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 1-3, 8-12, 17-20 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) 1-3, 8-12, 17-20 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.
However, if applicant add limitation from claim 4-7, 13-16 into independent form it will overcome the rejection.
Further, other dependent claims except claim 4-7, 13-16 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and do not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
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 collectively, 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), wherein the third wireless node is different from the second wireless node (Fig. 8, 81 and 82 are different node i.e., 81 can be refer to as second node and 82 can be refer to as third 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 collectively, 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 collectively, 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 collectively, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is arguing that independent claims 1, 10 and 19 have been amended to overcome 35 USC 101 rejection and for that reason the rejection is moot and should be withdrawn and suggest that amended independent claim 1, however, recites that the one or more processors cause the apparatus to "measure one or more signals received from a second wireless node," to "measure a continuous wave (CW) received from a third wireless node, wherein the third wireless node is different from the second wireless node," to "select a random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) based on measurements associated with the one or more signals and the CW," and to "transmit an RACH transmission in the selected RO. Further applicant suggest that these are not steps that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Measuring a signal received from a second wireless node, measuring a continuous wave received from a third and different wireless node, and transmitting a RACH transmission in a selected RACH occasion are operations carried out by physical radio hardware over an air interface. A human mind is not equipped to measure a received continuous wave, nor to transmit a random-access channel transmission in a selected time-frequency occasion. As MPEP § 2106.04(a) explains, claims do not recite a mental process when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. Further applicant suggest that The recited steps of independent claims provide a specific improvement to wireless communications technology. Applicant's specification explains at paragraph [0128] that "there may be multiple ambient IoT devices in a cell," that "it is possible that more than one ambient IoT device may choose or select a same RO for a physical RACH (PRACH) transmission," and that "to achieve satisfying performance for all ambient loT devices selecting a same RO, it is desirable to have roughly a same receiving power from all the ambient IoT devices." Paragraph [0131] explains that "when the multiple ambient IoT device may use the same RO for the PRACH transmission, then a received power of the PRACH transmission from different ambient IoT devices may be significantly different," and that "[i]n such circumstances, the ambient IoT "that may be at an edge of the cell may fail the RACH procedure (and retransmission), which will lead to excess delay and more energy consumption for successfully completing the RACH procedure." Paragraph [0136] explains that "[b]ased on the estimated pathloss and other measurements (such as a received power of a signal from the assisting node), the ambient IoT device may select an RO from an RO pool (e.g., with multiple ROs) such that a received power of a signal at the gNB from the ambient IoT device is constrained to a limited range to mitigate the above-noted near-far problem," and paragraph [0138] states that "the described techniques can device address the near-far problem and thereby reduce any transmission delay and energy consumption." Amended independent claim 1 recites the steps that provide that improvement: "measure one or more signals received from a second wireless node," "measure a continuous wave (CW) received from a third wireless node, wherein the third wireless node is different from the second 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. However, examiner disagrees. As per independent claims, applicant is suggesting measure input that is received from multiple devices and select RACH based on measurement and then transmit RACH to the selected RO. According to MPEP 2106.04 (a) claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. MPEP further disclose that a claim to "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). Comparing to collecting, analyzing and then providing certain output step as suggested by electric power group to the current application, it intent to pursue same steps. For example collecting step can be measure signal received and CW received from second node and third node and then analyzing which can be selecting RACH based on measurement associated with signals and CW and providing certain output which can be relate to transmit RACH to RO. MPEP suggest that If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1139, 120 USPQ2d at 1474 (holding that claims to the mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). The use of physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process. 654 F.3d at 1372-73, 99 USPQ2d at 1695. See also Flook, 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 196 (claimed "computations can be made by pencil and paper calculations"); University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367, 129 USPQ2d 1409, 1411-12 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper") (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III B). In current application, the use of the node or measure of signals or wave and then selecting RACH i.e., mathematical calculation does not negate the mental nature of the limitation but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. Further to that, applicant referred to Para 128-138 suggesting the step that provides the improvement. However, examiner would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that MPEP clearly recites that it is improper to import claim limitation from the specification and suggest that
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, applicant can bring limitation from the specification into claim language defining every single step and that would overcome the rejection. For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that reference fail to teach “measure one or more signals received from second wireless node and measure a CW received from a third wireless node, wherein the third wireless node is different from the second wireless node and further fail to disclose “select a RACH occasion based on measurements associated with the one or more signals and the CW. However, examiner disagrees and would like to bring it to the attention of the applicant that during patent examination, claims must be given broadest reasonable interpretation (See MPEP 2111). Further, the definition of nodes is a connection point or endpoint within a network that can create, receive or transmit information over a communication channel. It can be either physical device or a logical component. Further to that nodes can be end user device like phone or computers or IoT sensor or intermediate devices like switches, routers or base station. Having said that Elkotby teaches that a backscattering WTRU 80 which can be refer to as first wireless node may receive interrogation signal from 801 from WTRU 801, and receive another interrogation signal from 802 where 81 can be second node and 82 can be third node. Then the reference reads on applicant claimed invention for example Para 240 teaches 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 and then further teaches (Para 230 and 231, receive an interrogation signal 801 or 802 from any number of (e.g., cooperating) WTRUs 81 to aid (e.g., assist, provide energy for) its transmission to the serving BS i.e., received from the second wireless node). Further, measure a continuous wave (CW) received i.e., 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 802 from any number of (e.g., cooperating) WTRUs 82 to aid (e.g., assist, provide energy for) its transmission to the serving BS i.e., received from the third wireless node), wherein the third wireless node is different from the second wireless node (Fig. 8, 81 and 82 are different node i.e., 81 can be refer to as second node and 82 can be refer to as third node). After performing the measurement select a random-access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) based on measurements associated with the one or more signals and the CW can be read from 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 then transmit an RACH transmission in the selected RO from 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 which clearly reads on applicant claimed invention.
If applicant still does not agree with the examiner, there is another way of reading independent claim and as suggested by the applicant that if 81 and 82 is third node then it can also be read as 83 and 84 as second node and that would also read on applicant claimed invention. For at least the above reason, applicant argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant is arguing that reference does not select an RO from two measurements and suggest that reference fail to teach select a random access change occasion based on measurement with one or more signals and the CW and then transmit the RACH transmission to RO. However, examiner disagrees. Elkotby disclose that the 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 which can be read as select a random access change occasion based on measurement with one or more signals and the CW (Para 240) and then the WTRU may determine its backscattering coverage ring with respect to the serving BS (Para 240). Further to that if applicant still does not agree with the examiner, Elkotby clearly teaches that although the invention is illustrated and described herein with reference to specific embodiments, the invention is not intended to be limited to the details shown. Rather, various modifications may be made in the details within the scope and range of equivalents of the claims and without departing from the invention. Throughout the disclosure, one of skill understands that certain representative embodiments may be used in the alternative or in combination with other representative embodiments (Para 479-480). For at least the above reasons, applicant argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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