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 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 13 and 20 are 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.
In regards to the claims, the recitation of first target BLER being between 8 and 12 percent and the second BLER target between 1 and 3 percent is indefinite. US PG PUB 20250253970 A1 (published version of the present application) recites in paragraph 18 “For example, a default BLER target may be 10% and the lowered BLER target may be 2%. Optionally, depending on network particulars, the BLER target may be less than 2% and may be adjusted, for example, to between zero and one percent.” The specification does not recite a range between 1 and 3 percent for the second BLER and does not recite a range between 8 and 12 for the first BLER.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (WO 2022/152843 A1).
In regards to claims 1 Nader et al (WO 2022/152843 A1) teaches, a method comprising: maintaining a default block error rate (BLER) target (see page 8, lines 25-29; the PDCCH BLER and PDSCH BLER; see page 12 line 31; BLER target); lowering the default BLER target to an adjusted BLER target for a specific device type (see page 11, lines 34-36; the NW may expect a decreased paging performance for Redcap UEs with respect to eMBB ones if PEI is configured for them, or the NW may expect a Redcap UE to have a higher PEI miss detection rate with respect to an eMBB UE; see page 12, line 31; the NW may reduce the BLER target for paging PDCCH to 0.5%); and applying the adjusted BLER target to the specific device type, thereby extending coverage for the specific device type (see page 32, lines 33-36; the teachings of these embodiments may improve the data rate, latency, and/or power consumption and thereby provide benefits such as reduced user waiting time, relaxed restriction on file size, better responsiveness, and/or extended battery lifetime).
In regards to claims 4, Nader, further comprising applying the default BLER target to enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) devices (see page 11, lines 33-36; criterion for the NW to decide to robustify PEI can be based on the type of the UE(s) that PEI is configured. E.g., the NW may expect a decreased paging performance for Redcap UEs with respect to eMBB ones if PEI is configured for them, or the NW may expect a Redcap UE to have a higher PEI miss detection rate with respect to an eMBB UE).
In regards to claim 5, Nader teaches, using a particular modulation coding scheme (MCS) table to further extend coverage for the specific device type (see page 12, line 19; Change PEI format MCS to reduce MD probability).
In regards to claim 6, Nader teaches, wherein the specific device type is a reduced capability (RedCap) device (see page 11, lines 33-36; nother criterion for the NW to decide to robustify PEI can be based on the type of the UE(s) that PEI is configured. E.g., the NW may expect a decreased paging performance for Redcap UEs with respect to eMBB ones if PEI is configured for them, or the NW may expect a Redcap UE to have a higher PEI miss detection rate with respect to an eMBB UE).
In regards to claim 8 Nader teaches, creating information elements (IEs) for cell access for the specific device type (see page 13, the table with IEs and descriptions for Pei-FallbackConfig).
In regards to claims 10 and 17, Nader teaches, a system comprising: a memory storing data and instructions; and a processor accessing the stored data and executing the stored instructions to perform operations including; providing a first block error rate (BLER) target for a first group of devices;
providing a second BLER target for a second group of devices, wherein the second BLER target is lower than the first BLER target and the second group of devices includes reduced capability (RedCap) devices (see page 11, lines 33-34;, another criterion for the NW to decide to robustify PEI can be based on the type of the UE(s) that PEI is configured; this implies two different type of UE(s) where one type are the RedCap UEs; see page 12; lines 24-32; the NW may tune both PEI and paging PDCCH format/MCS to ascertain joint PDCCH failure rate below a threshold. Using the formula Pf, PDCCH ~ Pmd,PEi + Pbe, PDCCH (or similar), the NW may slightly modify both transmissions, instead of modifying one of them significantly, to obtain the desired overall failure rate. For example, to obtain an overall 1% PDCCH failure rate in a system of FIGURE 4, where PEI is embedded in a paging PDCCH transmission (P.sub.md,PEi = Pbe, PDCCH), the NW may reduce the BLER target for paging PDCCH to 0.5%; the fact BLER target is reduced implies that the second type of UEs have a lower BLER); and applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices to extend coverage for the second group of devices (see page 32, lines 33-36; the teachings of these embodiments may improve the data rate, latency, and/or power consumption and thereby provide benefits such as reduced user waiting time, relaxed restriction on file size, better responsiveness, and/or extended battery lifetime).
