DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 1/10/2024.
Claims 1-9 & 12-21 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/104092 and claims foreign priority to CN202110789233.4 filed 7/31/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/10/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-17, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rastegardoost et al. (US 2024/0032103 A1), hereinafter referenced as Rast.
With regard to Claim 1, Rast teaches:
A method for identifying a terminal device type, comprising:
acquiring, in an initial random access procedure, random access preamble information and a transmission data scheduling message sent by a terminal; (UE may transmit a preamble and/or PUSCH as part of a random access procedure [Rast: 0243; 0384-85; Figs. 30-31]);
and determining whether the terminal is a reduced capability terminal according to at least one of the random access preamble information and the transmission data scheduling message; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg1 (PRACH) transmission and/or during Msg3 (PUSCH) transmission [Rast: 0284-88]. Examiner notes that the limitation is claimed in the alternative, and only dependent limitations corresponding to a single selected limitation are required).
With regard to Claim 2, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the user terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the random access preamble information comprises:
determining whether a physical random access channel resource index individually defined by the reduced capability terminal exists in the random access preamble information; and determining the terminal to be the reduced capability terminal in response to determining that the physical random access channel resource index individually defined by the reduced capability terminal exists; (a network may identify RedCap UEs during Msg1/MsgA transmission based on a dedicated preamble format/index [Rast: 0308; 0340]).
With regard to Claim 3, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 2, further comprising:
in a case that the terminal is determined to be the reduced capability terminal according to the physical random access channel resource index individually defined by the reduced capability terminal, configuring for the reduced capability terminal a specific physical random access channel resource, or assigning for the reduced capability terminal a specific preamble sequence; (configuring appropriate bandwidth and/or SCS and/or TDD/half FDD configuration for the dedicated UL BWP that is compatible with the specific features of the first type UEs (i.e. RedCap UE and/or NR-Light) [Rast: 0342; 0312], wherein a legacy UE1 may transmit a preamble and/or PUSCH using a first RO and PO in initial UL BWP-0 and a RedCap UE2 may transmit a preamble and/or PUSCH using a second RO and PO in initial UL BWP-1 [Rast: 0384-85; Figs. 30-31]).
With regard to Claim 4, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 2, wherein configuring for the reduced capability terminal the specific physical random access channel resource comprises:
configuring, in a time domain, a transmission occasion of a random access channel for the reduced capability terminal; or, configuring, in a frequency domain, the transmission occasion of the random access channel for the reduced capability terminal; (the two ROs may actually have different (non-overlapping) time and frequency resources such that the ROs configured for first type (i.e. RedCap) UEs may be in a separate/additional/dedicated UL BWP [Rast: 0347-48; 0353]).
With regard to Claim 5, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the transmission data scheduling message comprises:
determining whether a reduced capability terminal identity bit in the transmission data scheduling message is valid; and determining the terminal to be the reduced capability terminal in response to determining that the reduced capability terminal identity bit in the transmission data scheduling message is valid; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done Msg3 (PUSCH) transmission by using the spare bit in existing Msg3 definition to indicate RedCap UE type(s) [Rast: 0284]).
With regard to Claim 9, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 1, wherein:
in a contention-based initial random access procedure, the random access preamble information is message 1 (Msg1) sent by the terminal, and the transmission data scheduling message is message 3 (Msg3) sent by the terminal; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg1 (PRACH) transmission and/or during Msg3 (PUSCH) transmission [Rast: 0284]);
or in a 2-step initial access procedure, the random access preamble information is a preamble part in a request message sent by the terminal, and the transmission data scheduling message is an uplink physical shared channel part in the request message sent by the terminal; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done during MsgA (PRACH+PUSCH) transmission if 2-step RACH is supported for RedCap UEs [Rast: 0284]).
With regard to Claims 12-17 & 21, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1-5 & 9 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 12-17 & 21 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-5 & 9.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2024/0032103 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 12,457,635 B2).
With regard to Claim 6, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 1, further comprising:
performing the step of determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the at least one of the random access preamble information and the transmission data scheduling message; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg1 (PRACH) transmission and/or during Msg3 (PUSCH) transmission [Rast: 0284-88]).
However, Rast does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
determining whether a reduced capability terminal identifier exists in a higher layer signaling; and in a case that the reduced capability terminal identifier exists in the higher layer signaling, determining that identifying the reduced capability terminal is supported, and then performing the step of determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the at least one of the random access preamble information and the transmission data scheduling message.
In a similar field of endeavor involving supporting random access for low-capability terminals, Jang discloses:
determining whether a reduced capability terminal identifier exists in a higher layer signaling; and in a case that the reduced capability terminal identifier exists in the higher layer signaling, determining that identifying the reduced capability terminal is supported, and then performing RACH procedure; (the UE uses information included in the master information block (MIB) such as a spare bit to first determine whether the cell allows an NR-lite UE to access prior to initiating RACH procedure via Msg1 [Jang: 13:12-23; Figs. 6-7]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rast in view of Jang in order to determine whether a reduced capability terminal identifier exists in a higher layer signaling prior to performing RACH procedure in the system of Rast.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rast with Jang as doing so would inform the terminal whether the base station supports reduced capability device connections prior to the terminal attempting to establish a radio connection (RRC).
With regard to Claim 7, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 6, wherein determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the at least one of the random access preamble information and the transmission data scheduling message comprises:
determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the random access preamble information, in a case that the reduced capability terminal identifier bit is 1; and determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the transmission data scheduling message, in a case that the reduced capability terminal identifier bit is 0; (the UE uses information included in the master information block (MIB) such as a spare bit to first determine whether the cell allows an NR-lite UE to access prior to initiating RACH procedure via Msg1 [Jang: 13:12-23; Figs. 6-7]. identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg1 (PRACH) transmission and/or during Msg3 (PUSCH) transmission [Rast: 0284-88]. Examiner notes that the combination of Jang with Rast teaches a system which utilizes a bit to determine whether a reduced capability terminal is supported, and if so will subsequently perform RedCap identification in Msg1 and/or Msg3).
With regard to Claims 18-19, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 6-7 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 6-7.
Claims 8 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2024/0032103 A1) in view of Höglund et al. (US 2023/0122456 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Rast teaches:
The method for identifying the terminal device type according to claim 1, wherein determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the at least one of the random access preamble information and the transmission data scheduling message comprises:
determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the random access preamble information, and acquiring a first determination result; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg1 (PRACH) transmission [Rast: 0284-88]).
determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the transmission data scheduling message, and acquiring a second determination result; (identification of RedCap UEs may be done during Msg3 (PUSCH) transmission [Rast: 0284-88]).
However, Rast does not teach:
and determining the terminal to be the reduced capability terminal in a case that at least one of the first determination result and the second determination result is that the terminal is the reduced capability terminal.
In a similar field of endeavor involving providing early RedCap indications, Höglund discloses:
determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the random access preamble information, and acquiring a first determination result; determining whether the terminal is the reduced capability terminal according to the transmission data scheduling message, and acquiring a second determination result; (receive a reduced capability (RedCap) indication in at least one of Msg1 and Msg3 [Höglund: 0072-74; Figs. 7-8]);
and determining the terminal to be the reduced capability terminal in a case that at least one of the first determination result and the second determination result is that the terminal is the reduced capability terminal; (if both Msg1 and Msg3 indications are present, the network node interprets the wireless device to be of RedCap wireless device type 1 and if Msg1 indication is present but Msg3 indication is not present the network node interprets the wireless device to be of RedCap wireless device type 2 [Höglund: 0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rast in view of Höglund in order to determine the terminal to be a reduced capability terminal based on a first and second determination result in the system of Rast.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Rast with Höglund as doing so would allow different permutations of the Msg1 and Msg3 early indications to be used to indicate one of several RedCap types [Höglund: 0084].
With regard to Claim 20, it appears substantially similar to the limitations recited by claim 8 and consequently does not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claim. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maamari et al. (US 2024/0090018 A1) which teaches a network/base station may utilize a SIB or other signaling message to indicate which path to use by a UE for RedCap UE indication including performing early identification during a RACH procedure, e.g., during transmission of Msg1, Msg3 or MsgA [Maamari: 0144; 0148].
Zhou et al. (US 12,519,573 B2) which teaches in response to the one or more bits (e.g., the spare bit) of the MIB message being set to a first value (e.g., 1), the wireless device may determine a dedicated SIB1 (a first SIB1 for capability-reduced wireless device) is transmitted [Zhou: 68:7-22; Fig. 40].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446