BWP switching delay is “based on a timing advance (TA)”.
Hwang’837 teaches determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch based on a timing advance (TA) (determining BWP switching delay for the BWP switch based on TA value or a maximum TA value, paragraph [153], provisional 62/630,743, page 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch based on a timing advance (TA) as taught by Hwang’837, with the teachings of determining a BWP switching delay for the BWP switch as taught by combination of Hwang and Shilov, for a purpose of increase efficiency for the BWP switch by further using the TA value to determine the delay for the BWP switch (see Hwang’837, paragraphs [151-154], provisional 62/630,743, page 13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0268905 A1 discloses an interruption is occurred when performing BWP switching that involving RF processing, i.e. changing Oscillator, RF BW and SCS and no interruption when performing BWP switching only baseband processing (See paragraphs [34-56]).
US 2020/0100178 A1 (same assignee) discloses BWP switching time depends on whether the BWP switching is involving with MIMO layer switching (see paragraph [99]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG B. HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)270-7642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Ian N. Moore can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/DUNG B HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 June 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights