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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: (1) It is less than 50 words (2) The phrases “The present disclosure ..” (1st line) and “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure …” (2nd line) can be implied.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1 - 5, 7 - 8, 12, 17 - 18, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tooher et al. (US 20200305038 A1; which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 1, Tooher discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 1A discloses wireless system with UEs 102), the method comprising:
receiving configurations for multiple transmit/receive points (TRPs) including one or more first TRPs associated with a first cell ([0186] discloses “WTRU receives RS configuration information from a source TRP, which allows it to transmit to a target TRP. As shown in FIG. 6, RS configuration 601 is sent from a Source TRP to a WTRU. The RS configuration may relate to a group of coordinated TRPs.”; [0004]; [0190] discloses serving cell; wherein the first cell is interpreted as the serving cell);
determining a radio link state of the one or more first TRPs based on a configuration for the one or more first TRPs ([0186] discloses “In block 602, the WTRU performs measurements using one or more RS for one or more TRPs. Measurements may be of many types, and may relate to the ability of the WTRU to transmit and/or receive to and/or from a serving TRP (for example the Source TRP) and/or a non-serving TRP (for example, a Target TRP).”; wherein the radio link state are obtained from the measurements);
selecting a TRP among the multiple TRPs based on the radio link state of the one or more first TRPs (Fig. 6, block 603; [0186] discloses “….In block 603, the WTRU determines that at least one measurement meets a threshold”);
and activating a configuration for the selected TRP (Fig. 6, block 604; [0186] discloses “In block 604, the WTRU performs random access with a target TRP, possibly using resources determined from the measured RS. In another example, in block 604, the WTRU performs random access with a target TRP, using pre-configured or pre-determined resources. The resources may be pre-configured or pre-determined from a previous indication from the source TRP or from the Target TRP.”).
Regarding claim 2, Tooher discloses the first cell comprises a serving cell ([0190]).
Regarding claim 3, Tooher discloses the multiple TRPs include one or more second TRPs associated with a second cell that is different from the first cell, and wherein the TRP is selected among the one or more second TRPs ([0298] discloses “neighbor cells”; wherein the second cell would be a neighbor cell; Fig. 1A shows multiple TRPs; [0019] discloses 114a and 114b part of a region or cell, hence neighbor cells would have their own base stations/TRP. Selecting one TRP from the second cell is inherent when that second cell is being used).
Regarding claim 4, Tooher discloses the first cell comprises a serving cell ([0190]), and wherein the second cell comprises a non-serving cell, or a serving cell other than the first cell (second cell could be neighbor cell, as in claim 3; wherein 1st an 2nd cell are analyzed as in claims 2, 3).
Regarding claim 5, Tooher discloses selecting of the TRP comprises:
determining a radio link state of the first cell based on the radio link state of the one or more first TRPs ([0280] discloses “Radio Link Failure (RLF) may be determined and declared by the WTRU for one, some or all serving TRPs.”; wherein 1st an 2nd cells are analyzed as in claims 2, 3; [0186]);
determining a radio link state of the second cell based on a radio link state of the one or more second TRPs ([0280] discloses “Radio Link Failure (RLF) may be determined and declared by the WTRU for one, some or all serving TRPs.”; wherein 1st an 2nd cells are analyzed as in claims 2, 3; [0186]);
and selecting the TRP among the one or more second TRPs based on that the radio link state of the first cell is a failure state and the radio link state of the second cell is not a failure state ([0280]; Fig. 6, block 603; [0186]; [0260] discloses “Upon reception of multiple TRPs, the WTRU may select one or more based on measurements”; wherein measurements would be made in Fig. 6, blocks 602, 603 to decide failure to not).
Regarding claim 7, Tooher discloses applying a configuration for the second cell based on activating the configuration for the selected TRP (Fig. 6; block 604; [0186] discloses “In block 604, the WTRU performs random access with a target TRP, possibly using resources determined from the measured RS. In another example, in block 604, the WTRU performs random access with a target TRP, using pre-configured or pre-determined resources. The resources may be pre-configured or pre-determined from a previous indication from the source TRP or from the Target TRP.”; [0127] and [0129] discloses obtaining a cells configuration and “…the WTRU may determine a CRS configuration… The CRS enables the WTRU to perform measurements on a cell and also to demodulate transmissions from the cell..”).
Regarding claim 8, Tooher discloses applying of the configuration for the second cell comprises: deactivating a configuration for the first cell and the configuration for the one or more first TRPs ([0041] discloses “…the MME 142 may be responsible for authenticating users of the WTRUs 102a, 102b, 102c, bearer activation/deactivation,..”; wherein inherently, deactivation can be done for any cell, including the second cell).
Regarding claim 12, Tooher discloses the radio link state of the one or more first TRPs is determined among a plurality of radio link states including a normal state and a failure state ([0280] discloses “Radio Link Failure (RLF) may be determined and declared by the WTRU for one, some or all serving TRPs.”),
wherein the failure state is a radio link state in which a failure is detected on the one or more first TRP ([0280],
and wherein the normal state is a radio link state other than the failure state (inherent since a state will either be a normal or a failure state).
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 18 reciting equivalent apparatus limitations. Claim 18 additionally recites:
the UE comprising at least one transceiver:
at least processor: and at least one computer memory operable connectable to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, based on being executed by the at least one processor, perform operations
Transceiver, processor, memory are disclosed by Tooher (Fig. 1B, elements 120, 118, 130, 132; [0008]; [0029]). UE is disclosed as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Tooher discloses the UE is in communication with at least one of a mobile device, a network, or autonomous vehicles other than the UE (Fig. 1A shows UE 102 in communication with network).
Claim 22 is similarly analyzed as claim 18, with claim 18 reciting operations as seen from the TRP side. Active TRP is inherent since it is sending configurations to the UE, hence active. Transmitting data to the UE via the active TRP is disclosed by Tooher ([0209], [0217], [0242], last line).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooher et al. (US 20200305038 A1) which has been provided in the International Search Report).
Regarding claim 6, Tooher does not explicitly disclose a radio link state of a cell including at least one of the first cell or the second cell is determined as a failure state based on that all of TRPs associated with the cell are in a failure state, and wherein a radio link state of the cell is determined as a non-failure state based on that any of the TRPs associated with the cell is not in the failure state.
However, Tooher discloses determining a radio link state of the first cell based on the radio link state of the one or more first TRPs ([0280] discloses “Radio Link Failure (RLF) may be determined and declared by the WTRU for one, some or all serving TRPs”).
Determining if a cell is a failure state or non-failure state is a design option and obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E)), based on the above determination for each TRP in a cell.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to declare a cell as failure or non-failure as above, because this would enable one to easily know whether to disregard or consider TRPS in the cell, thereby simplifying any communication.
Claims 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooher et al. (US 20200305038 A1) which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Sharma et al. (US 20210329515 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tooher does not disclose the one or more first TRPs include one or more active TRPs and one or more non-active TRPs. and wherein the TRP is selected among the one or more non-active TRPs.
In the same field of endeavor, Sharma discloses the one or more first TRPs include one or more active TRPs and one or more non-active TRPs (Fig. 3; [0077]) and wherein the TRP is selected among the one or more non-active TRPs ([0077] discloses “The candidate or inactive TRP(s) comprises TRP(s) which are currently not serving the UE, but when the UE comes into vicinity of these TRP(s) that may serve the UE”; wherein selected when comes into the vicinity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as taught by Sharma, in the system of Tooher because this would allow new (inactive) TRPs to be activated when the UE is near them.
Regarding claim 10, Tooher discloses determining a radio link state of the one or more TRPs ([0280] discloses “Radio Link Failure (RLF) may be determined and declared by the WTRU for one, some or all serving TRPs.”; [0186]).
Tooher does not explicitly disclose selecting of the TRP comprises selecting the TRP among the one or more non-active TRPs based on that a radio link state of the one or more active TRPs is a failure state and a radio link state of the one or more non-active TRPs is not a failure state.
In the same field of endeavor, Sharma discloses active and non-active TRPs ([0077]).
Based on what Tooher discloses above, one of ordinary skill in the art can select a non-failure state non-active TRP when the active TRPs are in a failure state. This is obvious to try: Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the active and non-active TRPs, as taught by Sharma, in the system of Tooher because this would allow new (inactive) TRPs to be activated when the UE is near them.
Regarding claim 11, Tooher discloses activating of the configuration for the selected TRP comprises deactivating a configuration for the one or more active TRPs ([0041] discloses activation/deactivation).
Tooher does not disclose “while keeping a configuration for the first cell activated.”
However, this is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to keep the configuration of the 1st cell active because this would allow TRPs of the 1st cell to be used.
Claims 13 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tooher et al. (US 20200305038 A1) which has been provided in the International Search Report) in view of Yoon et al. (WO 2018143776 A1, see attached document for page/line citations).
Regarding claim 13, Tooher discloses a configuration for the one or more RSs is included in the configuration for the one or more first TRPs ([0186]).
Tooher does not disclose:
the failure is detected on the one or more first TRPs based on a radio link monitoring (RLM) on the one or more first TRPs,
wherein the RLM comprises monitoring out-of-sync states detected on the one or more first TRPs,
wherein each of the out-of-syne states is detected based on a radio link quality measured for one or more reference signals (RSs) from the one or more first TRPs being worse than an out- of-sync threshold,
and wherein a configuration for the one or more RSs is included in the configuration for the one or more first TRPs.
In the same field of endeavor, Yoon discloses:
the failure is detected on the one or more first TRPs based on a radio link monitoring (RLM) on the one or more first TRPs (page 42, lines 15 - 17),
wherein the RLM comprises monitoring out-of-sync states detected on the one or more first TRPs (page 42, lines 15 - 17),
wherein each of the out-of-syne states is detected based on a radio link quality measured for one or more reference signals (RSs) from the one or more first TRPs being worse than an out- of-sync threshold (page 79, lines 2 - 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to method, as taught by Yoon, in the system of Tooher because this would allow one to detect out-of-sync states.
Regarding claim 14, Tooher does not disclose the failure is detected on the one or more first TRPs based on a number of consecutive out-of-sync states among the out-of-sync states reaching a failure threshold during a period.
However, as in claim 13 above, Yoon discloses using a threshold for out-of-sync-states. Using a different threshold to measure consecutive out-of-sync states is an obvious variation of the threshold used above (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E)). One of ordinary skill in the art can easily use any threshold to determine out-of-sync conditions. This is merely a design option.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to method, as taught by Yoon, in the system of Tooher because using consecutive out-of-sync states eliminates sporadic short-term out-of-sync conditions. This may help prevent unnecessary toggling back and forth between TRPs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 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.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to mobility in wireless systems:
Yoon et al. (US 20190200249 A1) discloses method and device for performing radio link monitoring by user equipment in wireless communication system.
Palenius et al. (US 10333683 B2) discloses thresholds for radio link monitoring with advanced receivers.
Hwang et al. (US 20190052377 A1) discloses method for detecting radio link failure.
Seo et al. (US 9344909 B2) discloses method and apparatus for monitoring a wireless link in a wireless communication system.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632