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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 10 and 19 recites limitation, “measure one or more signals received from a second wireless node; measure a continuous wave (CW) received from a third wireless node; select a random-access channel (RACH) occasion(RO) based on measurements associated with the one or more signals and the CW; and transmit an RACH transmission in the selected RO”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites select a random-access channel (RACH) occasion(RO) based on measurements; and transmit an RACH transmission in the selected RO. The selecting step and then transmitting step recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of collecting data and then selecting data based on measurement i.e., analyzing and then transmitting our outputting data without reciting details of how the solution to a problem is accomplished i.e., "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (See MPEP 2106.04 (a) (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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 2-7 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.
As per claim 2-7, application is claiming “individually or in any combination” where “any” make the claim indefinite because it is not clear which combination applicant is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10-12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elkotby et al. Pub. No. US 20240215067 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Elkotby teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a first wireless node (Fig. 8 and Para 230-231, Methods related to RACH transmissions, interrogator (re-) selection and timing advance (TA) configuration for bi-static backscattering systems where the A backscattering WTRU 80 may receive an interrogation signal 801 , 802 from any number of (e.g., cooperating) WTRUs 81 , 82 to aid (e.g., assist, provide energy for) its transmission to the serving BS), comprising: a memory (Para 47 and Fig. 1B Unit 130 and 1332, memory)comprising instructions; and one or more processors (Para 47 and Fig. 1B, processor)configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to:
measure one or more signals received (Para 240, WTRU (e.g., in a fifth step) may determine its range (e.g., distance) to the interrogating network element based on e.g., any of received signal strength measurement, phase difference of arrival (PDOA) measurement, ... etc. For example, the WTRU may determine its backscattering coverage ring with respect to the serving BS (e.g., signal strength category, range category) within the cell coverage based on any of the determined range (e.g., distance to the interrogating network element), detected beam ID and interrogator’s coverage ring ID (e.g. which may be determined through detected interrogation signal preamble and mapping information), received range thresholds that may be mapped to range categories, and received signal strength thresholds that may be mapped to signal strength categories ) from a second wireless node (Para 230 and 231, receive an interrogation signal 801, 802 from any number of (e.g., cooperating) WTRUs 81, 82 to aid (e.g., assist, provide energy for) its transmission to the serving BS i.e., received from the second wireless node);
measure a continuous wave (CW) received (Para 240, WTRU (e.g., in a fifth step) may determine its range (e.g., distance) to the interrogating network element based on e.g., any of received signal strength measurement, phase difference of arrival (PDOA) measurement, ... etc. For example, the WTRU may determine its backscattering coverage ring where backscattering is referred to as continuous waves with respect to the serving BS (e.g., signal strength category, range category) within the cell coverage based on any of the determined range (e.g., distance to the interrogating network element), detected beam ID and interrogator’s coverage ring ID (e.g. which may be determined through detected interrogation signal preamble and mapping information), received range thresholds that may be mapped to range categories, and received signal strength thresholds that may be mapped to signal strength categories i.e., measure a continuous wave (CW) received ) from a third wireless node (Para 230 and 233, receive an interrogation signal 801, 802 from any number of (e.g., cooperating) WTRUs 81, 82 to aid (e.g., assist, provide energy for) its transmission to the serving BS i.e., received from the third wireless node);
select a random-access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) based on measurements associated with the one or more signals and the CW (Para 240, WTRU may determine a PRACH occasion configuration (e.g., any of frequency, time, and RACH preamble format) based on (e.g., common) signaling that may be received any of (e.g., explicitly) from the interrogating network element and (e.g., implicitly) as part of the interrogation signal preamble. For example, the WTRU’s backscattering capability (e.g., reflection coefficient/efficiency flexibility) may allow the WTRU to perform UL power control i.e., select a random-access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) based on measurements associated with the one or more signals and the CW); and
transmit an RACH transmission in the selected RO (Para 241, the WTRU may determine a backscattering-PRACH-occasion (e.g., to be used for transmission) based on any of an UL power control coefficient, the mapping between coverage rings (e.g., range categories, signal strength categories) and PRACH occasions. For example, the WTRU may modulate the reflection of the interrogation signal for PRACH preamble transmission based on the determined configuration to perform a transmission).
Regarding Claim 2, Elkotby teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive at least one system information block (SIB) indicating one or more measurement windows to measure signal strength of the one or more signals from the second wireless node (Para 178 and 235).
Regarding Claim 3, Elkotby teaches wherein at least one of: a number of the one or more measurement windows or a number of the one or more signals is based on inputs from the second wireless node and the third wireless node (Para 235).
Regarding Claim 10, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a first wireless node, cause the first wireless node to perform a method of wireless communications (Para 458).
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) 4, 5, 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkotby et al. Pub. No. US 20240215067 A1 in view of Zhou et al. Pub. No. US 20230284279 A1
Regarding Claim 4, Elkotby teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive the one or more signals from the second wireless node; measure the signal strength of the one or more signals during the one or more measurement windows (Par 239-241).
Elkotby does not specifically teach determine a pathloss from the second wireless node to the first wireless node based on the signal strength of the one or more signals and a transmission power of the second wireless node.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches UE may determine the preamble based on the one or more RACH parameters provided in the configuration message 1310. For example, the UE may determine the preamble based on a pathloss measurement, an RSRP measurement, and/or a size of the Msg 3 1313 and further teaches that the UE may perform a preamble retransmission if no response is received following a preamble transmission. The UE may increase an uplink transmit power for the preamble retransmission. The UE may select an initial preamble transmit power based on a pathloss measurement and/or a target received preamble power configured by the network i.e., determine a pathloss from the second wireless node to the first wireless node based on the signal strength of the one or more signals and a transmission power of the second wireless node (Para 195-196).
Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elkotby with the method of Zhou so as to provide radio coverage to the wireless device over a wide geographic area to support wireless device mobility (See Zhou Para 69).
Regarding Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive the CW from the third wireless node; and measure a received power of the CW (Para 240).
Regarding Claim 13, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 17, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elkotby et al. Pub. No. US 20240215067 A1 in view of 3GPP TSG RAN Rel-19 Workshop RWS-230380 Taipei, June 15 - 16, 2023
Regarding Claim 8, Elkotby teaches wherein: the first wireless node comprises an ambient internet of things (IoT) tag; the second wireless node comprises a network entity; the third wireless node comprises a user equipment (UE), a relay device, a repeater device, or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) device; and the one or more signals comprise at least one of: a primary synchronization signal (PSS), a secondary synchronization signal (SSS), or a reference signal (RS) (fig. 8 and 9 and Para 230 and 313).
Elkotby does not specifically teach that first wireless node comprises an ambient internet of things (IoT) tag and specific topology.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches from Sec 4 Page 4 and 5 deployment scenario and network Connectivity topology for Ambient IoT where four connectivity topologies in support of different types of ambient IoT devices are agreed as follows,
• Topology (1): BS <-> Ambient IoT device
• Topology (2): BS <-> intermediate node <-> Ambient IoT device
o Intermediate node can be relay, IAB, UE, repeater
• Topology (3): BS <-> assisting node <-> Ambient IoT device <-> BS
o Assisting node can be relay, IAB, UE, repeater
• Topology (4): UE <-> Ambient IoT device.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elkotby with the method of 3GPP so as to determine the respective coverage area of the device (See 3GPP Page 5 Line 16-17).
Regarding Claim 9, Elkotby teaches wherein: the first wireless node comprises an ambient internet of things (IoT) tag; the second wireless node comprises a user equipment (UE), a relay device, a repeater device, or an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) device; the third wireless node comprises a network entity; and the one or more signals comprise one or more sounding reference signals (fig. 8 and 9 and Para 230 and 313).
Elkotby does not specifically teach that first wireless node comprises an ambient internet of things (IoT) tag and specific topology.
However, in the same field of endeavor, 3GPP teaches from Sec 4 Page 4 and 5 deployment scenario and network Connectivity topology for Ambient IoT where four connectivity topologies in support of different types of ambient IoT devices are agreed as follows,
• Topology (1): BS <-> Ambient IoT device
• Topology (2): BS <-> intermediate node <-> Ambient IoT device
o Intermediate node can be relay, IAB, UE, repeater
• Topology (3): BS <-> assisting node <-> Ambient IoT device <-> BS
o Assisting node can be relay, IAB, UE, repeater
• Topology (4): UE <-> Ambient IoT device.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Elkotby with the method of 3GPP so as to determine the respective coverage area of the device (See 3GPP Page 5 Line 16-17).
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 15-16 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 and overcoming 35 USC 101 rejection and 35 USC 112 rejection/objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fails to teach the limitation in combination of “to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to estimate a received signal strength at the second wireless node based on the pathloss and the received power of the CW”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al. Pub. No. US 20240237079 A9 - TRANSMISSION PROCESSING METHOD, TERMINAL AND NETWORK SIDE DEVICE
Akkarakaran et al. Pub. No. US 20200236715 A1 - TIMING CONTROL FOR RANDOM ACCESS CHANNEL (RACH)
Agiwal et al. Pub. No. US 20200100297 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR SUPPORTING MULTIPLE MESSAGE A SIZES AND UPLINK COVERAGE FOR TWO STEP RANDOM ACCESS PROCEDURE
Nagaraja et al. Pub. No. US 20190021018 A1 - CONFIGURATION OF BEAM PAIR LINKS DURING RANDOM ACCESS
WO 2025043432 A1 - MULTIPLE CARRIER WAVE RADIO FREQUENCY SOURCE CONFIGURATION FOR BACKSCATTER COMMUNICATIONS BY AN AMBIENT INTERNET-OF-THINGS DEVICE
WO 2023284649 A1 - SIGNAL TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS, AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
WO 2021137955 A1 - RANDOM ACCESS CHANNEL (RACH) OPTIMIZATION FOR INTERFERENCE COORDINATION IN AN INTEGRATED ACCESS AND BACKHAUL (IAB) NETWORK
EP 3539248 B1 - TWO STEP RANDOM-ACCESS CHANNEL (RACH) PROCEDURE IN MILLIMETER WAVE (MMW)
WO 2020092169 A1 - MODIFIED BACKHAUL RANDOM ACCESS CHANNEL
Optimal Resource Allocation in full Duplex Ambient Backscatter – 2018
Ambient Backscatter-Assisted Wireless Powered Relaying – 2021
Backscatter Cooperation in NOMA communications system -2020
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights