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 § 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 –
(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) 11, 16, and 30, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golaup et al. (US 2011/0244907 A1)
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Golaup discloses:
an apparatus (fig.1 depicts a plurality of apparatuses 100 and 200) comprising:
at least one processor (fig.1 processor 130), and at least one memory (fig.1 and par.[0112]) including computer program code (fig.1 and par.[0112]), wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to:
perform a method comprising:
receiving, by a terminal device (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network comprising a plurality of mobile terminal devices in the communication area of the base station), a configuration comprising an initial set of random-access resources (par.[0069] which recites, in part, “In existing systems, two groups of RACH preambles are broadcast in the System Information Block 2 (SIB2) of LTE. The broadcast preambles can be used by all UEs in the cell.”);
receiving, by the terminal device, a paging message (par.[0077] which recites, in part, “One way of achieving this is for network to page one or more MTC devices. In particular, one or more dedicated preambles may be provided by the network, which the MTC device or devices can use to access the network (depending on the capacity of the paging message and the availability of RACH preambles).”.) indicating an alternative set of random-access resources (par.[0069] which recites, in part, “a third group of RACH preambles is broadcast for MTC devices. Only a certain class of MTC devices can use these preambles, specifically those with potential to generate a high RACH intensity, such as smart meters.”, par.[0077]), wherein the alternative set of random-access resources comprises at least one or more random-access resources that are not comprised in the initial set of random-access resources (par.[0069] describes the specialized RACH preambles as being separate from the originally broadcasted RACH resources which are available for all UE’s as these resources/preambles are reserved for the UE’s which may cause surge “i.e. high RACH intensity”);
transmitting, by the terminal device, a first random-access message using a first random-access resource selected from the alternative set of random-access resources (par.[0077] teaches that the UE uses the resource (e.g. the received preamble) to access the network);
wherein the apparatus is comprised in a terminal device (fig.1 depicts a terminal device).
Regarding claim 30, Golaup discloses:
wherein the apparatus is comprised in a terminal device (fig.1 depicts a terminal device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 14, 25-27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golaup et al. (US 2011/0244907 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 2015/0009813 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Golaup discloses:
an apparatus (fig.1 depicts an apparatus element 1) comprising:
at least one processor (fig.1 processor element 30), and at least one memory (fig.1 and par.[0112]) including computer program code (fig.1 and par.[0112]), wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to:
perform a method comprising:
determine an alternative set of random-access resources (par.[0069] which recites, in part, “a third group of RACH preambles is broadcast for MTC devices. Only a certain class of MTC devices can use these preambles, specifically those with potential to generate a high RACH intensity, such as smart meters.”, par.[0077]), wherein the alternative set of random-access resources comprises at least one or more random-access resources that are not comprised in an initial set of random-access resources indicated by an initial set of configuration parameters (par.[0069] describes the specialized RACH preambles as being separate from the originally broadcasted RACH resources which are available for all UE’s as these resources/preambles are reserved for the UE’s which may cause surge “i.e. high RACH intensity”);
transmit, to the idle/inactive terminal devices, a group paging message indicating at least the alternative set of random-access resources (par.[0077] which recites, in part, “One way of achieving this is for network to page one or more MTC devices. In particular, one or more dedicated preambles may be provided by the network, which the MTC device or devices can use to access the network (depending on the capacity of the paging message and the availability of RACH preambles).”.) and a group identifier (par.[0022] which recites, in part, “This approach can additionally or alternatively be improved by grouping UEs together and inviting a group of UEs to access the network at a given time. Then, the UE has an associated Group Identifier. In such cases, the method further comprises comparing the specified Group Identifier and the Group Identifier associated with the UE. Then, the step of making a transmission from the UE over the RACH may be based on the comparison.”).
While the disclosure of Golaup substantially discloses the claimed invention, it may not disclose the estimation of idle and/or inactive terminal devices. That is, the disclosure of Golaup may not disclose:
Estimating the number of idle and/or inactive terminal devices; and
Determining the amount of the alternative random access resources based on the estimation of the number of idle and/or inactive terminal devices.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Nguyen teaches:
estimating the number of idle and/or inactive terminal devices (par.[0016] describes depicts the amount of MTC devices. The MTC devices being in an IDLE state when needing to perform RACH, par.[0115]); and
determining the amount of the alternative random access resources based on the estimation of the number of idle and/or inactive terminal devices (par.[0016] which describes the predicting the number of MTC devices for the purpose of RACH resource allocation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings Golaup for providing RACH resources to a second class of terminal with the disclosure of Nguyen for determining a number of IDLE/INACTIVE UEs that need RACH resources. The motivation/suggestion would have been to prevent RACH resource congestion based on transmit overload or lack of RACH resources due to a surge in RACH transmissions.
Regarding claims 3 and 25, Golaup discloses:
wherein the alternative set of random-access resources is indicated at least partly by a second value of a first index for overriding a first value of the first index comprised in the initial set of configuration parameters with the second value, wherein the second value is comprised in the group paging message (as discussed above the MTC UE receive an SIB with common resources, and resources specific to MTC. These resources would override or modify the resource configuration stored on the UE, par.[0068 – 0069]);
wherein the first value comprised in the initial set of configuration parameters indicates an initial amount of time resources comprised in the initial set of random-access resources (as discussed above the SIB indicates a first amount of time resources which are usable by all terminals, par.[0069]);
wherein the second value indicates an alternative amount of time resources comprised in the alternative set of random-access resources (par.[0069] describes an alternative set of resources configured for MTC RACH procedure).
Regarding claims 4 and 26, Golaup discloses:
wherein the alternative set of random-access resources is indicated at least partly by a fourth value of a parameter, wherein the fourth value indicates to increase an initial amount of frequency resources comprised in the initial set of random-access resources, and wherein the fourth value is comprised in the group paging message (par.[0077] describes the group paging which indicates a separate set of resources which increase the available RACH resources at the MTC terminal from the initially indicated RACH resources);
wherein the initial amount of frequency resources is indicated by a third value of the parameter comprised in the initial set of configuration parameters (par.[0069] which teaches that the common RACH resources are signaling via broadcast signaling).
Regarding claims 5 and 27, Golaup discloses:
wherein the group paging message comprises a second index indicating an alternative set of configuration parameters from multiple sets of configuration parameters to be used instead of the initial set of configuration parameters, wherein the alternative set of configuration parameters at least partly indicates the alternative set of random-access resources (par.[0069] describes at least 3 sets of RACH resources, and the par.[0077] describes the paging message comprises an alternative set of the sets of resources).
Regarding claim 6, Golaup discloses:
wherein the group paging message further comprises at least one of a maximum number of attempts, a number of system frames, and/or a time period for using the alternative set of random-access resources starting from a reception of the group paging message (par.[0094] describes the number of attempts in N paging cycles which is transmitted to the MTC devices in the group message).
Regarding claim 8, Golaup discloses:
wherein the apparatus is comprised in a base station (fig.1 element 1 depicts a base station).
Claim(s) 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golaup in view of Nguyen and further in view of Sachs et al. (US 2017/0367048 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure of Golaup and Nguyen, and in particular the disclosure of Nguyen teaches the estimation of IDLE devices, (e.g. IDLE MTC devices) that is the disclosure teaches the:
wherein the estimated number of idle and/or inactive terminal devices is determined based at least partly on a first number of terminal devices in a radio resource control idle state.
but does not disclose devices in the inactive state and/or a second number of terminal devices indicated in a paging message received from an access and mobility management function.
In an analogous art, the disclosure Sachs discloses:
but does not disclose devices in the inactive state and/or a second number of terminal devices indicated in a paging message received from an access and mobility management function (par.[0083] “This may be completely controlled by the network node 110, which may simply just not release these MTC devices to the inactive mode, e.g., RRC Idle Mode.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Golaup and Nguyen, with the disclosure of Sachs. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the IDLE/INACTIVE states are similar in that they allow for a UE to remain in an unconnected state to reserve power, which is useful for battery savings and is a state well-known in the art.
Claim(s) 12-13, and 28-29, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Golaup et al. (US 2011/0244907 A1) in view of Harada et al. (US 2019/0158249 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13 and 28-29, the disclosure of Golaup teaches different groups of RACH resources for different terminal types and the use of alternative random access resources by selecting a resource/preamble from the alternative resources, but does not disclose:
wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
transmit, if a random-access procedure based on the first random-access message fails, a second random-access message using a second random-access resource selected from the set of random-access resources.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Harada teaches:
transmit, if a random-access procedure based on the first random-access message fails, a second random-access message using a second random-access resource selected from the set of random-access resources (par.[0038] which recites, in part, “On the other hand, if the user terminal fails to detect the contention-resolution message, the user terminal judges that contention has occurred, reselects a preamble, and repeats the random access procedures”. By perceiving contention during the RACH procedure the UE perceives failure of the RACH process with the set of resources, and selects another resource from the set in order to reperform RACH).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Golaup with the disclosure of Harada for reselecting another RACH preamble. The motivation/suggestion would have been to improve the success rate of RACH procedures even when a first procedure fails.
Regarding claims 13 and 29, the disclosure of Harada teaches:
transmitting, if a random-access procedure based on the first random-access message fails, a second random-access message using a third random-access resource selected from the initial set of random-access resources (par.[0038] which recites, in part, “On the other hand, if the user terminal fails to detect the contention-resolution message, the user terminal judges that contention has occurred, reselects a preamble, and repeats the random access procedures”. By perceiving contention during the RACH procedure the UE perceives failure of the RACH process with the set of resources, and selects another resource from the set in order to reperform RACH).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 and 24 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411