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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, on page 9 of Applicant’s response, Applicant alleges that even if Wang may disclose an UL transmission failure, it specifically fails to disclose or teach an UL transmission failure “of the at least one UL data packet in the RRC inactive state”. The examiner would respectfully disagree. As established and discussed in the rejection below, Wang specifically discloses that uL transmissions may be undertaken “in the RRC idle mode”, i.e., “in the RRC inactive state”, thus teaching that UL transmission failures may also pertain to such UL transmissions performed “in the RRC idle/inactive mode/state”. Please see rejection below for details.
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 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(s) 1,3,4,9,10,13,12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0107396 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0092125 A1 to Sun et al.
AS to claim 1, Wang discloses A user equipment (UE) apparatus for wireless communication with a base station, the UE apparatus comprising: a transceiver; and a processor configured to (Figs. 1-2, disclosing UE and base station):
transmit, to the base station, via the transceiver, at least one uplink (UL) data packet in a radio resource control (RRC) inactive state (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 22-28, disclosing “preconfigured uplink resource is usually a periodic uplink resource for the UE 1 to transmit uplink messages in the RRC idle mode” and “configuring the preconfigured uplink resource for the UE 1 to transmit uplink message in the RRC idle mode” and that Fig. 3 discloses “the UE 1 after transmitting the uplink message on the preconfigured uplink resource”, teaching this limitation), and
in response to a UL transmission failure of the at least one UL data packet in the RRC inactive state (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 22-28, disclosing “preconfigured uplink resource is usually a periodic uplink resource for the UE 1 to transmit uplink messages in the RRC idle mode” [paragraph 23], “configuring the preconfigured uplink resource for the UE 1 to transmit uplink message in the RRC idle mode” [paragraph 25], “us[ing] the preconfigured uplink resource to transmit the uplink message in the RRC idle mode” [paragraph 26, also see paragraphs 7-10], all disclosing that the UL transmission undertaken by the UE is in the “RRC idle mode”, i.e., the recited “RRC inactive state”, thus teaching that the event where the UE “does not receive the response message from the BS 2 within the first time interval” [step S305, as discussed below], is indicative of a failure in an UL transmission, which as discussed above is undertaken when the UE is in “RRC inactive/idle state/mode”, teaching this limitation), fall back to a random access channel (RACH) transmission mode (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 22-28 and 36-37, step S305, disclosing that in the event the UE “does not receive the response message from the BS 2 within the first time interval”, which would be understood by a phosita to indicate UL transmission failure, then the UE performs another RA procedure, teaching this limitation).
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to a UL transmission failure, receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, a message indicating the UE to change from the RACH transmission mode to a configured grant-based transmission mode.
Sun discloses in response to a UL transmission failure, receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, a message indicating the UE to change from the RACH transmission mode to a configured grant-based transmission mode. (Figs. 5,6,9 paragraphs 1-12, 41-46, 59-72, 82, especially 640, teaching the recited “message”, disclosing a “grant-free” UL transmission mode that is based on “random access procedure 515” that takes place through/in PRACH, thus teaching the recited “RACH transmission mode”, and “grant based transmission mode”, that features configuring the UE with UL grants received from the network teaching “configured grant-based transmission mode”, where “grant-free” mode is allowed only if certain transmission/network condition/thresholds are satisfied, and if not, then the system falls back to “grant-based transmission mode”, where one such condition is that the network has to satisfy a “reliability requirement” requiring a certain “packet error rate” [paragraphs 45], thus teaching that if a threshold number of packet errors, i.e., “UL transmission failure”, is exceeded, thus a certain reliability requirement is not satisfied, then the system/BS will send a message 640 to the UE indicating the UE to change from “grant-free” [i.e., RACH transmission mode] to “grant-based” [i.e., configured grant based mode], teaching this limitation).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Sun above, in conjunction with the method as disclosed and taught by Wang [especially “in response to a UL transmission failure of the at least one UL data packet in the RRC inactive state, fall back to a random access channel (RACH) transmission mode”], by further incorporating/modifying/improving the RA procedure disclosed in Wang to be further characterized by Sun’s teaching above, where in response to a UL transmission failure of the at least one UL data packet in the RRC inactive state, the RACH/RA procedure/mode is switched to a configured grant based mode through a signaling, since both of these teachings pertain to RA procedures and to the scenario where a UL transmission failure is encountered, to reject “in response to a UL transmission failure of the at least one UL data packet in the RRC inactive state, fall back to a random access channel (RACH) transmission mode, and receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, a message indicating the UE to change from the RACH transmission mode to a configured grant-based transmission mode”. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor regarding control channel resource management. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve the usage and management of network resources for control signaling (Sun, paragraphs 1-12; Wang, paragraphs 1-10). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 3, Wang and Sun teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang disclosing wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, a PUR response message, wherein the PUR response message is UE-specific RRC signaling or a broadcast system information block, and wherein the PUR configuration is reconfigured with at least one of the PUR parameters based on the PUR response message. (paragraphs 22-23: message 206 being an RRC message sent in RRC connection mode, teaching the recited PUR response message)
As to claim 9, Wang and Sun teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang disclosing wherein at least one of the PUR parameters is reconfigured based on at least one of a UE request, a radio network load, or a radio link performance (paragraphs 22-23: message 206 being an RRC message sent in RRC connection mode, teaching the recited PUR response message, which is sent based on, at least UE request)
AS to claim 10, see rejection for claim 1.
As to claim 4, Wang and Sun teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Sun disclosing wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, downlink control indicator (DCI) information, wherein at least one of the PUR parameters is updated, activated, or deactivated, in the RRC inactive state, based on the DCI information. (Figs. 5-7, paragraphs 59-76, especially paragraph 81: DCI carrying grant free mode configuration)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Sun, in conjunction with the combined teachings of Wang, to reject the limitations of this claim, at least since the cited references are also in the same field of endeavor regarding control channel resource management. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve the usage and management of network resources for control signaling (Fehrenbach, paragraphs 1-31 and 187-190; Wang, paragraphs 1-10; Sun, paragraphs 1-12). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 13, see rejection for claim 4.
As to claims 12,18, see rejections for claims 3,9, in the same order.
Claim(s) 6,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0107396 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0092125 A1 to Sun et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0208411 A1 to Shrestha et al.
AS to claim 15, Wang and Sun teach the base station as in parent claim 10.
Wang further discloses in response to a UL transmission failure (Figs. 2-3, paragraphs 22-28 and 36-37, step S305, disclosing that in the event the UE “does not receive the response message from the BS 2 within the first tie interval”, then the UE performs another RA procedure, teaching this limitation).
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the UE, via the transceiver, a message indicating the UE to change to an early data transmission (EDT) mode.
Shrestha wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit, to the UE, via the transceiver, a message indicating the UE to change to an early data transmission (EDT) mode (paragraph 33: UE receives the UL grant in RAR [i.e., random access mode] for EDT, teaching this limitation).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Shrestha, in conjunction with the method as disclosed and taught by Wang and Sun, to reject the limitations of this claim. In particular, it would have been obvious to a phosita that Shrestha’s teaching above may be conditioned by UL transmission failure so that is performed after such UL transmission failure, to reject this claim, at least because this would enrich the teaching of transmitting EDT message taught in Shrestha. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor regarding control channel resource management. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve the usage and management of network resources for control signaling (Sun, paragraphs 1-14; Wang, paragraphs 1-10; Shrestha, paragraphs 1-32). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
AS to claim 6, see rejection for claim 15.
Claim(s) 2,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0107396 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0092125 A1 to Sun et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0020506 A1 to Cheng et al.
As to claim 2, Sun and Wang teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang disclosing the PUR configuration in the RRC inactive state (paragraph 23)
Cheng discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, downlink control indicator (DCI) information, wherein the CORESET configuration includes a UE-specific CORESET configuration or a common CORESET configuration to enable the UE to monitor and decode the DCI information for reconfiguring the PUR configuration in the RRC inactive state. (Figs. 2A, 2B, 3, 5A/B and 8 paragraphs 6, 8, 20, 22, 35, 62,66, 71,72,73,76,88,93,94, disclosing aggregation levels and DCI repetitions for CORESETS, further disclosing configurations for decoding control signaling such as DCI)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in Cheng, in conjunction with the method as disclosed and taught by Wang, to reject the limitations of this claim, by incorporating/modifying the preconfigured UL resources in Wang so that they depend on one or more of the parameters disclosed in Cheng since such parameter(s) also relate to PUR. The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor regarding UL control channel resource management. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve the usage and management of network resources for UL control signaling (Wang, paragraphs 1-20; Cheng, paragraphs 1-33). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 11, see rejection for claim 2.
Claim(s) 5,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0107396 A1 to Wang et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0092125 A1 to Sun et al., further in view of WO 2020/034571 A1 to ZTE (provided by IDS).
As to claim 5, Wang and Sun teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Wang disclosing wherein the processor is further configured to: receive, from the BS, via the transceiver, a message indicating PUR configuration (paragraphs 22-23: message 206)
Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose in response to no UL data packets being transmitted for more than a predetermined number of continuous PUR transmissions, the PUR configuration may be released.
ZTE discloses in response to no UL data packets being transmitted for more than a predetermined number of continuous PUR transmissions, the PUR configuration may be released (Fig. 7, pages 15-17)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teachings as disclosed in ZTE, in conjunction with the method as disclosed and taught by Wang, to reject the limitations of this claim, by notifying the release of PUR configuration disclosed in ZTE via the message disclosed in Wang, thus rejecting “wherein the processor is further configured to: in response to no UL data packets being transmitted for more than a predetermined number of continuous PUR transmissions, receive, from the base station, via the transceiver, a message indicating that the PUR configuration may be released.” The cited references are also in the same field of endeavor regarding control channel resource management. The suggestion/motivation would have been to optimize and improve the usage and management of network resources for control signaling (Sun, paragraphs 1-14; Wang, paragraphs 1-10; ZTE, pages 1-3). Furthermore, please note that the features of the limitations above have been shown to be known or disclosed in the cited references, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
As to claim 14, see rejection for claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claims 7,8,16,17 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.
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 CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights