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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 3/12/2026 and entered on 3/31/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 16, 19-21, 24, 26, 29 and 30 have been amended. Claims 2, 5, 12, 15, 22 and 25 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “the subject matter of Stirling, Joseph and Akkarakaran…differs from the TRP information message comprises a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs” (Pages 10-11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner continues to contend that the “parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs” is non-functional descriptive material. The specific type of data is non-functional descriptive material because the only step that is occurring is a transmission of the “TRP information message”; no other step refers to the specific content of the data and no action is occurring because of the data. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs” is simply “data”.
The Applicant is reminded that structure defines how an apparatus differs from prior art apparatuses and when no difference in structure is defined, the assumption is made that the prior art structure meets the limitations.
The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.’” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
In method cases, the relevant inquiry is whether a new and unobvious functional relationship with the known method exists. See In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1072-73, 98 USPQ2d 1799, 1811-12 (Fed. Cir. 2011); King Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Eon Labs Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1279, 95 USPQ2d 1833, 1842 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Separate from above, the Examiner would point to Akkarakaran which discloses “the almanac 220 may include a UE identifier (e.g., when a UE 115 is acting as a relay for a base station 105, where the location/position of the UE 115 is known and indicated in the almanac information)” (Page 12 [0142]) and the ability to send the TRP information (Fig. 3 [315]) generated or forwarded by the at least one of the one or more TRPs. (Fig. 3 [315] and Page 14 [0160] “positioning assistance data (e.g., almanac information, PRS configuration information, etc.) that indicates that a first node operates as a relay”)
Accordingly, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertions on pages 10-11 as to the alleged deficiency of Stirling, Joseph and Akkarakaran to disclose “a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs” which has been responded to above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Applicant argues that the stated motivation does not provide a rationale for arriving at a TRP information message that includes a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs. The issue again is that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “parameter” is “data”. The Examiner will not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582-1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336,1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (nonfunctional descriptive material cannot render nonobvious an invention that would have otherwise been obvious). See also Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (nonprecedential), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (emphasis added). This printed matter doctrine is not strictly limited to “printed” materials. Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032. More specifically, “a claim limitation is directed to printed matter ‘if it claims the content of information.’” Mallinckrodt, 890 F.3d at 1032 (quoting In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Stirling teaches transmitting a TRP information message including data (Page 14 Claim 15]), which the Examiner views as meeting the claim limitation.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Stirling and Joseph fails to teach “transmit, in a TRP information message, by the distributed unit of the gNB to a central unit of the gNB that is configured to send a request to the distributed unit of the gNB for the update of TRP information, an indication of the update of TRP information without waiting for the request for the update of TRP information from the central unit of the gNB” (Page 12), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Stirling teaches that “Updates to the information in the TRP-A may be communicated to the LS (or some other entity or entities maintaining the TRP-A).” (Page 6 [0063]) Stirling teaches that updates to the information in the TRP-A can be derived from TDOA measurements. (Page 2 [0018]) Stirling teaches the TDOA feedback can be received at the LS (i.e. analogous to the central unit) from receiving devices (Page 6 [0064-0065]), with the receiving devices being either UEs or TRPs (directly or indirectly providing the information from the UE) i.e. the TRP is analogous to the distributed unit. (Page 4 [0050] “the transmitting devices (i.e., TRPs in the downlink and UEs in the uplink) transmit beamformed positioning reference signals (BF-PRSs) to allow the receiving devices (e.g., UEs in the downlink and TRPs in the uplink) to make TDOA measurements in accordance with the BF-PRSs.” and Page 6 [0065] “Operations 600 at the LS or other entity determining the position of the device begin with receiving TDOA feedback (block 605). The TDOA feedback may be received from receiving devices”)
With respect to “a central unit of the gNB that is configured to send a request to the distributed unit of the gNB for the update of TRP information”, the structure of the “central unit of the gNB” is not being considered in this claim because the claim is directed to “An apparatus for wireless communications at a distributed unit of a gNodeB” and the active step being claimed, “transmit”, is performed by the distributed unit of the gNB. (“one or more processors configured to execute the instructions and cause the distributed unit of the gNB to”)
Separately from the claim scope discussion above, Stirling teaches the LS is “configured to send” structurally and functionally by stating “The LS may share the position of the device with other devices in the communications system (block 611). As an illustrative example, the LS may share the position of the device with other network entities in the communications system”. (Page 7 [0069])
With respect to the “without waiting for the request for the update of TRP information”, the Examiner views this as being non-functional descriptive material because it is merely a description of data and not an active step that is occurring in the claim, however in view of compact prosecution, Stirling teaches the ability to transmit a TRP information message without receiving an update request. (Page 6 [0063] note: “request” is not found in Stirling, the changes are “shared” or “updated” see Page 14 Claim 15)
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11, 13, 16-21, 23 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirling-Gallacher et al. (US-2018/0324738 hereinafter, Stirling) in view of Joseph et al. (US-2020/0045655 hereinafter, Joseph).
Regarding claim 1, Stirling teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a first network entity (Fig. 5A [515] or Fig. 4 [409]), comprising:
one or more processors coupled to one or more memories (Page 2 [0017]) configured to cause the first network entity to:
determine an update of transmission reception point (TRP) (Page 11 [0117]) information of one or more TRPs (any one of Fig. 5A [505, 507, 409, 511 & 513]) associated with the first network entity; (Fig. 5A [515] or Fig. 4 [409] and Pages 5-6 [0059]) and
transmit, in a TRP information message, from the first network entity (Fig. 5A [515]) to a second network entity (Fig. 5A [505, 507, 409, 511 & 513]), an indication of the update of the TRP information. (Page 5 [0057-0058] i.e. TRP-A information can be stored at some or all of the transmitting devices, Pages 1-2 [0013], Page 2 [0018], Page 6 [0063], Page 11 [0117] and claims 9 and 15-17)
Stirling teaches the use of gNBs (Stirling Page 3 [0040]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting the first network entity is the distributed unit of the gNB and the second network entity is the central unit of the gNB.
In an analogous art, Joseph teaches a method and system for wireless communication (Abstract) that includes a first network entity is a distributed unit of the gNB and the second network entity is a central unit of the gNB. (Joseph Page 6 [0058] “a TRP may be a distributed unit (DU) associated with the base station 110 (e.g., a gNB and/or the like)” and Page 3 [0029] “The terms “eNB”, “base station”, “NR BS”, “gNB”, “TRP”, “AP”, “node B”, “5G NB”, and “cell” may be used interchangeably herein”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stirling after modifying it to incorporate a distributed unit and a central unit architecture of Joseph since a distributed radio access network architecture is utilized in next generation network architectures. (Joseph Fig. 4 and Page 6 [0058])
With respect to “a central unit of the gNB that is configured to send a request to the distributed unit of the gNB for the update of TRP information, an indication of the update of TRP information without waiting for the request for the update of TRP information from the central unit of the gNB”, the Examiner views this limitation as being directed to separate device/apparatus that is not the apparatus being claimed (distributed unit of a gNodeB (gNB)).
Despite this and in view of compact prosecution, Stirling in view of Joseph teaches the LS is “configured to send” structurally and functionally by stating “The LS may share the position of the device with other devices in the communications system (block 611). As an illustrative example, the LS may share the position of the device with other network entities in the communications system”. (Stirling Page 7 [0069] and Joseph Pages 7-8 [0082] “The base station 110 may configure the UE 120 to separately measure the SSBs associated with the first TRP 605 and/or to separately report a measurement report associated with the first TRP 605. For example, the base station 110 may transmit an indication to separately measure SSBs corresponding to different TRPs, to separately report SSB measurements corresponding to different TRPs, and/or the like.” i.e. this is the equivalent to the central unit of the gNB requesting the DU of the gNB to send an update of the TRP information by requesting measurements)
Accordingly, Stirling in view of Joseph teaches that the UE transmits measurements to the TRP (i.e. equivalent to an gNB), which then relays this information to the LS (equivalent to the central unit) (Stirling Page 6 [0064-0065]) and that a TRP can be a distributed unit of the gNB (Joseph Page 6 [0058-0059]) which is in communication with a central unit of the gNB (Jospeh Page 6 [0058]), with the request for measurements originating from the gNB. (Joseph Pages 7-8 [0082])
Stirling in view of Joseph differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the TRP information messages comprises a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one or more TRPs.
In an analogous art, Akkarakaran teaches a method and system for positioning with relays (Abstract) that includes sending TRP information (Fig. 3 [315]) generated or forwarded by the at least one of the one or more TRPs (Fig. 3 [315] and Page 14 [0160] “positioning assistance data (e.g., almanac information, PRS configuration information, etc.) that indicates that a first node operates as a relay”), wherein the TRP information message comprises a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one or more TRPs. (Page 12 [0142] “the almanac 220 may include a UE identifier (e.g., when a UE 115 is acting as a relay for a base station 105, where the location/position of the UE 115 is known and indicated in the almanac information).”) note: The Examiner still views the “parameter” as non-function descriptive material but in view of compact prosecution, is mapping the limitation to the cited prior art as well.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stirling in view of Joseph after modifying it to incorporate the ability to provide a parameter indicating the identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs of Akkarakaran since it enables being able to properly take into account the amount of delay in the signal, where the device is located and the type of device being used for location determining. (Akkarakaran Page 12 [0141-0143])
Regarding claim 3, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the update comprises an update of a positioning reference signal (PRS) configuration. (Stirling Page 2 [0018])
Regarding claim 6, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the update comprises an update of spatial information or geographical location information of at least one of the one or more TRPs (Stirling Page 2 [0018]), wherein the at least one of the one or more TRPs comprises a signal repeater or a signal reflector (Akkarakaran Fig. 3 [305]) that is mobile (Akkarakaran (Page 6 [0098] “In some examples, a base station 105 may be movable and therefore provide communication coverage for a moving geographic coverage area 110.”), wherein the update of spatial information is related to beamforming of the at least one of the one or more TRPs (Stirling Fig. 5B, Fig. 7 [705] and Akkarakaran Page 12 [0142] “the almanac 220 may include information indicating antenna array/panel configuration and/or orientation for the relay nodes, as well as information indicating beam patterns and beam gains of the relay node for both backhaul links (e.g., relay 205 to base station 105-a on carrier 215-a or an additional parent/donor base station 105) and access links (e.g., relay 205 to UE 115-a on carrier 215-b or an additional end UE 115”), and wherein the spatial information comprises positioning reference signal (PRS) beam information including azimuth and elevation angle of each PRS. (Stirling Claims 9-12 “azimuth” and Page 5 [0057 “angular information”)
Regarding claim 7, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the update comprises a removal of a TRP associated with the distributed unit of the gNB. (Stirling Page 6 [0063] i.e. “temporary” and Joseph Page 6 [0058-0059] and Page 8 [0090])
Regarding claim 8, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the TRP information message comprises a parameter indicating a mobility of at least one of the one or more TRPs. (Akkarakaran (Page 6 [0098] “In some examples, a base station 105 may be movable and therefore provide communication coverage for a moving geographic coverage area 110.”)
Regarding claims 9, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the one or more TRPs comprise a reconfigurable intelligent surface (RIS) or a repeater (Akkarakaran Page 3 [0141] “the almanac 220 may contain information identifying a node ‘type’ for each base station 105. For example, the node ‘type’ may indicate whether a base station 105 is a ‘regular’ (e.g., macro or micro) base station 105 (e.g., gNB), a home base station 105 (e.g., or gNB), or a relay (e.g., an active or passive relay or repeater or reflector relay, respectively)”), and wherein the TRP information message indicates whether a positioning reference signal (PRS) configuration is generated or forwarded by the at least one of the one or more TRPs (Akkarakaran Page 14 [0160] “positioning assistance data (e.g., almanac information, PRS configuration information, etc.) that indicates that a first node operates as a relay”), wherein the TRP information message further comprises a parameter indicating a group delay that indicates a processing latency of signal forwarding by the at least one of the one or more TRPs (Akkarakaran Page 12 [0143] “ for a decode-and-forward type repeater, the introduced delay may be relatively much larger than the amplify-and-forward type repeater (e.g., based on decoding the information in the data transmission before forwarding the data transmission to a particular UE 115) and may be taken into account for determining positioning (e.g., precise positioning) of UE 115-a”) and a parameter indicating a propagation delay (Page 12 [0143] “relay 205 is a repeater or an active relay, the almanac 220 may include a delay introduced by the repeater or active relay”), wherein the RIS comprises RIS elements that are reconfigurable scatterers including antennas that receive and re-radiate radio wave signals, and therein the re-radiation by the RIS elements is configurable with a phase shift for each RIS element. (note: this is directed to the RIS that is not the “apparatus” and accordingly, is outside the scope of patentability when considering the structure of the “apparatus”)
Regarding claim 10, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches the TRP information message comprises a parameter indicating data. (Akkarakaran Page 12 [0142] “the almanac 220 may include a UE identifier (e.g., when a UE 115 is acting as a relay for a base station 105, where the location/position of the UE 115 is known and indicated in the almanac information).”)
Regarding claim 11, Stirling teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a second network entity (Fig. 5A [505-513], Page 13 [0137] and Fig. 14B), comprising:
one or more processors (Fig. 14B [1450]) coupled to one or more memories (Fig. 14B [1458]) and configured to cause the second network entity to:
receive, in a TRP information message, from a first network entity (Fig. 5A [515]), an indication of an update of transmission reception point (TRP) information of one or more TRPs associated with the first network entity; (Page 2 [0018], Page 11 [0117] and claims 9 and 15-17) and
update the TRP information in the second entity according to the TRP information message. (Page 5 [0057-0058] i.e. TRP-A information can be stored at some or all of the transmitting devices, Page 2 [0018], Page 11 [0117] and claims 9 and 15-17)
Stirling teaches the use of gNBs (Stirling Page 3 [0040] and Xi Page 12 [0062]), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the first network entity is a central unit of a gNodeB (gNB) and the second network entity is a distributed unit of the gNB or the first network entity is the distributed unit of the gNB and the second network entity is the central unit of the gNB.
In an analogous art, Joseph teaches a method and system for wireless communication (Abstract) that includes a first network entity is a distributed unit of the gNB and the second network entity is a central unit of the gNB. (Joseph Page 6 [0058] “a TRP may be a distributed unit (DU) associated with the base station 110 (e.g., a gNB and/or the like)” and Page 3 [0029] “The terms “eNB”, “base station”, “NR BS”, “gNB”, “TRP”, “AP”, “node B”, “5G NB”, and “cell” may be used interchangeably herein”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stirling after modifying it to incorporate a distributed unit and a central unit architecture of Joseph since a distributed radio access network architecture is utilized in next generation network architectures. (Joseph Fig. 4 and Page 6 [0058])
With respect to “a central unit of the gNB that is configured to send a request to the distributed unit of the gNB for the update of TRP information, an indication of the update of TRP information without waiting for the request for the update of TRP information from the central unit of the gNB”, the Examiner views this limitation as being directed to separate device/apparatus that is not the apparatus being claimed (distributed unit of a gNodeB (gNB)).
Despite this and in view of compact prosecution, Stirling in view of Joseph teaches the LS is “configured to send” structurally and functionally by stating “The LS may share the position of the device with other devices in the communications system (block 611). As an illustrative example, the LS may share the position of the device with other network entities in the communications system”. (Stirling Page 7 [0069] and Joseph Pages 7-8 [0082] “The base station 110 may configure the UE 120 to separately measure the SSBs associated with the first TRP 605 and/or to separately report a measurement report associated with the first TRP 605. For example, the base station 110 may transmit an indication to separately measure SSBs corresponding to different TRPs, to separately report SSB measurements corresponding to different TRPs, and/or the like.” i.e. this is the equivalent to the central unit of the gNB requesting the DU of the gNB to send an update of the TRP information by requesting measurements)
Accordingly, Stirling in view of Joseph teaches that the UE transmits measurements to the TRP (i.e. equivalent to an gNB), which then relays this information to the LS (equivalent to the central unit) (Stirling Page 6 [0064-0065]) and that a TRP can be a distributed unit of the gNB (Joseph Page 6 [0058-0059]) which is in communication with a central unit of the gNB (Jospeh Page 6 [0058]), with the request for measurements originating from the gNB. (Joseph Pages 7-8 [0082])
Stirling in view of Joseph differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the TRP information messages comprises a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one or more TRPs.
In an analogous art, Akkarakaran teaches a method and system for positioning with relays (Abstract) that includes sending TRP information (Fig. 3 [315]) generated or forwarded by the at least one of the one or more TRPs (Fig. 3 [315] and Page 14 [0160] “positioning assistance data (e.g., almanac information, PRS configuration information, etc.) that indicates that a first node operates as a relay”), wherein the TRP information message comprises a parameter indicating an identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one or more TRPs. (Page 12 [0142] “the almanac 220 may include a UE identifier (e.g., when a UE 115 is acting as a relay for a base station 105, where the location/position of the UE 115 is known and indicated in the almanac information).”) note: The Examiner still views the “parameter” as non-function descriptive material but in view of compact prosecution, is mapping the limitation to the cited prior art as well.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stirling in view of Joseph after modifying it to incorporate the ability to provide a parameter indicating the identity of a mobile termination (MT) collocated with at least one of the one or more TRPs of Akkarakaran since it enables being able to properly take into account the amount of delay in the signal, where the device is located and the type of device being used for location determining. (Akkarakaran Page 12 [0141-0143])
Regarding claim 13, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the update comprises an update of a positioning reference signal (PRS) configuration. (Stirling Page 2 [0018])
Regarding claim 16, Stirling in view of Joseph teaches wherein the update comprises an update of spatial information or geographical location information of at least one of the one or more TRPs (Stirling Page 2 [0018]), wherein the at least one of the one or more TRPs comprises a signal repeater or a signal reflector (Akkarakaran Fig. 3 [305]) that is mobile (Akkarakaran (Page 6 [0098] “In some examples, a base station 105 may be movable and therefore provide communication coverage for a moving geographic coverage area 110.”), wherein the update of spatial information is related to beamforming of the at least one of the one or more TRPs (Stirling Fig. 5B, Fig. 7 [705] and Akkarakaran Page 12 [0142] “the almanac 220 may include information indicating antenna array/panel configuration and/or orientation for the relay nodes, as well as information indicating beam patterns and beam gains of the relay node for both backhaul links (e.g., relay 205 to base station 105-a on carrier 215-a or an additional parent/donor base station 105) and access links (e.g., relay 205 to UE 115-a on carrier 215-b or an additional end UE 115”), and wherein the spatial information comprises positioning reference signal (PRS) beam information including azimuth and elevation angle of each PRS. (Stirling Claims 9-12 “azimuth” and Page 5 [0057 “angular information”)
Regarding claim 17, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the update comprises a removal of a TRP associated with the first network entity. (Stirling Page 6 [0063] i.e. “temporary” and Joseph Page 8 [0090])
Regarding claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 8.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 10.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations of claim 21 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claims 23 and 26-29, the limitations of claims 23 and 26-29 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 3 and 6-9.
Regarding claim 30, the limitations of claim 30 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. See additionally claim 18 and claims 23-26. Specifically, the “update” of the second network entity can be seen in Stirling Pages 1-2 [0013] and Page 2 [0018]).
Claims 4, 14, 24 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran as applied to claims 1, 11 and 21, and further in view of Yang et al. (US-2022/0386188 hereinafter, Yang).
Regarding claim 4, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches the limitations of claim 1 above but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the update comprises an update of physical cell identity (PCI).
In an analogous art, Yang teaches a cell handover method and device (Abstract) that includes the ability to update a physical cell identity. (Page 3 [0061-0062])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran after modifying it to incorporate the ability to provide updates to PCI related information of Yang since it enables informing a mobile device of information for a specific TRP for faster acquisition. (Yang Page 1 [0009])
Regarding claims 14 and 24, the limitations of claims 14 and 24 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 4.
With respect to claim 31, the Examiner’s over-arching point regarding non-functional descriptive material and “data” is equally applicable to claim 31, however in view of compact prosecution, the limitations are cited in the prior art in detail below.
Regarding claim 31, Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran teaches wherein the one or more TRPs associated with the distributed unit of the gNB are mobile (Joseph Page 3 [0030]), and the update comprises:
an update of a positioning reference signal (PRS) configuration based on mobility of the one or more TRPs, (Stirling Page 2 [0018])
an update of a synchronization signal block (SSB) configuration based on the mobility of one or more TRPs (Akkarakaran Fig. 3 [315] and Page 3 [0040])
an update of spatial information associated with the one or more TRPs based on their mobility, (Stirling Page 2 [0018])
an update of geographical location information associated with the one or more TRPs based on their mobility, (Akkarakaran Page 12 [0141] and Page 6 [0098] “In some examples, a base station 105 may be movable and therefore provide communication coverage for a moving geographic coverage area 110.”)
an update in a transmission power of the one or more TRPs (Joseph Pages 6-7 [0072] “A network controller may use the reported parameter(s) to adjust the cluster of TRPs that communicates with the UE 120, to modify one or more characteristics of one or more TRPs (e.g., a beamforming parameter, a transmit power, and/or the like)”) and
a deactivation of the one or more TRPs. (Joseph Page 8 [0090] “a network controller may use the reported parameter(s) to adjust a cluster of TRPs that communicates with the UE 120 (e.g., to add the first TRP 605 to the cluster, to remove the first TRP 605 from the cluster, to maintain the first TRP 605 in the cluster, and/or the like), to modify one or more characteristics specific to the first TRP 605 (e.g., a beamforming parameter, a transmit power, a modulation and coding scheme (MCS), one or more transmission parameters, and/or the like), and/or to perform other operations to improve communication with the UE 120”)
Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting an update of a physical cell identity (PCI) associated with the one or more TRPs based on their mobility.
In an analogous art, Yang teaches a cell handover method and device (Abstract) that includes the ability to update a physical cell identity. (Page 3 [0061-0062])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Stirling in view of Joseph and Akkarakaran after modifying it to incorporate the ability to provide updates to PCI related information of Yang since it enables informing a mobile device of information for a specific TRP for faster acquisition. (Yang Page 1 [0009])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-10,219,259 to Kubota et al. which discloses an uplink based cell selection based on receiving reference signals from TRPs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 EST.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646