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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 is dependent on cancelled claim 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, 11-13, 20, 21, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakhnini et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0409093 A1; hereinafter “SAKHNINI”) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2017/0359822 A1).
Regarding claim 1, SAKHNINI teaches a method for controlling uplink transmission, performed by a network device (see SAKHNINI, fig. 4, BS 110), and the method comprising:
transmitting first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating uplink switch information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 510, para. [0072,75]).
SAKHNINI is silent to teaching that transmitting in response to a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than at least one of a first threshold or a distance between the terminal device and the network device.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches a method (Zhao is directed to controlling which node receives a UE's uplink transmission in a heterogeneous network of a macro eNB and local nodes (¶[0006], ¶[0011]–[0013], ¶[0111]–[0113], FIG. 1) comprising transmitting in response to a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than at least one of a first threshold (Zhao's "no more than a preset distance threshold" criterion (¶[0127]), the threshold being an empirical value set as needed in practice. Distances satisfying the claimed "less than" relationship fall squarely within Zhao's criterion) or a distance between the terminal device and the network device (because the macro eNB is itself one of the candidate transmitting nodes (¶[0109]), whenever Zhao's shortest-distance criterion results in selection of a node other than the macro eNB, the distance between the UE and that selected receiving node is necessarily less than the distance between the UE and the macro eNB (the network device)).
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 SAKHNINI's method so that the base station transmits the indication in response to the distance condition taught by Zhao. Zhao expressly states that selecting the appropriate uplink node in this manner lowers the burden on the macro base station, alleviates uplink interference between respective UEs, improves system throughput, and saves UE power (¶[0014], ¶[0038], ¶[0104], ¶[0340]). These are the same objectives SAKHNINI pursues in mitigating beam overload and distributing load more evenly among beams (¶[0069]–[0070]). A skilled artisan reading SAKHNINI's open-ended list of triggering conditions at ¶[0072] ("load," "number of UEs," "category," "capability … stationary or mobile") would have been directly motivated to look to a known proximity/location criterion of the type Zhao supplies, particularly since SAKHNINI already contemplates UE mobility state as a factor.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the distance between the terminal device and the receiving node being is minimum and less than the first threshold (Zhao ¶[0126] states that the selection criterion "can include but will not be limited to one or more of the following criterions," and ¶[0127] then recites, within a single criterion, both (i) the distance being the shortest and (ii) the distance being no more than a preset distance threshold. See also ¶[0209]–[0210] and ¶[0316]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the uplink switch information includes at least one of following:
a direction of an uplink transmission beam or a beam index (see SAKHNINI, para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches a computer-readable storage medium, configured for storing an instruction, wherein the method according to claim 1 is enabled to be implemented when the instruction is executed (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches a method for controlling uplink transmission, performed by a terminal device (see SAKHNINI, fig. 4, UE 120, beam 415, para. [0065-66]), and the method comprising:
receiving first indication information from a network device, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating uplink switch information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 510, para. [0072,75]).
SAKHNINI is silent to teaching that wherein a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than at least one of a first threshold or a distance between the terminal device and the network device.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches a method (Zhao is directed to controlling which node receives a UE's uplink transmission in a heterogeneous network of a macro eNB and local nodes (¶[0006], ¶[0011]–[0013], ¶[0111]–[0113], FIG. 1) wherein a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than at least one of a first threshold (Zhao's "no more than a preset distance threshold" criterion (¶[0127]), the threshold being an empirical value set as needed in practice. Distances satisfying the claimed "less than" relationship fall squarely within Zhao's criterion) or a distance between the terminal device and the network device (because the macro eNB is itself one of the candidate transmitting nodes (¶[0109]), whenever Zhao's shortest-distance criterion results in selection of a node other than the macro eNB, the distance between the UE and that selected receiving node is necessarily less than the distance between the UE and the macro eNB (the network device)).
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 SAKHNINI's method so that the base station transmits the indication in response to the distance condition taught by Zhao. Zhao expressly states that selecting the appropriate uplink node in this manner lowers the burden on the macro base station, alleviates uplink interference between respective UEs, improves system throughput, and saves UE power (¶[0014], ¶[0038], ¶[0104], ¶[0340]). These are the same objectives SAKHNINI pursues in mitigating beam overload and distributing load more evenly among beams (¶[0069]–[0070]). A skilled artisan reading SAKHNINI's open-ended list of triggering conditions at ¶[0072] ("load," "number of UEs," "category," "capability … stationary or mobile") would have been directly motivated to look to a known proximity/location criterion of the type Zhao supplies, particularly since SAKHNINI already contemplates UE mobility state as a factor.
Regarding claim 12, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches the method according to claim 12, further comprising: switching the uplink transmission beam according to the first indication information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 520, alternate beam, para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches a communication apparatus (see SAKHNINI, fig. 9), comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory to enable the communication apparatus to perform the method according to claim 11 (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches a computer-readable storage medium, configured for storing an instruction, wherein the method according to claim 11 is enabled to be implemented when the instruction is executed (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125]).
Regarding claim 20, SAKHNINI teaches a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein a computer program is stored in the memory, and the processor executes the computer program stored in the memory to enable the communication apparatus to perform a method for controlling uplink transmission (see SAKHNINI, para. [0125], fig. 4, BS 110), and the method comprises:
transmitting first indication information, wherein the first indication information is used for indicating uplink switch information (see SAKHNINI, fig. 5, 510, para. [0072,75]).
SAKHNINI is silent to teaching that transmitting in response to a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than at least one of a first threshold or a distance between the terminal device and the network device.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhao teaches a device (Zhao is directed to controlling which node receives a UE's uplink transmission in a heterogeneous network of a macro eNB and local nodes (¶[0006], ¶[0011]–[0013], ¶[0111]–[0113], FIG. 1) configured for transmitting in response to a distance between a terminal device and a receiving node being less than at least one of a first threshold (Zhao's "no more than a preset distance threshold" criterion (¶[0127]), the threshold being an empirical value set as needed in practice. Distances satisfying the claimed "less than" relationship fall squarely within Zhao's criterion) or a distance between the terminal device and the network device (because the macro eNB is itself one of the candidate transmitting nodes (¶[0109]), whenever Zhao's shortest-distance criterion results in selection of a node other than the macro eNB, the distance between the UE and that selected receiving node is necessarily less than the distance between the UE and the macro eNB (the network device)).
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 SAKHNINI's method so that the base station transmits the indication in response to the distance condition taught by Zhao. Zhao expressly states that selecting the appropriate uplink node in this manner lowers the burden on the macro base station, alleviates uplink interference between respective UEs, improves system throughput, and saves UE power (¶[0014], ¶[0038], ¶[0104], ¶[0340]). These are the same objectives SAKHNINI pursues in mitigating beam overload and distributing load more evenly among beams (¶[0069]–[0070]). A skilled artisan reading SAKHNINI's open-ended list of triggering conditions at ¶[0072] ("load," "number of UEs," "category," "capability … stationary or mobile") would have been directly motivated to look to a known proximity/location criterion of the type Zhao supplies, particularly since SAKHNINI already contemplates UE mobility state as a factor.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHNINI and Zhao as applied to claims 1, 2, and 11 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0235800 A1; hereinafter “TANG”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches the method according to claim 3.
The combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao is silent to teaching that further comprising at least one of:
determining the uplink switch information according to a position relationship between the terminal device and the receiving node; or
receiving second indication information, wherein the second indication information is used for indicating position information of the terminal device.
In the same field of endeavor, TANG teaches a method comprising at least one of:
determining the uplink switch information according to a position relationship between the terminal device and the receiving node (see TANG, fig. 6, 640, para. [0066]); or
receiving second indication information, wherein the second indication information is used for indicating position information of the terminal device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI and Zhao with the teaching of TANG in order to manage a large number of mobile devices and various conditions (see TANG, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao teaches the method according to claim 1.
The combination of SAKHNINI and Zhao is silent to teaching that further comprising:
determining a direction of a receiving beam in a receiving node according to the position information of the terminal device; and
transmitting fifth indication information to the receiving node, wherein the fifth indication information is used for indicating the direction of the receiving beam to the receiving node.
In the same field of endeavor, TANG teaches a method comprising:
determining a direction of a receiving beam in a receiving node according to the position information of the terminal device (see TANG, fig. 6, 640, para. [0066,70]); and
transmitting fifth indication information to the receiving node, wherein the fifth indication information is used for indicating the direction of the receiving beam to the receiving node (see TANG, para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI and Zhao with the teaching of TANG in order to manage a large number of mobile devices and various conditions (see TANG, para. [0001]).
Regarding claim 14, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 4.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHNINI, Zhao and TANG as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Priyanto et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0329417 A1; hereinafter “PRIYANTO”)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of SAKHNINI, Zhao and TANG teaches the method according to claim 5.
The combination of SAKHNINI, Zhao and TANG is silent to teaching that further comprising:
transmitting third indication information in response to satisfying a second condition, wherein the third indication information is used for indicating the terminal device to report the position information.
In the same field of endeavor, PRIYANTO teaches a method comprising:
transmitting third indication information in response to satisfying a second condition, wherein the third indication information is used for indicating the terminal device to report the position information (see PRIYANTO, fig. 2, positioning request 230, fig. 5, 6, para. [0040-41], trigger event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI, Zhao and TANG with the teaching of PRIYANTO in order to provide efficient and high quality communication (see PRIYANTO, para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 15, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 6.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 16 and 17 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAKHNINI, Zhao, TANG and PRIYANTO as applied to claims 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0037269 A1; hereinafter “RYU”)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of SAKHNINI, Zhao, TANG and PRIYANTO teaches the method according to claim 6.
The combination of SAKHNINI, Zhao, TANG and PRIYANTO is silent to teaching that further comprising at least one of:
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a power headroom (PH) reported by the terminal device being less than a second threshold; or
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a maximum allowed user equipment output power reduction (P MRP) reported by the terminal device being greater than a third threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, RYU teaches a method comprising at least one of:
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a power headroom (PH) reported by the terminal device being less than a second threshold (see RYU, para. [0086]); or
determining that the second condition is satisfied in response to a maximum allowed user equipment output power reduction (P MRP) reported by the terminal device being greater than a third threshold (see RYU, para. [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SAKHNINI, Zhao, TANG and PRIYANTO with the teaching of RYU in order to provide power management with beam variation (see RYU, para. [0009-10]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of SAKHNINI, Zhao, TANG, PRIYANTO and RYU teaches the method according to claim 7, further comprising:
receiving fourth indication information, wherein the fourth indication information is used for indicating a PHR and/or the P MRP of the terminal device (see RYU, fig. 1, 4, beam measurement instruction, para. [0065]).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 7 and 8, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights