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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 41 and 69 under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 41 and 69 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Finne.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/16/2025 on pages 12-13 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 46 and 59 under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Nagasaka fails to teach the uplink configuration grants. However, Nagasaka teaches the transport format for an uplink grant, which includes the MCS and the associated preferential control for the type of format optimized for the UE. In the claim language for “the resources of the UL CGs” under the broadest, reasonable, interpretation for one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical engineering, under MPEP 2103.C, “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” This does not rise to the occasion of the use case for a CG, and a transport format is a similar case. Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of the uplink configuration grants from the teachings of Nagasaka. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/16/2025 on pages 13-14 of applicant’s remark regarding Claim 47 and 60 under 35 USC § 103. The applicant argues that Nagasaka fails to teach the uplink configuration grants. However, Nagasaka teaches the transport format for an uplink grant, which includes the MCS and the associated preferential control for the type of format optimized for the UE. In the claim language for “the resources of the UL CGs” under the broadest, reasonable, interpretation for one of ordinary skill in the art of electrical engineering, under MPEP 2103.C, “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” Does not rise to the occasion of the use case for a CG, and a transport format is similar.
The applicant further argues that Nagasaka does not teach the number of TRPs and the number of repetitions of TRPs, however, ¶0069 describes wherein the cell 250-1 and the cell 250-2 “cooperate with one another to perform communication before the handover procedure”, which suggests using the number of TRPs for a handover process. The paragraph further describes “using the same frequency band”, which suggests a repetition among the different TRPs.
Thus, the applicant here fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention of the uplink configuration grants from the teachings of Nagasaka. The applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 41, 56, and 69-70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Finne (Pub.: No.: US 20160165626 A1, hereafter “Finne”).
Regarding Claim 41, Claim 56, Claim 69, and Claim 70
Finne teaches a Method, UE, and Node Comprising
A method for a user equipment (UE) (Finne Fig. 6: UE-1) configured for uplink (UL) transmission of data (Finne Fig. 6: 5-6a, UL Signaling Packet) to a plurality of transmission reception points (TRPs) (Finne Fig. 6: 5-6a to BS-1 and BS-2) in a wireless network (Finne Fig. 1B: Wireless interface; Finne teaches a UE communicating with multiple base stations), the method comprising: receiving (Finne Fig. 6: 5-5a), from the wireless network, configurations for a plurality of configured grants of resources for UL transmission (UL CGs) (Finne ¶0077: UL signaling grant), wherein at least one of the UL CG configurations includes resources for transmission to a plurality of TRPs (Finne Fig. 6: 5-5a, UL Signaling Grant including 1st cyclic shift and OOC bit combination; Finne teaches the UE receiving an UL signaling grant which includes two resources, a cyclic shift and a bit combination); selecting (Finne ¶0077: UE-1 may transmit the uplink signaling packet) one or more of the UL CG configurations for transmission of data (Finne Fig. 6: 5-6a 1st cyclic shift and OOC bit combination) available at the UE based on characteristics of at least one of the following: the data (Finne ¶0077: Orthogonal Cover Code OCC bit combination), and radio channels between the UE and the respective TRPs (Finne ¶0077: 1st cyclic shift; Finne teaches transmitting an uplink transmission to a base station using the 1st cyclic shift and orthogonal cover code OOC bit combination provided); and transmitting (Finne Fig. 6: 5-6a from UE-1 to BS-1) the data to one or more of the plurality of TRPs on resources of the selected one or more UL CG configurations (Finne Fig. 6: 5-6a; Finne teaches transmitting signal based off of the may condition of the signaling packet).
Claim 69 and Claim 70 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art,
transceiver circuitry (Finne Fig. 3: 301) configured to communicate with the network node via the TRPs (Finne Fig. 2: 207); and processing circuitry operably coupled to the transceiver circuitry (Finne Fig. 3: 303; Finne teaches transceiver circuitry wirelessly coupled to a base station)
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.
Claim(s) 42-45 and 57-58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finne (Pub.: No.: US 20160165626 A1, hereafter “Finne”) in view of Mueck (Pub. No.: US 20130295986 A1, hereafter “Mueck”).
Regarding Claim 42 and Claim 57
Finne teaches a Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Finne does not explicitly teach
the characteristics associated with the radio channel include radio channel quality; and the method further comprises one of the following: determining respective radio channel qualities between the UE and the respective TRPs according to one or more of the following metrics: reference signal received power (RSRP); reference signal received quality (RSRQ); signal- to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR); signal-to-interference ratio (SIR); received signal strength (RSSI); retransmission ratio; packet loss ratio; channel occupancy; listen-before-talk (LBT) failures; and clear channel assessment (CCA) failures; or receiving indications of the respective radio channel qualities from the wireless network.
and sending indications of the determined radio channel qualities to the UE
However, Mueck teaches
the characteristics associated with the radio channel include radio channel quality (Mueck ¶0061: KPI); and the method further comprises one of the following: determining respective radio channel qualities between the UE and the respective TRPs according to one or more of the following metrics: reference signal received power (RSRP) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); reference signal received quality (RSRQ) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); signal- to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) (Mueck ¶0061: SINR); signal-to-interference ratio (SIR) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); received signal strength (RSSI) (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); retransmission ratio (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); packet loss ratio (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); channel occupancy (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); listen-before-talk (LBT) failures (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); and clear channel assessment (CCA) failures (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim); or receiving indications of the respective radio channel qualities from the wireless network (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Mueck teaches having a SINR in the KPI).
Claim 57 differs by the following limitation, which is also taught by the prior art,
and sending indications of the determined radio channel qualities to the UE (Mueck ¶0129: RAT sends RAT selection command to UE; Mueck teaches sending the RAT selection to the UE).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne by way of Mueck, to include an element that teaches having a SINR in the KPI, as taught by Mueck in ¶0061 and ¶0129, to add the additional channel parameters to allow more efficient and flexible approaches in a communication system and allow more dynamic and optimize connections.
Regarding Claim 43
Finne teaches a Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Mueck teaches
wherein the characteristics associated with the radio channel include latency (Mueck ¶0061: latency parameters; Mueck teaches the KPI being related to latency).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne by way of Mueck, to include an element that teaches the KPI being related to latency, as taught by Mueck in ¶0061, to add the additional channel parameters to allow more efficient and flexible approaches in a communication system and allow more dynamic and optimize connections.
Regarding Claim 44
Finne teaches a Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Mueck teaches
wherein the characteristics associated with the data include amount (Mueck ¶0061: throughput variation), arrival rate (Mueck ¶0061: round-trip-delay time), arrival time (Mueck ¶0061: latency), type of service (Mueck ¶0061: type of service from a website), latency requirements (Mueck ¶0061: latency), and reliability requirements (Mueck ¶0061: CRC error levels; Mueck teaches KPI metrics based on data amount, arrival rate, arrival time, types of service, and latency and reliability requirements).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne by way of Mueck, to include an element that teaches KPI metrics based on data amount, arrival rate, arrival time, types of service, and latency and reliability requirements, as taught by Mueck in ¶0061, to add the additional channel parameters to allow more efficient and flexible approaches in a communication system and allow more dynamic and optimize connections.
Regarding Claim 45 and Claim 58
Finne teaches a Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 44. Mueck teaches
each UL CG configuration identifies a plurality of transmission opportunities (Mueck ¶0062: RAT selection policy; Mueck teaches selecting a RAT based off KPI requirements); and selecting one or more UL CG configurations comprises selecting an UL CG configuration based on arrival time of the data (Mueck Fig. 6: 613) relative to the transmission opportunities identified by the respective UL CG configurations (Mueck Fig. 7: 703; Mueck teaches a RAT selection policy based off of the UEs’ requirements).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne by way of Mueck, to include an element that teaches a RAT selection policy based off of the UEs’ requirements, as taught by Mueck in Fig. 7 and ¶0062, to add the additional channel parameters to allow more efficient and flexible approaches in a communication system and allow more dynamic and optimize connections.
Claim(s) 46-47, 49-51, 53, 59-60, 62-64, and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finne (Pub.: No.: US 20160165626 A1, hereafter “Finne”) in view of Nagasaka (Pub. No.: US 20160165490 A1, hereafter “Nagasaka”).
Regarding Claim 46 and Claim 59
Finne teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Finne does not explicitly teach
the resources of the UL CGs are associated with respective modulation and coding schemes (MCS); and selecting one or more UL CG configurations comprises selecting an UL CG configuration that includes resources associated with one of the following: highest capacity MCS, or most reliable MCS
However, Nagasaka teaches
the resources of the UL CGs (Nagasaka ¶0056: transport format of an uplink and an assignment resource block) are associated with respective modulation and coding schemes (MCS) (Nagasaka ¶0056: MCS); and selecting one or more UL CG configurations (Nagasaka ¶0056: preferential control) comprises selecting an UL CG configuration that includes resources associated with one of the following: highest capacity MCS (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), or most reliable MCS (Nagasaka ¶0078: decided to handover based on highest power; Nagasaka teaches selecting an eNB based on the MCS and the highest power).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Mueck by way of Lee, and further with Dayal, and further with Nagasaka, to select the option with the most reliable result, as taught by Nagasaka in ¶0056-¶0078, to prevent interference based on the transmission of a random-access preamble signal by a UE and be more useful in a mobile communication field.
Regarding Claim 47 and Claim 60
Finne teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Nagasaka teaches
wherein the data (Nagasaka ¶0054: protocol stack) comprises a transport block (TB) (Nagasaka ¶0056: MAC layer uses a TB) and each UL CG configuration identifies the following: a particular number of TRPs (Nagasaka ¶0069: handover), and respective numbers of repetitions of the TB to be transmitted (Nagasaka ¶0056: HARQ) to respective ones of the particular number of TRPs (Nagasaka ¶0069: handover; Nagasaka teaches the protocol stack associated with a handover).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne by way of Nagasaka, to include the well-known protocol stack for handover, as taught by Nagasaka in ¶0054-¶0069, to prevent interference based on the transmission of a random-access preamble signal by a UE and be more useful in a mobile communication field.
Regarding Claim 49 and Claim 62
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 47. Nagasaka further teaches
wherein: the one or more repetitions include a plurality of repetitions (Nagasaka ¶0056: HARQ; Nagasaka teaches a repetition that has multitudes); first and second UL CG configurations are selected (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S102; Nagasaka teaches selecting a handover); and transmitting the data comprises: transmitting a first portion of the plurality of repetitions on resources of the first UL CG configuration (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S103; Nagasaka teaches sending information for the handover to another eNB cell); and transmitting a second portion of the plurality of repetitions on resources of the second UL CG configuration (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S105; Nagasaka teaches transmitting handover information a secondary time).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne further with Nagasaka, to transfer handover results, as taught by Nagasaka in Fig. 7 and ¶0056, to prevent interference based on the transmission of a random-access preamble signal by a UE and be more useful in a mobile communication field.
Regarding Claim 50 and Claim 63
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 47. Nagasaka further teaches
a first UL CG configuration that identifies a first TRP to which all repetitions are transmitted (Nagasaka ¶0056: HARQ; Nagasaka teaches a repetition that has multitudes); and a second UL CG configuration that identifies the following: the first TRP and a first number of repetitions, and a second TRP and a second number of repetitions (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S105; Nagasaka teaches transmitting handover information a secondary time).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne further with Nagasaka, to transfer handover results, as taught by Nagasaka in Fig. 7 and ¶0056, to prevent interference based on the transmission of a random-access preamble signal by a UE and be more useful in a mobile communication field.
Regarding Claim 51 and Claim 64
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 47. Nagasaka further teaches
when the first UL CG configuration is selected, transmitting respective repetitions of the TB to the first TRP in respective transmission opportunities (Nagasaka ¶0056: HARQ; Nagasaka teaches a repetition that has multitudes); and when the second UL CG configuration is selected (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S102), transmitting at least one of the first number of repetitions to the first TRP concurrently with at least one of the second number of repetitions to the second TRP in one or more of the transmission opportunities (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S103; Nagasaka teaches sending information for the handover to another eNB cell).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne further with Nagasaka, to transfer handover results, as taught by Nagasaka in Fig. 7 and ¶0056, to prevent interference based on the transmission of a random-access preamble signal by a UE and be more useful in a mobile communication field.
Regarding Claim 53 and Claim 66
Finne teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Nagasaka further teaches
the data comprises a transport block (TB) (Nagasaka ¶0056: TB) associated with a hybrid ARQ (HARQ) process (Nagasaka ¶0056: HARQ; Nagasaka teaches data associated with a TB and a HARQ); first and second UL CG configurations are selected (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S102; Nagasaka teaches selecting configurations); and transmitting the data comprises: transmitting an initial transmission of the TB on resources of the first UL CG configuration (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S103; Nagasaka teaches sending the information) and transmitting at least one retransmission of the TB on resources of the second UL CG configuration (Nagasaka Fig. 7: S108; Nagasaka teaches retransmitting the information).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne further with Nagasaka, to transfer information between cells, as taught by Nagasaka in Fig. 7 and ¶0056, to prevent interference based on the transmission of a random-access preamble signal by a UE and be more useful in a mobile communication field.
Claim(s) 48 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finne (Pub.: No.: US 20160165626 A1, hereafter “Finne”) in view of Mueck (Pub. No.: US 20130295986 A1, hereafter “Mueck”), further in view of Nagasaka (Pub. No.: US 20160165490 A1, hereafter “Nagasaka”).
Regarding Claim 48 and Claim 61
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 41. Nagasaka teaches
and transmitting the data comprises transmitting the single repetition of the TB (Nagasaka ¶0056: TB) to the TRP having the best radio channel quality towards the UE (Nagasaka ¶0078: decides to handover; Nagasaka teaches deciding to handover based on measurement results).
Nagasaka does not explicitly teach
wherein: the one or more repetitions are a single repetition; selecting one or more UL CG configurations comprises selecting an UL CG configuration that includes resources associated with the TRP having the best radio channel quality towards the UE;
Mueck further teaches
wherein: the one or more repetitions are a single repetition (Mueck ¶0061: HARQ mechanisms; Mueck teaches adding HARQ into the KPI measurements); selecting one or more UL CG configurations comprises selecting an UL CG configuration that includes resources associated with the TRP having the best radio channel quality towards the UE (Mueck ¶0062: RAT selection policy; Mueck teaches selecting a RAT based off KPI requirements);
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne in view of Nagasaka further with Mueck, to teach selecting a RAT based off KPI requirements, as taught by Nagasaka in ¶0061-¶0062to add the additional channel parameters to allow more efficient and flexible approaches in a communication system and allow more dynamic and optimize connections.
Claim(s) 52, 54-55, 65, and 67-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finne (Pub.: No.: US 20160165626 A1, hereafter “Finne”) in view of Nagasaka (Pub. No.: US 20160165490 A1, hereafter “Nagasaka”), further in view of Dayal (Pub. No.: US 20130194994 A1, hereafter “Dayal”).
Regarding Claim 52 and Claim 65
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 51. Finne in view of Nagasaka does not explicitly teach
one of the following first conditions applies for each of the one or more transmission opportunities: a single repetition of the first number is transmitted to the first TRP; or a plurality of repetitions of the first number are transmitted to the first TRP in a respective plurality of frequency regions; and one of the following second conditions applies for each of the one or more transmission opportunities: a single repetition of the second number is transmitted to the second TRP; or a plurality of repetitions of the second number are transmitted to the second TRP in the respective plurality of frequency regions
Dayal further teaches
one of the following first conditions applies for each of the one or more transmission opportunities: a single repetition of the first number is transmitted to the first TRP (Dayal ¶0129: HARQ); or a plurality of repetitions of the first number are transmitted to the first TRP in a respective plurality of frequency regions (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Dayal teaches a HARQ transmission for the purposes of handover); and one of the following second conditions applies for each of the one or more transmission opportunities: a single repetition of the second number is transmitted to the second TRP (Dayal ¶0139: HARQ); or a plurality of repetitions of the second number are transmitted to the second TRP in the respective plurality of frequency regions (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim; Dayal teaches sending a HARQ at a second RAT for handover).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne in view of Nagasaka, to have a HARQ handover request from one node to another, as taught by Dayal in ¶0129-¶0139, to reduce interference rates by dynamically modifying downlink transmissions with various calculated error rates.
Regarding Claim 54 and Claim 67
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 53. Dayal further teaches
receiving from the wireless network an indication that different UL CG configurations can be selected for transmission and retransmission in a single HARQ process (Dayal ¶0138: HARQ retransmission from the first RAT), wherein selecting the second UL CG configuration is based on the indication (Dayal ¶0138: HARQ retransmission to the second RAT; Dayal teaches having HARQ retransmission to go from the first RAT to the second RAT).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne in view of Nagasaka, further with Dayal, to have a HARQ retransmission to go from the first RAT to the second RAT, as taught by Dayal in ¶0138, to reduce interference rates by dynamically modifying downlink transmissions with various calculated error rates.
Regarding Claim 55 and Claim 68
Finne in view of Nagasaka teaches the Method, UE, and Node as explained above in Claim 53. Dayal further teaches
the resources of the first UL CG configuration are associated with a first TRP (Dayal ¶0129: first uplink transmission; Dayal teaches a first HARQ transmission); and the resources of the second UL CG configuration are associated with a second TRP (Dayal ¶0129: second uplink transmission; Dayal teaches a second HARQ transmission).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Finne in view of Nagasaka, further with Dayal, to have a second HARQ transmission, as taught by Dayal in ¶0129, to reduce interference rates by dynamically modifying downlink transmissions with various calculated error rates.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER whose telephone number is (703)756-4763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JUSTIN MICHAEL WHITAKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2415
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights