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 .
Response to Election of Restriction
1. The Applicant has been elected the Group 1 (claims 1-10) for prosecution on the merits without traverse.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 9, the claimed limitation “the location of the mobile user device is within a region that has previously exhibited low communication reliability according to either uplink or downlink messages” is indefinite because it is not clear what is claimed.
More specifically, the claimed limitation is not clear for relationship between the claimed limitation “previously exhibited low communication reliability” and “either uplink or downlink messages”. The applicant is required to explain the reason for “previously exhibited low communication reliability as communication of uplink or downlink messages, for instance, “the previously exhibited low communication reliability” as result of the factors such as poor signal quality, too much traffic road, or a lot of interference, or other reason according to communicate uplink or downlink messages.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson et al. (US 2012/0106386) in view of Sawai et al. (US 2019/0281561).
Regarding claim 1, Johansson teaches that a method for a mobile user device to communicate (Fig. 1). Johansson teaches that determining a first location of the mobile user device (Fig. 1, 2 page 1, paragraphs 4 – pages 2, paragraphs 14, and pages 2, paragraphs 27 – pages 3, paragraphs 33, where teaches obtaining or determining UE location), determining a second location of an antenna of a base station (Fig. 1, 2 page 1, paragraphs 4 – pages 2, paragraphs 25, and pages 4, paragraphs 34 – pages 5, paragraphs 47, where teaches measuring or determining direction of serving cell or base station antennas), determining a QoS (quality of service) of a planned uplink message (abstract, pages 2, paragraphs 12 – 14, Fig. 1, 2, and pages 3, paragraphs 28 - 33, where teaches measuring or determining a QoS information of uplink signal), determining a current noise or interference level (pages 4, paragraphs 36 – 42 and Fig. 2, 3, where teaches determining or measuring received signal interference level), and using an algorithm that takes, as input, the first location, the second location, the QoS, and the current noise or interference level, and provides, as output, a recommended transmission power level (pages 2, paragraphs 12 – 14, Fig. 2, 3, and pages 3, paragraphs 30 – pages 4, paragraphs 38, where teaches if the estimating the accurate maximum transmission power for the QoS information of data rate, together with UL measurement and location information would be useful to accurately find locations), transmitting the planned uplink message according to the recommended transmission power level (pages 4, paragraphs 42 – pages 5, paragraphs 48 and Fig, 2, 3, where teaches receiving all the measurement data and power command, and transmitting uplink signal with the adjusted power). Johansson does not specifically teach the limitation “transmitting the planned uplink message according to the recommended transmission power level”. However, Sawai teaches the limitation “transmitting the planned uplink message according to the recommended transmission power level” (see Fig. 9, 12 and pages 10, paragraphs 129 – pages 12, paragraphs 155, where teaches receiving the value or level of acceptable transmission power from base station and transmitting signal or data by using the acceptable transmission power level). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Johansson’s power control performance as taught by Sawai, provide the motivation to achieve efficient controlling transmission power in order to high quality communication between base node and user equipment in wireless communication system.
Regarding claim 2, Johansson teaches that the planned uplink message is transmitted according to 5G or 6G technology (Fig. 1, pages 4, paragraphs 34, and page 1, paragraphs 3 – pages 2, paragraphs 14).
Regarding claim 3, Johansson does not teach the limitation “receiving an SSB (synchronization signal block) message from the base station, and determining, from the SSB message, the second location”. However, Sawai teaches the limitation receiving an SSB (synchronization signal block) message from the base station, and determining, from the SSB message, the second location” (Fig. 8, 9 and pages 11, paragraphs 144 – 147, where teaches achieve synchronization uplink channel including the location data). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the Johansson’s power control performance as taught by Sawai, provide the motivation to achieve efficient controlling transmission power in order to high quality communication between base node and user equipment in wireless communication system.
Regarding claim 5, Johansson and Sawai teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Johansson further teaches that the planned uplink message is transmitted as part of an initial access procedure (pages 2, paragraphs 26 – pages 4, paragraphs 34 and Fig. 1), and the planned uplink message indicates the first location (page 1, paragraphs 10 – pages 3, paragraphs 14 and Fig. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 6, Johansson and Sawai teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Johansson further teaches that the planned uplink message further indicates a speed and a direction of travel of the mobile user device (pages 2, paragraphs 25 – pages 3, paragraphs 32), in addition, Sawai also teaches the limitation (see Fig. 6 and pages 10, paragraphs 129 – 132).
Regarding claim 7, Johansson and Sawai teach all the limitation as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Johansson further teaches that the planned uplink message indicates that the mobile user device is entering or exiting a region that has previously exhibited insufficient reception reliability for either downlink or uplink messages (abstract, Fig. 1, page 1, paragraphs 4 – 7, and pages 2, paragraphs 25 – pages 3, paragraphs 28).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4, 8, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “the planned uplink message is a Msg3 (third message of a 4-step initial access procedure) or a MsgA (first message of a 2-step initial access procedure), and the planned uplink message indicates the location of mobile user device, and receiving, from the base station, responsive to the planned uplink message, a downlink message indicating that the mobile user device is being handed off to another base station” as specified the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Syed et al. (US 2020/0187133) discloses Methods and Apparatus for Transmission Power Management of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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.
J.L
January 21, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649