DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “computer storage medium”. The claim fails to place the invention squarely within one statutory class of invention. The transitory media generally stores data/information in form of signals. As such, the claim is drawn to signal per se. Signal per se does not appear to be a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The examiner suggests modifying the phrase “computer storage medium” to be “non-transitory computer storage medium” to overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Independent claims 2 and 4 are drawn to “A signaling radio node” and “A wireless device” respectively but reciting no structural component configured to perform the functional limitation(s) as recited in the claims. However, the claims fail to recite any structure in the body of the respective claims. The definition of a machine/apparatus, as one of the four categories of invention, should include at least one part. Therefore, claims 2 and 4 are indefinite for lack of sufficient structure in the claims.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US20220338300).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Sun discloses a method of operating a signaling radio node for a wireless communication network, the method comprising; determining a transmission timing for a wireless device based on a random access message 3 received from the wireless device (¶0163-¶0167 discloses that the access network device sends a message 2 (Msg2) to the terminal… The message 2 may include a TA (timing advance)…the terminal may send the message 3 to the access network device based on the TA in the message 2).
Regarding claim 2, the claim is drawn to a radio node performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is drawn to a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. Sun furtherdiscloses wherein the transmission timing is indicated to the wireless device with a transmission timing indication (¶0165 discloses that the TA is the TA obtained by the access network device … based on the message 1).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is drawn to a computer storage medium performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the
same rejection as claim 1.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (US20200145944).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Kim discloses a method of operating a signaling radio node for a wireless communication network, the method comprising; determining a transmission timing for a wireless device based on a random access message 3 received from the wireless device (¶0068 discloses that After the RACH preamble is transmitted, the UE attempts to receive a random access response (RAR)… The RAR includes timing advance (TA) information indicating timing offset information for UL resource allocation information… The UE can perform UL transmission (e.g., message 3) according to the resource allocation information and the TA value included in the RAR).
Regarding claim 2, the claim is drawn to a radio node performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is drawn to a wireless device performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the cited reference Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1. Kim furtherdiscloses wherein the transmission timing is indicated to the wireless device with a transmission timing indication (¶0068 discloses that the UE can perform UL transmission (e.g., message 3) according to the resource allocation information and the TA value included).
Regarding claim 10, the claim is drawn to a computer storage medium performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 5. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 5.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, 17-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US20220338300), in view of Lin (US20230068762).
Regarding claim 6, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Sun does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission timing is indicated to the wireless device with a transmission timing indication in a random access message 4.
In an analogous art Lin teaches wherein the transmission timing is indicated to the wireless device with a transmission timing indication in a random access message 4 (¶0493 discloses that the base station may send TA update information to the terminal in the message 4. For example, a new TA. ¶0494 further discloses that in a random access process, the TA related information may be indicated by the message 4… the TA related information may comprise a TA value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Lin where it is beneficial for the base station to correctly receive uplink transmission, thereby reducing interference of uplink transmission of the terminal to uplink transmission of other terminals.
Regarding claim 7, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Sun does not explicitly teach the transmission timing is indicated to the wireless device with a transmission timing indication implemented as a Medium Access Control Information Element.
In an analogous art Lin teaches the transmission timing is indicated to the wireless device with a transmission timing indication implemented as a Medium Access Control Information Element (¶0140 discloses sending, by the network device, first information which comprises the TA (timing advance) related information. ¶0147 further discloses that the first information is carried in a MAC-CE where ¶0258 discloses that the TA related information is used to indicate a TA used by the terminal for transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Lin to use MAC-CE to better manage radio resources and control various UE.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 6. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 7.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 7. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 7.
Claims 8-9, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US20220338300), in view of Nazmul et al (US20180176958).
Regarding claim 8, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Sun does not explicitly teach wherein the transmission timing is determined based on reference signaling associated to the random access message 3.
In an analogous art Nazmul teaches wherein the transmission timing is determined based on reference signaling associated to the random access message 3 (¶0127 discloses that MSG3 transmitted by the UE may include a reference signal (RS) and the TA parameter may be determined by the BS based on the RS).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Nazmul to improve communications between the base station and the UE in a wireless network.
Regarding claim 9, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Sun does not explicitly teach wherein the random access message 3 comprises a plurality of allocation units carrying different reference signaling sequences.
In an analogous art Nazmul teaches wherein the random access message 3 comprises a plurality of allocation units carrying different reference signaling sequences (¶0118 discloses that the UE 120 can transmit reference signals (RSs) in different symbols of MSG3 and ¶0131 further discloses that MSG3 may include a plurality of RSs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling
date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Nazmul to improve communications between the base station and the UE in a wireless network.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 8. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 8.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 9. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 8. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 9. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656.
The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462