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 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-4, replace “any one of claims 13-17, 19, or 23” with --claim 13--. 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.
Claims 1, 6, 13, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2024/0155580 A1) in view of Rastegardoost et al (US 2024/0032103 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a communication method, performed by a terminal, comprising:
receiving at least two groups of configurations sent by a base station (Fig. 4, network side device transmits configuration information); wherein
each of the at least two groups of configurations comprise carrier information or bandwidth part (BWP) information representing a carrier or a BWP, wherein the carrier or the BWP is configured by a network side and used by a specific type of terminal for a communication (Fig. 3 and 166th paragraph, the network side device configures different separate initial BWPs for UEs with different capability characteristics. The network configures BWP #0-1 for RedCap UEs and configures BWP #0-2 for non-RedCap UEs/common terminals, where BWP #0-1 and BWP #0-2 do not fully overlap for frequency domain resources).
Wang does not disclose that one of the at least two groups of configurations comprises a second threshold corresponding to a second type of terminal; in response to a signal measurement value of the second type of terminal for a serving cell being greater than the second threshold, a two-step random access is used; in response to the signal measurement value of the second type of terminal for the serving cell being less than or equal to the second threshold, a four-step random access is used. Rastegardoost discloses that the base station may transmit one or more RRC messages, e.g., RACH ConFigCommonTwoStepRA IE to a RedCap UE (322nd paragraph). The RACH parameters of 2-step RA type may further comprise one or more thresholds for selection of 2-step RA type or a 4-step RA type to perform the procedure on a NUL or SUL (233rd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RA configuration for RedCap UE in 2-step and 4-step random access in Wang’s system, as suggested by Rastegardoost, to enable random access for RedCap UE based on measured threshold.
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses that wherein each of the at least two groups of configurations comprise at least one of: a frequency of the carrier; a frequency of the BWP (Fig. 3); or a synchronization signal and physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block (SSB)-based measurement timing configuration (SMTC) period.
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses a communication method, performed by a base station, comprising:
sending at least two groups of configurations (Fig. 4, network side device transmits configuration information); wherein each of the at least two groups of configurations comprise carrier information or bandwidth part (BWP) information representing a carrier or a BWP, wherein the carrier or the BWP is configured by a network side and used by a specific type of terminal for a communication (Fig. 3 and 166th paragraph, the network side device configures different separate initial BWPs for UEs with different capability characteristics. The network configures BWP #0-1 for RedCap UEs and configures BWP #0-2 for non-RedCap UEs/common terminals, where BWP #0-1 and BWP #0-2 do not fully overlap for frequency domain resources).
Wang does not disclose that one of the at least two groups of configurations comprises a second threshold corresponding to a second type of terminal; in response to a signal measurement value of the second type of terminal for a serving cell being greater than the second threshold, a two-step random access is used; in response to the signal measurement value of the second type of terminal for the serving cell being less than or equal to the second threshold, a four-step random access is used. Rastegardoost discloses that the base station may transmit one or more RRC messages, e.g., RACH ConFigCommonTwoStepRA IE to a RedCap UE (322nd paragraph). The RACH parameters of 2-step RA type may further comprise one or more thresholds for selection of 2-step RA type or a 4-step RA type to perform the procedure on a NUL or SUL (233rd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RA configuration for RedCap UE in 2-step and 4-step random access in Wang’s system, as suggested by Rastegardoost, to enable random access for RedCap UE based on measured threshold.
Regarding claim 30, Wang discloses a base station (268th paragraph and Fig. 8), comprising: a second processor (Fig. 8, processor 801) and a second memory for storing a computer program (Fig. 8, memory 802) executable by the second processor; wherein the second processor is configured to perform the steps of the method of claim 13 when running the computer programs (see claim 13 rejections).
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rastegardoost further in view of Kuang et al (US Patent No. 12,520,203 B2).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Wang discloses BWP configurations for reduced capability UEs and legacy UEs (Fig. 3). Wang does not disclose receiving second information sent by the base station; wherein the second information is used to instruct the terminal to use at least one of: a first access priority parameter, or a second access priority parameter. Kuang discloses that the DU of the network device can properly allocate an access priority of the reduced capability terminal device (col. 19, lines 37-38. Herein, the access priority is set to low priority). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allocate an access priority to a type of a terminal device in Wang’s system, as suggested by Kuang, to optimize network performance of reduced capability terminal device.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Rastegardoost further in view of Hoglund al (US 2024/0389152 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Wang discloses BWP configurations for reduced capability UEs and legacy UEs (Fig. 3). Wang does not disclose sending third information to the base station; wherein the third information is used to instruct type of a terminal, and the third information is carried in a MSG 1, a MSG 3 or a MSG A to be sent. Hoglund discloses that RedCap UEs (reduced capability UEs) may need to include a RedCap indication in MSG 3 (92nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RedCap indication in MSG 3 in Wang’s system, as suggested by Hoglund to prioritize responses among UEs.
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses configuring different groups of random access resources for different types of terminals (Fig. 3). Wang does not disclose determining a type of a terminal based on a preamble of a MSG 1 or a MSG A sent by the terminal or random-access (RACH) Occasion (RO) resources, and/or based on third information carried in the MSG 1, a MSG 3, or the MSG A sent by the terminal; and the third information is used to instruct the type of the terminal. Hoglund discloses that RedCap UEs (reduced capability UEs) may need to include a RedCap indication in MSG 3 (92nd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RedCap indication in MSG 3 in Wang’s system, as suggested by Hoglund to prioritize responses among UEs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8-10, 12, and 14-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-17, 19, 23, and 30 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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights