DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
In response to the application filed on 12/18/2023, claims 1-5, and 11-16 are currently pending for the examination. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 has been placed in the application file, and the information referred therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
Drawing figures submitted on 12/18/2023 have been reviewed and accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Issue:
Claim 1 recites "A random access method…sending a system message to user terminals…” [Emphasis Added]
Analysis:
The limitations include sending a system message to multiple user terminals. However, the specification, including the drawings and figures, fails to reasonably convey to one of the ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of multiple UEs at time of filing. Specifically, the figures 1 and 2 depict only a single user terminal (UE) involved in the transmission of the system message. Nowhere does in the specification implicitly and/or explicitly provide “transmitting the system message to multiple UEs”. In view of the above analysis, the instant specification fails to support an adequate written description of the current claim. Thus, the instant claim introduces elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement.
See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, for lack of adequate written description. Independent claims 11 and 17 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, based on the same/similar reason as discussed in above. Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected as being dependency upon the rejected base 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 1-5, and 11-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Issue:
Claim 1 recites "A random access method…sending a system message to user terminals…” [Emphasis Added]
Analysis:
The limitations include sending a system message to multiple user terminals. However, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention because the scope of “multiple user terminals” is unclear in view of the specification. Specifically, the Spec fails to provide guidance or definition as to:
Whether the system message is simultaneously or subsequently sent to multiple UEs,
Whether the UEs are distinct, grouped, or broadcast recipients, or
How the system message differs from a message sent to a single UE.
After applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim, this renders the scope of the claim ambiguous and leaves the metes and bounds of the claimed invention indeterminate. Thus, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. It is recommended that the claim language be amended such that the exact meaning of the above quoted limitation is clear. Independent claims 11 and 12 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 2, based on the same/similar reason as discussed in above. Dependent claims 2-16 are also rejected as being dependency upon the rejected base claims. For the purpose of examinations, Examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (US 2023/0199859 A1) in view of JANG et al. (US 2023/0131368 A1).
Regarding claim 1; LI teaches a random access method, applied to a base station, and comprising:
sending a system message to user terminals (See Fig. 17: transmitting multiple PRACH configurations (i.e., system message) to a UE. ¶ [0216]), wherein the system message comprises preamble ranges allocated for services (See Fig. 17: a network node may configure different physical random access preamble configurations (e.g., different PRACH occasions, preamble indexes, or preamble formats) for different user equipment (UE)/service groups that are associated with different UE priorities. See Abstract and ¶ [0148]), and priorities of services are pre-configured on the base station (See Fig. 17: configuring different physical random access channel (PRACH) configurations for different UE/service groups that are associated to different priorities, ¶ [0148]);
receiving random access preamble messages from the user terminals (See Fig. 17: a step 1706 in which the network node 104 receives a random access preamble transmitted by a user equipment (UE) 102. ¶ [0217]), wherein the random access preamble message from a corresponding user terminal comprises a first preamble selected by the user terminal from within the preamble ranges corresponding to services of the user terminal (See Fig. 15: At step 1506 in which the UE 102 selects a PRACH configuration from a group including at least the first and second PRACH configurations. ¶ [0193]);
based on the priority of the service corresponding to a preamble range to which each of obtained the first preambles belongs, selecting at least one second preamble from the first preambles (See Fig. 17: In steps 1710 and 1712, the network node 104 to determine/select that the UE 102 has a first/second priority, the UE 102 has a first UE type, a service has the first priority, the service has a first/second service type, and/or a first network slice if the PRACH configuration of the received random access preamble is determined to be a first PRACH configurations. ¶ [0219] and ¶ [0220]);
sending a random access response message to the user terminals, wherein the random access response message comprises the at least one second preamble (See Fig. 17: In step 1714 in which the network node 104, in response to receiving the random access preamble, transmits a random access response (RAR). In some aspects (e.g., 2-step random access procedure aspects), the transmitted RAR may include a UE identifier assignment, timing advance information, and a contention resolution message. Note. Either one of the RAR could be analyzed as a second preamble under the BRI. ¶ [0227]).
Even though, LI teaches sending a system message of PRACH configurations to a UE and receiving Random Access Preamble from the UE, LI doesn’t explicitly provide communicating with multiple UEs.
However, Jang discloses communicating with multiple UEs (Jang: See Fig. 1C and 1E: a UE 1c-01 selects a physical random access channel (PRACH) and transmits a random access preamble to the corresponding PRACH (1c-11). According to an embodiment of the disclosure, one or more UEs 1c-01 may simultaneously transmit the random access preamble on a PRACH resource. ¶ [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide communicating with multiple UEs as taught by Jang to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would efficiently provide the IoT, the mMTC may require the support for a large number of terminals in a cell, improved coverage for a terminal, improved battery time, reduced costs of a terminal, and the like. Jang: ¶ [0049].
Regarding claim 11; LI teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor and a machine readable storage medium; wherein the machine readable storage medium stores machine executable instructions executable by the processor; the processor is configured to execute the machine executable instructions to perform operations comprising:
sending a system message to user terminals (See Fig. 17: transmitting multiple PRACH configurations (i.e., system message) to a UE. ¶ [0216]), wherein the system message comprises preamble ranges allocated for services (See Fig. 17: a network node may configure different physical random access preamble configurations (e.g., different PRACH occasions, preamble indexes, or preamble formats) for different user equipment (UE)/service groups that are associated with different UE priorities. See Abstract and ¶ [0148]), and priorities of services are pre-configured on the base station (See Fig. 17: configuring different physical random access channel (PRACH) configurations for different UE/service groups that are associated to different priorities, ¶ [0148]);
receiving random access preamble messages from the user terminals (See Fig. 17: a step 1706 in which the network node 104 receives a random access preamble transmitted by a user equipment (UE) 102. ¶ [0217]), wherein the random access preamble message from a corresponding user terminal comprises a first preamble selected by the user terminal from within the preamble ranges corresponding to services of the user terminal (See Fig. 15: At step 1506 in which the UE 102 selects a PRACH configuration from a group including at least the first and second PRACH configurations. ¶ [0193]);
based on the priority of the service corresponding to a preamble range to which each of obtained the first preambles belongs, selecting at least one second preamble from the first preambles (See Fig. 17: In steps 1710 and 1712, the network node 104 to determine/select that the UE 102 has a first/second priority, the UE 102 has a first UE type, a service has the first priority, the service has a first/second service type, and/or a first network slice if the PRACH configuration of the received random access preamble is determined to be a first PRACH configurations. ¶ [0219] and ¶ [0220]);
sending a random access response message to the user terminals, wherein the random access response message comprises the at least one second preamble (See Fig. 17: In step 1714 in which the network node 104, in response to receiving the random access preamble, transmits a random access response (RAR). In some aspects (e.g., 2-step random access procedure aspects), the transmitted RAR may include a UE identifier assignment, timing advance information, and a contention resolution message. Note. Either one of the RAR could be analyzed as a second preamble under the BRI. ¶ [0227]).
Even though, LI teaches sending a system message of PRACH configurations to a UE and receiving Random Access Preamble from the UE, LI doesn’t explicitly provide communicating with multiple UEs.
However, Jang discloses communicating with multiple UEs (Jang: See Fig. 1C and 1E: a UE 1c-01 selects a physical random access channel (PRACH) and transmits a random access preamble to the corresponding PRACH (1c-11). According to an embodiment of the disclosure, one or more UEs 1c-01 may simultaneously transmit the random access preamble on a PRACH resource. ¶ [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide communicating with multiple UEs as taught by Jang to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would efficiently provide the IoT, the mMTC may require the support for a large number of terminals in a cell, improved coverage for a terminal, improved battery time, reduced costs of a terminal, and the like. Jang: ¶ [0049].
Regarding claim 12; LI teaches a non-transitory machine readable storage medium, storing machine executable instructions, wherein the machine executable instructions are executed by a processor to perform operations comprising:
sending a system message to user terminals (See Fig. 17: transmitting multiple PRACH configurations (i.e., system message) to a UE. ¶ [0216]), wherein the system message comprises preamble ranges allocated for services (See Fig. 17: a network node may configure different physical random access preamble configurations (e.g., different PRACH occasions, preamble indexes, or preamble formats) for different user equipment (UE)/service groups that are associated with different UE priorities. See Abstract and ¶ [0148]), and priorities of services are pre-configured on the base station (See Fig. 17: configuring different physical random access channel (PRACH) configurations for different UE/service groups that are associated to different priorities, ¶ [0148]);
receiving random access preamble messages from the user terminals (See Fig. 17: a step 1706 in which the network node 104 receives a random access preamble transmitted by a user equipment (UE) 102. ¶ [0217]), wherein the random access preamble message from a corresponding user terminal comprises a first preamble selected by the user terminal from within the preamble ranges corresponding to services of the user terminal (See Fig. 15: At step 1506 in which the UE 102 selects a PRACH configuration from a group including at least the first and second PRACH configurations. ¶ [0193]);
based on the priority of the service corresponding to a preamble range to which each of obtained the first preambles belongs, selecting at least one second preamble from the first preambles (See Fig. 17: In steps 1710 and 1712, the network node 104 to determine/select that the UE 102 has a first/second priority, the UE 102 has a first UE type, a service has the first priority, the service has a first/second service type, and/or a first network slice if the PRACH configuration of the received random access preamble is determined to be a first PRACH configurations. ¶ [0219] and ¶ [0220]);
sending a random access response message to the user terminals, wherein the random access response message comprises the at least one second preamble (See Fig. 17: In step 1714 in which the network node 104, in response to receiving the random access preamble, transmits a random access response (RAR). In some aspects (e.g., 2-step random access procedure aspects), the transmitted RAR may include a UE identifier assignment, timing advance information, and a contention resolution message. Note. Either one of the RAR could be analyzed as a second preamble under the BRI. ¶ [0227]).
Even though, LI teaches sending a system message of PRACH configurations to a UE and receiving Random Access Preamble from the UE, LI doesn’t explicitly provide communicating with multiple UEs.
However, Jang discloses communicating with multiple UEs (Jang: See Fig. 1C and 1E: a UE 1c-01 selects a physical random access channel (PRACH) and transmits a random access preamble to the corresponding PRACH (1c-11). According to an embodiment of the disclosure, one or more UEs 1c-01 may simultaneously transmit the random access preamble on a PRACH resource. ¶ [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide communicating with multiple UEs as taught by Jang to have incorporated in the system of LI, so that it would efficiently provide the IoT, the mMTC may require the support for a large number of terminals in a cell, improved coverage for a terminal, improved battery time, reduced costs of a terminal, and the like. Jang: ¶ [0049].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, and 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon the 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al. (US 2023/0328794 A1).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAI AUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-3507. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, Alt Fridays, 7:30 AM- 5:00 PM (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAI AUNG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416