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 .
This office action is responsive to communication filed on 02/26/2025.
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.
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 1 - 3, 14 - 17, 26 – 28, 43, and 50 - 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shulan Feng (US 2021/0144547; hereinafter Feng) in view of Takeda et al (US 2022/0053320; hereinafter Takeda), and further in view of He et al (US 2025/0184806; hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 1, Feng discloses a method for reporting a terminal processing capability, performed by a terminal (abstract), and comprising:
determining the terminal processing capability supported by the terminal (S21, fig. 2; paragraph [0077]; Feng discloses that the terminal device determines capability information of the terminal device); and
sending information indicating the terminal processing capability supported by the terminal to a network device (Feng discloses that the capability information of the terminal device includes information about a first processing capability supported by the terminal device. In the following, for ease of distinguishing, the first processing capability is referred to as a processing capability 2), and
the terminal processing capability comprises at least one of a first processing capability, a second processing capability or a third processing capability (paragraph [0080]; Feng discloses that the capability information of the terminal device may further include information about a second processing capability supported by the terminal device. Similarly, for ease of differentiation, the second processing capability is referred to as a processing capability 1 below. It may be understood that the capability information of the terminal device includes information about the processing capability 1 and/or information about the processing capability 2 that are/is supported by the terminal device ).
Feng discloses all the limitations, but fails to specifically disclose wherein the first processing capability is lower than the second processing capability, and the third processing capability is lower than the first processing capability.
Takeda, in an analogous art, discloses that the first processing capability is lower than the second processing capability, and the third processing capability is lower than the first processing capability (paragraphs [0039 - 0040], [0051], [0056]; Takeda discloses that a processing capability #3 (third processing capability that supports a value satisfying a requirement stricter than at least one of the processing capabilities #1 and #2. A certain parameter that is defined in the processing capability #3 may be configured to a value more aggressive than that of at least one of the processing capabilities #1 and #2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Feng by having that the first processing capability is lower than the second processing capability, and the third processing capability is lower than the first processing capability as evidenced by Takeda for the purpose of providing a user terminal that appropriately operates based on a third processing capability; thereby avoiding complicated processing due to control of the processing capability in the UE .
Feng and Takeda disclose all the limitations, but fail to specifically disclose that the terminal is an enhanced reduced capability (eRedCap) terminal.
He, in an analogous art, discloses that the terminal is an enhanced reduced capability (eRedCap) terminal (abstract; paragraphs [0094 – 0096]; He discloses that the device can buffer, in memory, data for the enhanced-reduced capability user equipment using the scaling factor (904). For instance, when the device is a base station, the device can buffer data for sending to a user equipment. When the device is a user equipment, e.g., an eRedCap, the device can buffer data for sending to a base station or another user equipment).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Feng and Takeda by showing that the terminal is an enhanced reduced capability (eRedCap) terminal as evidenced by Takeda for the purpose of being able of reducing complexity, power usage, or data requirements in a network environment.
Regarding claim 2, Feng, Takeda, and He disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the eRedCap terminal is a terminal configured to support the first processing capability, the second processing capability and the third processing capability, wherein the first processing capability and the second processing capability are optional capabilities respectively, and the third processing capability is a default capability in a case that the terminal processing capability is not reported (He: paragraphs [0010], [0039], [0065 – 0066]; He discloses that a third processing capability the third processing capability supporting at least one of a value that satisfies a requirement stricter than at least one of first and second processing capabilities, and a function that is not supported by the first and second processing capabilities, and a control section that controls certain processing based on the third processing capability). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Feng, Takeda, and He disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein sending the information indicating the terminal processing capability supported by the terminal to the network device comprises at least one of:
sending first terminal capability signaling to the network device, wherein the first terminal capability signaling indicates that the terminal supports the first processing capability and does not support the second processing capability (Feng: paragraphs [0079 - 0080]; Feng discloses that the capability information of the terminal device includes the information about the processing capability 1 supported by the terminal device, or the information about the processing capability 2 supported by the terminal device, or the information about the processing capability 1 supported by the terminal device and the information about the processing capability 2 supported by the terminal device. Because the processing capability 1 has a relatively low requirement on the terminal device, it is generally agreed on that all terminal devices support the processing capability 1). Same motivation as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Feng, Takeda, and He disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the eRedCap terminal is a terminal that only supports the third processing capability, wherein sending the information indicating the terminal processing capability supported by the terminal to the network device comprises:
sending third terminal capability signaling to the network device, wherein the third terminal capability signaling reports at least one of a bandwidth capability, a data scheduling capability or a terminal type of the terminal, and implicitly indicates to the network device that the terminal only supports the third processing capability (He: paragraphs [0048], [0051], [0053], [0065], [0070]).
Claims 15 – 17, 26 – 28, 43, and 50 – 51 incorporate substantively all the limitations of claims 1 – 3, 8 – 9, and 14. The reasons for rejecting claims 1 – 3, 8 – 9, and 14 apply in claims 15 – 17, 26 – 28, 43, and 50 – 51. Therefore, claims 15 – 17, 26 – 28, 43, and 50 – 51 are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 – 9, 21 – 22, 29, and 37 – 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ning Yang (US 2021/0160686) discloses a method and device for reporting capability.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVES DALENCOURT whose telephone number is (571)272-3998. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5:30PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/YVES DALENCOURT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights