DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to application number 18/246,696 filed on March 27th,2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on March 27th,2023.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted on November 11th, 2024 and August 5th, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,11, and 21 state “receiving a timing advance of the UE from a detected PRACH”; however the specification does not describe how a TA is received from a PRACH. The limitation will be interpreted as calculating a TA from a received PRACH.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 state “receive a latest timing advance of the UE based on the average RSRP”. The specification does not disclose how the TA is based on the RSRP.
The claim states “receiving a timing advance of the UE from a detected PRACH”; however the specification does not describe how a TA is received from a PRACH. The limitation will be interpreted as calculating a TA from a received PRACH.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected because they depend from a rejected claim.
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sang et al. (KR 20170054985 A translated version used) in view of Dinan (US 20210297958 A1) further in view Bienas et al (WO 2017102950 A2) further in in view of Bai et al. (US 20220217669 A1).
Regarding claims 1,11 and 21, Sang et al discloses a system for categorization of a user equipment (UE) (104) in a network, the system comprising: one or more processors (202) operably coupled to a base station (112); and a memory (204) coupled with the one or more processors (202), wherein said memory (204) stores instructions which when executed by the one or more processors (202) causes the one or more processors (202) to: upon the transmission of the initial RRC reconfiguration, compute an average of a reference signal received power (RSRP) of the UE (104) in an observation interval, wherein the observation interval is based on a varying velocity of the UE (104) (KR 20170054985 A Page 21 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the adjusted RSRP averaging period or the RSRP reporting period may be determined according to the speed classification of the group moving object GM1.” The observation interval is directly proportional to the speed of the GM1 or UE) ; and generate an advanced categorization of the UE (104) based on an analysis of the latest timing advance and the averaged RSRP (KR 20170054985 A Page 17 Paragraph 5 discloses “… the case where the TA value decreases…” corresponding to cell center and Page 18 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the case where the TA value increases…” corresponding to cell edge).
Sang et al. fail to explicitly disclose receiving a timing advance of the UE (104) from a detected physical random access channel (PRACH) of the UE (104) and transmit one or more power headroom report (PHR) configuration parameters to the UE (104) prior to a transmission of an initial radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration; receive a PHR report based on the transmitted one or more PHR configuration parameters and compute a path loss associated with the PHR report ;
However, in an analogous art, Dinan teaches receiving a timing advance of the UE (104) from a detected physical random access channel (PRACH) of the UE (104) and transmit one or more power headroom report (PHR) configuration parameters to the UE (104) prior to a transmission of an initial radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration (US 20210297958 A1 Paragraph 0133 discloses “This may involve a UE transmitting a random access preamble and an eNB responding with an initial TA command NTA (amount of timing advance) within a random access response window.” Abstract 0099, 0100,0113 and 0131 disclose “A wireless device receives message(s) comprising configuration parameters of a plurality of cells for communication with a base station. The message(s) comprise a first information element (IE) indicating a new extended power headroom report is configured”. “…The wireless device transmits a media-access-control (MAC) packet comprising one or more power headroom reports.”); receive a PHR report based on the transmitted one or more PHR configuration parameters and compute a path loss associated with the PHR report (US 20210297958 A1 Paragraphs 0146-0149 disclose “…power headroom trigger condition configuration parameters…” Paragraphs 0154-155 disclose “A UE may transmit a corresponding PHR report if a Power Headroom reporting procedure determines that at least one PHR has been triggered and not cancelled…”. Paragraph 0191 disclose pathloss as “PL.sub.c=referenceSignalPower−higher layer filtered RSRP”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Dinan, to transmit one or more power headroom report (PHR) configuration parameters to the UE, receive a PHR report and compute a path loss associated with the PHR report, in order to enable efficient power control, scheduling and resource allocation to optimize performance and manager interference.
Sang et al. fail to explicitly disclose generate an initial categorization of the UE (104) based on an analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE (104);
However, in an analogous art, Bienas et al. teaches generating an initial categorization of the UE (104) based on an analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE (104) (WO 2017102950 A2 Lines 19-26 disclose “The eNB obtains a rough path loss value for each UE from a timing advance, TA, value calculated from the random access preamble.” Whereby the “The rough path loss is used to categorise the UEs, for example "near UE" or "far UE".”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Bienas et al., to generate an initial categorization of the UE based on an analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE, in order to optimize the end user experience, maximize network capacity and efficiently manage mobility.
Sang et al. fail to explicitly disclose receiving a latest timing advance of the UE (104) based on the averaged RSRP.
However, in an analogous art, Bai et al. teaches receiving a latest timing advance of the UE (104) based on the averaged RSRP (Paragraph 0100 discloses “…base station 105-a may configure UE 115-a with one or more algorithms (e.g., machine learning algorithms) that use the RSRP values of the SSBs to determine TA values for adjustment.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Bai et al., to receive a latest timing advance of the UE (104) based on the averaged RSRP, as this serves as a secondary mechanism to validate and ensure the accuracy of the timing advance signal.
Examiners note, even though Sang et al. discusses reception of the PRACH and the TA, Sang et al. does not address transmission of PH configuration parameters and the reception of the PHR.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Sang et al disclose the system as claimed in claim 1.
Sang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to utilize at least one of a threshold path loss and a threshold timing advance, and perform the analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE (104) to: perform a first determination of whether the received timing advance is greater than the threshold timing advance; in response to a positive first determination, perform a second determination of whether the computed path loss is greater than the threshold path loss; and in response to a positive second determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as a cell edge UE.
However, in an analogous art, Bienas et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to utilize at least one of a threshold path loss and a threshold timing advance, and perform the analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE (104) to: perform a first determination of whether the received timing advance is greater than the threshold timing advance; in response to a positive first determination, perform a second determination of whether the computed path loss is greater than the threshold path loss (WO 2017102950 A2 Page 7 Lines 4-14 disclose “…category "near UE", if the PL range is above a threshold and category "far UE" otherwise.”); and in response to a positive second determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as a cell edge UE (WO 2017102950 A2 Page 7 Lines 4-14 disclose “…category "near UE", if the PL range is above a threshold and category "far UE" otherwise.” Whereby “near UE” corresponds to cell center and “far UE” corresponds to cell edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Bienas et al., to determine whether the computed path loss is greater than the threshold path loss and generate the initial categorization of the UE as a cell edge UE, in order to optimize the end user experience, maximize network capacity and efficiently manage mobility.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Sang et al disclose the system as claimed in claim 2.
Sang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to: in response to a negative second determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as a cell center UE.
However, in an analogous art, Bienas et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to: in response to a negative second determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as a cell center UE (WO 2017102950 A2 Page 7 Lines 4-14 disclose “…category "near UE", if the PL range is above a threshold and category "far UE" otherwise.” Whereby “near UE” corresponds to cell center and “far UE” corresponds to cell edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Bienas et al., to generate the initial categorization of the UE as a cell center UE in response negative determination, in order to optimize the end user experience, maximize network capacity and efficiently manage mobility.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 2.
Sang et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to utilize at least a computed second path loss, and perform the analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE (104) to: in response to a negative first determination and the positive second determination, perform a third determination of whether the threshold path loss is greater than the computed second path loss; in response to a positive third determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as the cell edge UE; and in response to a negative third determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as a cell center coverage UE
However, in an analogous art, Bienas et al. teaches wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to utilize at least a computed second path loss, and perform the analysis of the received timing advance and the computed path loss of the UE (104) to: in response to a negative first determination and the positive second determination, perform a third determination of whether the threshold path loss is greater than the computed second path loss; in response to a positive third determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as the cell edge UE (WO 2017102950 A2 Page 7 Lines 4-14 disclose “…category "near UE", if the PL range is above a threshold and category "far UE" otherwise.” Here the inverse of the sited inequality holds true. Whereby “near UE” corresponds to cell center and “far UE” corresponds to cell edge.); and in response to a negative third determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE (104) as a cell center coverage UE (WO 2017102950 A2 Page 7 Lines 4-14 disclose “…category "near UE", if the PL range is above a threshold and category "far UE" otherwise.” Here the inverse of the sited inequality holds true. Whereby “near UE” corresponds to cell center and “far UE” corresponds to cell edge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Bienas et al., for a positive third determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE as the cell edge UE and for a negative third determination, generate the initial categorization of the UE as a cell center coverage UE , in order to optimize the end user experience, maximize network capacity and efficiently manage mobility.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to compare the velocity of the UE (104) with a computed threshold velocity to determine a duration of the observation interval (KR 20170054985 A Page 21 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the adjusted RSRP averaging period or the RSRP reporting period may be determined according to the speed classification of the group moving object GM1.” The observation interval is directly proportional to the speed of the GM1 or UE).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to initialize the observation interval based on the transmission of the initial RRC reconfiguration, and compute the average of the RSRP of the UE (104) at the end of the observation interval (KR 20170054985 A Page 21 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the adjusted RSRP averaging period or the RSRP reporting period may be determined according to the speed classification of the group moving object GM1.” The observation interval is directly proportional to the speed of the GM1 or UE).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to utilize at least one of: a threshold RSRP and a threshold timing advance, and perform the analysis of the received latest timing advance and the averaged RSRP to: perform a first determination of whether the received latest timing advance is greater than the threshold timing advance; in response to a positive first determination, perform a second determination of whether the averaged RSRP is lesser than the threshold RSRP (KR 20170054985 A Page 21 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the adjusted RSRP averaging period or the RSRP reporting period may be determined according to the speed classification of the group moving object GM1.” Here the average RRSP is calculated); and in response to a positive second determination, generate the advanced categorization of the UE (104) as a cell edge UE (KR 20170054985 A Page 18 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the case where the TA value increases…” corresponding to cell edge. Here the TA value increase corresponds to average RRSP value decreasing).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to: in response to the positive first determination and a negative second determination, generate the advanced categorization of the UE (104) as a cell center UE; and in response to a negative first determination and the negative second determination, generate the advanced categorization of the UE (104) as the cell center UE (KR 20170054985 A Page 17 Paragraph 5 discloses “… the case where the TA value decreases…” corresponding to cell center. Here the TA value decreasing corresponds to average RRSP value increasing).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 7, wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to compute a second threshold RSRP based on the threshold RSRP (KR 20170054985 A Page 21 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the adjusted RSRP averaging period or the RSRP reporting period may be determined according to the speed classification of the group moving object GM1.” The determination of the average RRSP).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, sang et al. disclose the system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the one or more processors (202) are configured to: in response to the positive second determination, perform a third determination of whether the averaged RSRP is lesser than the computed second threshold RSRP (KR 20170054985 A Page 21 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the adjusted RSRP averaging period or the RSRP reporting period may be determined according to the speed classification of the group moving object GM1.” Here the average RRSP is calculated); in response to a positive third determination, generate the advanced categorization of the UE (104) as the cell edge UE(KR 20170054985 A Page 18 Paragraph 4 discloses “…the case where the TA value increases…” corresponding to cell edge. Here the TA value increase corresponds to average RRSP value decreasing); and in response to a negative third determination, generate the advanced categorization of the UE (104) as a cell center coverage UE (KR 20170054985 A Page 17 Paragraph 5 discloses “… the case where the TA value decreases…” corresponding to cell center. Here the TA value decreasing corresponds to average RRSP value increasing).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel Dilan Rutnam whose telephone number is 703-756-1374. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30am-5:00pm Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy Kundu can be reached on 571-272-8586.
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).
/Samuel Dilan Rutnam/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471