In regards to claim 14, Nader teaches transmitting information elements (IEs) for cell access for the RedCap devices (see page 13, the table with IEs and descriptions for Pei-FallbackConfig).
In regards to claim 16, Nader teaches, wherein the first group of devices includes enhanced mobile Broadband (eMBB) devices (see page 11, lines 33-36; nother criterion for the NW to decide to robustify PEI can be based on the type of the UE(s) that PEI is configured. E.g., the NW may expect a decreased paging performance for Redcap UEs with respect to eMBB ones if PEI is configured for them, or the NW may expect a Redcap UE to have a higher PEI miss detection rate with respect to an eMBB UE).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 11-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nader as stated above, and further in view of Wu et al. (CN 119011069 A).
In regards to claims 2-3, Nader teaches all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
Nader also teaches the lowering of the BLER as stated above.
Nader however fails to teaches, providing the adjusted BLER target for uplink BLER and providing the adjusted BLER target for both downlink and uplink BLER.
Wu et al. (CN 119011069 A) teaches, providing the adjusted BLER target for uplink BLER and providing the adjusted BLER target for both downlink and uplink BLER (see the attached section from the reference; the base station adjusts the MCS value according to the ACK/NACK (acknowledgement/non-acknowledgement) feedback obtained by receiving or decoding so as to slowly converge the BLER (Block Error Rate) to the BLER target. Specifically, for the uplink transmission direction, the base station obtains SINR (Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio) information according to the measured SINR (Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio) information, selecting the proper MCS value by looking up the table; In the outer loop control, the base station adjusts the MCS value according to the ACK/NACK feedback of the PUSCH (Physical Uplink SharedChannel) obtained by decoding. For the downlink transmission direction, in the inner loop control, the base station selects a suitable MCS value by looking up a table according to the CQI (Channel Quality Indicator) information reported by the terminal measurement; In the outer loop control, the base station adjusts the MCS value according to the ACK/NACK feedback of the PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) reported by the terminal).
Nader and Wu both are both directed to improvement radio access network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of PUSCH and PDSCH as taught by Wu into the teachings of Nader. The motivation to do so would be to improve quality of service by using the real-time feedback to adjust the BLER.
In regards to claims 11-12 and 19, Nader teaches all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
However, Nader fails to teach, applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for uplink BLER and applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for both uplink BLER and downlink BLER.
Wu et al. (CN 119011069 A) teaches, applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for uplink BLER and applying the second BLER target to the second group of devices for both uplink BLER and downlink BLER (see the attached section from the reference; the base station adjusts the MCS value according to the ACK/NACK (acknowledgement/non-acknowledgement) feedback obtained by receiving or decoding so as to slowly converge the BLER (Block Error Rate) to the BLER target. Specifically, for the uplink transmission direction, the base station obtains SINR (Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio) information according to the measured SINR (Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio) information, selecting the proper MCS value by looking up the table; In the outer loop control, the base station adjusts the MCS value according to the ACK/NACK feedback of the PUSCH (Physical Uplink SharedChannel) obtained by decoding. For the downlink transmission direction, in the inner loop control, the base station selects a suitable MCS value by looking up a table according to the CQI (Channel Quality Indicator) information reported by the terminal measurement; In the outer loop control, the base station adjusts the MCS value according to the ACK/NACK feedback of the PDSCH (Physical Downlink Shared Channel) reported by the terminal).
Nader and Wu both are both directed to improvement radio access network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of PUSCH and PDSCH as taught by Wu into the teachings of Nader. The motivation to do so would be to improve quality of service by using the real-time feedback to adjust the BLER.
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nader as stated above, and further in view of Deng et al. (CN 100387088 C).
In regards to claim 7, Nader teaches all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
Nader also teaches reducing the BLER target percentage as stated above.
Nader however fails to teach, wherein the default BLER target is 10% and the adjusted BLER target is 2%.
Deng et al. (CN 100387088 C) however teaches, wherein the default BLER target is 10% and the adjusted BLER target is 2% (see the attached section from the reference; original BLER can be 10% the adjustment of the BLER target value, setting the new BLER target value and the return time, the new BLER target value is set to be several grades: 1%, 2%).
Nader and Deng both relate to improvement in wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the adjustment of the target BLER to a specific percentage as shown by Deng into the teachings of Nader. The motivation to do so would be to allow for optimizing the load on the system by reducing the wireless resource consumption to an actual percentage that is sufficient enough to provide the service.
In regards to claims 13 and 20, Nader teaches all the limitations of the parent claim as stated above.
Nader also teaches reducing the BLER target percentage as stated above.
Nader however fails to teach, wherein the first BLER target is between 8% and 12% and the second BLER target is between 1% and 3%
Deng et al. (CN 100387088 C) however teaches, wherein the first BLER target is between 8% and 12% and the second BLER target is between 1% and 3% (see the attached section from the reference; original BLER can be 10% the adjustment of the BLER target value, setting the new BLER target value and the return time, the new BLER target value is set to be several grades: 1%, 2%).
Nader and Deng both relate to improvement in wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the adjustment of the target BLER to a specific percentage as shown by Deng into the teachings of Nader. The motivation to do so would be to allow for optimizing the load on the system by reducing the wireless resource consumption to an actual percentage that is sufficient enough to provide the service.
Claim(s) 9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nader as stated above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 2023/0370914 A1).
In regards to claim 9, Nader teaches all the limitations of the parent claims as stated above.
Nader also teaches the IEs for the BLER adjustments on page 13 as stated above.
Nader however fails to teach creating IEs for random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection between new radio (NR) carriers.
Kim et al. (US Publication 2023/0370914 A1) teaches, creating IEs for random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection between new radio (NR) carriers (see paragraphs 576-577; The terminal selects for RA-SDT a RACH-ConfigCommon IE from a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs of the selected uplink carrier; A RACH-ConfigCommon IE is selected for RA-SDT from a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs of the selected uplink carrier; see paragraph 532 for terminal being RedCap; see paragraph 574; The terminal selects, based at least in part on a specific rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL among a plurality of rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SULs, a uplink carrier. The specific rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL is the one included in a first RACH-ConfigCommon IE among a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs for the first uplink)).
Nader and Kim are both related to data transmission in cellular/wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of the random access configuration for the redcap terminals as taught by Kim into the teachings of Nader. The motivation to do would be to allow for higher data rate and lower latency when the Redcap device wants has continuous small data transmissions.
In regards to claims 15 and 18, Nader teaches all the limitations of the parent claims as stated above.
Nader also teaches the IEs for the BLER adjustments on page 13 as stated above.
Nader however fails to teach the IEs comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs and providing information elements (IEs) comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs for the second group of devices.
Kim et al. (US Publication 2023/0370914 A1) teaches, the IEs comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs and providing information elements (IEs) comprising random access channel (RACH) and cell reselection IEs for the second group of devices (see paragraphs 576-577; The terminal selects for RA-SDT a RACH-ConfigCommon IE from a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs of the selected uplink carrier; A RACH-ConfigCommon IE is selected for RA-SDT from a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs of the selected uplink carrier; see paragraph 532 for terminal being RedCap; see paragraph 574; The terminal selects, based at least in part on a specific rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL among a plurality of rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SULs, a uplink carrier. The specific rsrp-ThresholdSSB-SUL is the one included in a first RACH-ConfigCommon IE among a plurality of RACH-ConfigCommon IEs for the first uplink)).
Nader and Kim are both related to data transmission in cellular/wireless systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of the random access configuration for the redcap terminals as taught by Kim into the teachings of Nader. The motivation to do would be to allow for higher data rate and lower latency when the Redcap device wants has continuous small data transmissions.
Relevant Prior Art
Saafi et al. (NPL titled; Enhancing Uplink Performance of NR RedCap in Industrial 5G/B5G Systems) discusses options for RedCap wearable devices and evaluate the performance gains of the selected technology using link-level simulations.
Prior art He et al. (US Publication 2023/0361828 A1) teaches, a process for device type And channel state information feedback over initial access message (see figures 10 and 11).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/JAY P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466