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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application claims priority from provisional application 63240398 (filed 09/03/2021).
Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities, and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, the current claim set filed on 10/02/2025 has two new claim 6s. One of the two claim 6s must be renumbered or removed. For examining purposes, these claim 6s are being distinguished below as “first” and “second” claim 6.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and “second” claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 20110317777 A1, hereinafter Huang), in view of Jukka Tormalehto (US 20090213968 A1, hereinafter Tormalehto).
Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches a method for determining a dynamic Random Access Channel (RACH) response backoff indicator, comprising (in general, see fig. 12-13 and their corresponding paragraphs):
estimating, at a base station, a load on a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH), based on a number of preambles for each PRACH slot (see at least para. 76, “...A base station may detect a heavy load in a component carrier in a physical random access channel (PRACH) including a first transmission and one or more sequent retransmissions of a preamble...”);
and
using the estimated load as an input to perform dynamic backoff indicator selection (see at least para. 76-77 in view of fig. 13, “...In this example the preamble retransmissions are moved from component carrier 1 to component carrier 2 and 3...”, note that the moves are accompanied by BI with T or nT).
Huang does not explicitly teach preambles detected [for each PRACH slot].
Tormalehto teaches preambles detected [for each PRACH slot] (in general, see fig. 7 and corresponding paragraphs at least 86-96 in view of para. 48-52, in particular, see at least para. 92 and 96, e.g. step 7G and step 7K that corresponding to step 7E for preambles detection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tormalehto into the method of Huang for achieving more accurate noise estimate.
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Tormalehto teaches the base station is a Long Term Evolution (LTE) eNodeB. (Huang, see at least para. 50, “...with reference to transmissions in access systems such as those based on the 3GPP Long Term Evolution (LTE)...”)
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Tormalehto teaches counting, at the base station, the number of preambles detected for each PRACH slot. (Huang, see at least fig. 13 and para. 76-78, e.g. random access load; Tormalehto, see at least para. 92 and 96, e.g. step 7G and step 7K that corresponding to step 7E for preambles detection)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tormalehto into the method of Huang for achieving more accurate noise estimate.
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Tormalehto teaches estimating further comprises based on a noise floor level. (Tormalehto, see at least para. 87, e.g. use of noise floor)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Tormalehto into the method of Huang for achieving more accurate noise estimate.
Regarding “second” claim 6, Huang in view of Tormalehto teaches selecting a zero dynamic backoff indicator. (Huang, see at least para. 69 of fig. 12, “...if a random access response MAC PDU containing a Backoff Indicator subheader is received during a random access response (RAR) window, see 124 of FIG. 12, the communication device can set the index of component carrier at 125 where the preamble retransmission is to be executed as indicated in RACCID. If no Backoff Indicator subheader is received at 124, a default value, for example the index of current component carrier can be used at step 126...”)
Claim 6 (“first”) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tormalehto, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 20150173074 A1, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding “first” claim 6, Huang in view of Tormalehto teaches claim 1.
Huang further teaches perform the dynamic backoff indicator selection (Huang, see at least para. 48 along with para. 76, “...A backoff indicator, or alike indicator, is typically used for indicating the configuration when the preamble retransmission after a certain time delay is to be executed followed by a random access failure...”).
Huang in view of Tormalehto does not explicitly teach using max number of preambles the base station can handle for each PRACH slot as an input to perform the dynamic backoff indicator selection.
Zhao teaches using max number of preambles the base station can handle for each PRACH slot as an input to perform the dynamic backoff indicator selection (Zhao, see at least para. 62 and 65 in view of para. 61, for example, but not limited to, “...eNB 2 may have limited processing capacity in order to create the MSG2 response...” and “...PRACH Load/Interference. Interference is where many UEs use the same preambles. If the eNB 2 is overloaded, then it is less accurate in identifying RA attempts...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhao into the method of Huang in view of Tormalehto to improve the setting of values for Backoff Indicator values.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Zhao.
Regarding claim 2, Huang teaches a method for determining a dynamic Random Access Channel (RACH) response backoff indicator, comprising (in general, see fig. 12-13 and their corresponding paragraphs):
determining, by using information from a plurality of connected User Equipments (UEs), a measure of effort used to connect with an eNodeB (see at least para. 76, “...A base station may detect a heavy load in a component carrier in a physical random access channel (PRACH) including a first transmission and one or more sequent retransmissions of a preamble...”);
and
deciding when a zero backoff indicator will be used or a non-zero backoff indicator value will be used for reporting to not yet connected UEs (Huang, see at least para. 69 of fig. 12, “...if a random access response MAC PDU containing a Backoff Indicator subheader is received during a random access response (RAR) window, see 124 of FIG. 12, the communication device can set the index of component carrier at 125 where the preamble retransmission is to be executed as indicated in RACCID. If no Backoff Indicator subheader is received at 124, a default value, for example the index of current component carrier can be used at step 126...”)
Huang does not explicitly teach determining, by using information requested.
Zhao teaches determining, by using information requested (Zhao, in general, see fig. 3 and corresponding paragraphs, in particular, see at least para. 74-75, for example, but not limited to, number of preambles sent by one or more UEs (as reported by the UE 1 information response) and number of detected contentions (as reported by the UE 1 information response)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Zhao into the method of Huang to improve the setting of values for Backoff Indicator values.
Regarding claim 10, Huang in view of Zhao teaches determining, by using a previous backoff indicator value as an input. (Huang, see at least para. 69 of fig. 12, “...if a random access response MAC PDU containing a Backoff Indicator subheader is received during a random access response (RAR) window, see 124 of FIG. 12, the communication device can set the index of component carrier at 125 where the preamble retransmission is to be executed as indicated in RACCID. If no Backoff Indicator subheader is received at 124, a default value, for example the index of current component carrier can be used at step 126...”, note that step 126 sets the backoff backoff time in the UE to 0ms)
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Zhao, and further in view of Ki Dong LEE (US 20130021997 A1, hereinafter LEE).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Zhao teaches claim 2.
Huang in view of Zhao further teaches obtaining, from the plurality of connected UEs, information for determining the measure of effort. (Zhao, see at least para. 74-75, for example, but not limited to, number of preambles sent by one or more UEs (as reported by the UE 1 information response) and number of detected contentions (as reported by the UE 1 information response)).
Huang in view of Zhao does not specifically teach requesting information.
LEE teaches requesting information (LEE, see at least para. 91-92 of fig. 6, e.g. step 610 and 620).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LEE into the method of Huang in view of Zhao to efficiently handle the heavy random access (RA) load.
Regarding claim 8, Huang in view of Zhao teaches claim 2.
Huang in view of Zhao further teaches obtaining, from the plurality of connected UEs, a number of RACH preambles sent. (Zhao, see at least para. 74-75, for example, but not limited to, number of preambles sent by one or more UEs (as reported by the UE 1 information response) and number of detected contentions (as reported by the UE 1 information response)).
Huang in view of Zhao does not specifically teach requesting information.
LEE teaches requesting information (LEE, see at least para. 91-92 of fig. 6, e.g. step 610 and 620).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LEE into the method of Huang in view of Zhao to efficiently handle the heavy random access (RA) load.
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Zhao teaches claim 2.
Huang in view of Zhao further teaches obtaining, from the plurality of connected UEs, a RACH contention detected parameter. (Zhao, see at least para. 74-75, for example, but not limited to, number of preambles sent by one or more UEs (as reported by the UE 1 information response) and number of detected contentions (as reported by the UE 1 information response)).
Huang in view of Zhao does not specifically teach requesting information.
LEE teaches requesting information (LEE, see at least para. 91-92 of fig. 6, e.g. step 610 and 620).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate LEE into the method of Huang in view of Zhao to efficiently handle the heavy random access (RA) load.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1 and 2, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465