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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s corrections filed 01/26/2026 with respect to claim rejection under 112(b) for claim(s) 8 made on 10/24/2025 have been considered and the claim rejection under 112(b) to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection based on Liu et al. (US 2022/0369388 A1) in view of new reference Xu et al. (US 2020/0022168 A1).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0369388 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2020/0022168 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 14, Liu discloses A method for optimizing an aggregation level for communicating physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) resources in a random access network (RAN), the method comprising (claim 1), and An apparatus for optimizing an aggregation level for communicating physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) resources in a random access network (RAN), the apparatus comprising: a memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to implement a radio access network (RAN) node (claim 8) and A non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing computer readable program code or instructions for carrying out operations, when executed by a processor, for optimizing an aggregation level for communicating physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) resources in a random access network (RAN), the operations comprising (claim 14) (Fig. 2, [0015]: WANN 204 includes memory 222 storing instructions and processor 220 for executing the instructions):
receiving, by a radio access network (RAN) node, a random access request message from a user equipment (UE) ([0025]: WANN 204 receives, from a UE 202, a random access preamble);
determining, by the RAN node, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) of the random access request message ([0025]: WANN 204 obtains measurement result, i.e., SINR, of an uplink reference signal, such as the random access preamble);
comparing the SINR with a first predetermined threshold ([0025]: WANN 204 compares the measurement result, i.e., SINR, with a measurement threshold);
based on the comparing, determining an aggregation level from among a plurality of predetermined aggregation levels ([0025]: based on the comparing, the WANN 204 selects a first coverage recovery level from a plurality of coverage recovery levels. [0028]: each of the plurality of coverage recovery levels is mapped to a different aggregation level. The WANN 204 selects a PDCCH from a plurality of PDCCHs having the different aggregation levels),
transmitting a random access response message from the RAN node to the UE based on the determined aggregation level ([0026], [0028]: WANN 204 transmits, to the UE 202, a DCI in a transmission resource which includes the selected PDCCH having an aggregation level mapped to the selected first coverage recovery level),
Liu does not disclose, but Faronius discloses the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels respectively indicating a number of control channel elements (CCE) to be allocated to carry Downlink Control Information (DCI) ([0077]: The AL may be an indication of a number of CCEs used by the base station 105-a to transmit control information to the UE 115-a. For example, a search space set may include decoding candidates at ALs of 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 (AL1, AL2, AL4, AL8, and AL16)... Each AL may correspond to a number of CCEs allocated for PDCCH candidate. For example, AL4 may indicate that control information for that AL is transmitted in four CCEs of a CORESET. The base station 105-a may transmit DCI within a search space set in search space candidates (e.g., PDCCH candidates) for different ALs),
wherein the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels comprises an aggregation level indicating 16 CCEs to be allocated to carry the DCI ([0077]: The AL may be an indication of a number of CCEs used by the base station 105-a to transmit control information to the UE 115-a. For example, a search space set may include decoding candidates at ALs of 1, 2, 4, 8, or 16 (AL1, AL2, AL4, AL8, and AL16)... Each AL may correspond to a number of CCEs allocated for PDCCH candidate. For example, AL4 may indicate that control information for that AL is transmitted in four CCEs of a CORESET. The base station 105-a may transmit DCI within a search space set in search space candidates (e.g., PDCCH candidates) for different ALs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the different aggregation levels, as taught by Liu, to correspond to a number of CCEs allocated for PDCCH candidate where the ALs include AL1, AL2, AL4, AL8, and AL16, as taught by Xu.
Doing so provides a set of Als for one or more DCI formats where the AL indicates the number of CCEs used by the base station to transmit control information (Xu: [0077]).
Regarding claim(s) 7, 13, 20, Liu in view of Xu discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 8, 14 as outlined above.
Liu discloses wherein the random access response message is a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) message ([0026], [0028]: WANN 204 transmits, to the UE 202, a DCI in a transmission resource which includes the selected PDCCH).
Claim(s) 2-6, 9-12, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2022/0369388 A1) in view of Xu et al. (US 2020/0022168 A1) and Gandhi et al. (US 2017/0332270 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 2, 15, Liu in view of Xu discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 14 as outlined above.
Liu does not disclose, but Gandhi discloses wherein the determining comprises:
determining, as the aggregation level, a first predetermined aggregation level from among the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels, based on the SINR being equal to or greater than the first predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0130]-[0131]: base station determines to use aggregation level 1 based on the updated DL_SINR being greater than a first threshold in steps S600, S605, S610); and
determining, as the aggregation level, a second predetermined aggregation level from among the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels, based on the SINR being less than the first predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0132]-[0133]: base station determines to use aggregation level 2 based on the updated DL_SINR being less than a first threshold in steps S605, S615, S620).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the WANN 204, as taught by Liu, to determine an aggregation level based on whether an updated DL_SINR is greater or less than a first threshold, as taught by Gandhi.
Doing so improves reliability of HARQ transmission on a downlink channel (Gandhi: [0130]).
Regarding claim(s) 3, 16, Liu in view of Xu and Gandhi discloses all features of claim(s) 2, 15 as outlined above.
Liu does not disclose, but Gandhi discloses wherein the second predetermined aggregation level is greater than the first predetermined aggregation level (Fig. 13: aggregation level 2 in step S620 is greater than aggregation level 1 in step S610).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the WANN 204, as taught by Liu, to determine an aggregation level based on whether an updated DL_SINR is greater or less than a first threshold, wherein aggregation level 2 is greater than aggregation level 1, as taught by Gandhi.
Doing so improves reliability of HARQ transmission on a downlink channel (Gandhi: [0130]).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 17, Liu in view of Xu discloses all features of claim(s) 1, 14 as outlined above.
Liu does not disclose, but Gandhi discloses comparing the SINR with a second predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0132]-[0133]: base station compares the updated DL_SINR with a second threshold in steps S615),
wherein the determining comprises determining the aggregation level based on the comparing with the first predetermined threshold and the comparing with the second predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0132]-[0133]: base station compares the updated DL_SINR with a first threshold and a second threshold in steps S615).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the WANN 204, as taught by Liu, to compare an updated DL_SINR with a first threshold and a second threshold, as taught by Gandhi.
Doing so improves reliability of HARQ transmission on a downlink channel (Gandhi: [0130]).
Regarding claim(s) 5, 18, Liu in view of Xu and Gandhi discloses all features of claim(s) 4, 17 as outlined above.
Liu does not disclose, but Gandhi discloses wherein the determining based on the comparing with the first predetermined threshold and the comparing with the second predetermined threshold comprises:
determining, as the aggregation level, a first predetermined aggregation level from among the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels, based on the SINR being equal to or greater than the first predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0130]-[0131]: base station determines to use aggregation level 1 based on the updated DL_SINR being greater than a first threshold in steps S600, S605, S610);
determining, as the aggregation level, a second predetermined aggregation level from among the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels, based on the SINR being less than the first predetermined threshold and equal to or greater than the second predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0132]-[0133]: base station determines to use aggregation level 2 based on the updated DL_SINR being less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold in steps S605, S615, S620); and
determining, as the aggregation level, a third predetermined aggregation level from among the plurality of predetermined aggregation levels, based on the SINR being less than the second predetermined threshold (Fig. 13: [0134]-[0135]: base station determines to use aggregation level 4 based on the updated DL_SINR being less than a second threshold in steps S615, S625, S630).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the WANN 204, as taught by Liu, to determine an aggregation level based on whether an updated DL_SINR is greater or less than a first threshold, less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold, or less than a second threshold, as taught by Gandhi.
Doing so improves reliability of HARQ transmission on a downlink channel (Gandhi: [0130]).
Regarding claim(s) 6, 19, Liu in view of Xu and Gandhi discloses all features of claim(s) 5, 18 as outlined above.
Liu does not disclose, but Gandhi discloses wherein the second predetermined aggregation level is greater than the first predetermined aggregation level, and the third predetermined aggregation level is greater than the second predetermined aggregation level (Fig. 13: aggregation level 2 in step S620 is greater than aggregation level 1 in step S610, and aggregation level 4 in step S630 is greater than aggregation level 2 in step S620).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the WANN 204, as taught by Liu, to determine an aggregation level based on whether an updated DL_SINR is greater or less than a first threshold, less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold, or less than a second threshold, wherein aggregation level 4 is greater than aggregation level 2 being greater than aggregation level 1, as taught by Gandhi.
Doing so improves reliability of HARQ transmission on a downlink channel (Gandhi: [0130]).
Regarding claim(s) 9, Liu in view of Xu discloses all features of claim(s) 8 as outlined above.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected as claims 2-3 as outlined above.
Regarding claim(s) 10, Liu in view of Xu and Gandhi discloses all features of claim(s) 9 as outlined above.
Claim 10 is similarly rejected as claim 4 as outlined above. And the same rationale for the combination and motivation made in claim 4 applies for Gandhi further disclosing determine a third predetermined aggregation level (Fig. 13: [0135]: base station determines to use aggregation level 4 step S630).
Regarding claim(s) 11, Liu in view of Xu and Gandhi discloses all features of claim(s) 10 as outlined above.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected as claim 5 as outlined above.
Regarding claim(s) 12, Liu in view of Xu and Gandhi discloses all features of claim(s) 11 as outlined above.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected as claim 6 as outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm.
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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights