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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 11 March 2024, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11, 13-16, 20 and 22 are amended.
Claims 10, 18, 19, 21, 23 and 24 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 20 and 22 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, language “timer(s)” should read “timers”.
Regarding Claims 4 and 13, language “the type of UE/access” should read “the type of UE access”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 11-17, 20 and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice, and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
While the Office will identify issues with the claims below, Applicant is respectfully requested to thoroughly review the claims.
Regarding Claim 1, this claim is found to be indefinite for at least the following reasons:
The claim recites both (emphasis added by the Office) “dynamically changing a RACH-configuration period” and “reconfiguring to a performance optimized configuration with a RACH-configuration period”. It is not clear whether these recitations refer to the same “RACH configuration period”, or if there is any relation between these RACH configurations and “an original RACH configuration” recited in the preamble.
The claim recites (emphasis added by the Office) “reconfiguring to a performance optimized configuration with a RACH-configuration period which is smaller than the previous one and/or with more Physical RACH, PRACH, occasions in frequency”. However, it is not clear to what the highlighted limitation refers.
Claim language “the configured parameters” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim language “the current RACH configuration” lacks antecedent basis, as there are multiple RACH configurations recited in the claim and it is not clear which could be considered as being “current”.
Claim language “reconfiguring with the original RACH configuration” is unclear as to what is being reconfigured.
The scope of the last two clauses, which establish mutually exclusive actions as a result of a number of received preambles, overlap with respect to the cause of these mutually exclusive actions. Specifically, the last two clauses recite (emphasis added) “if no other preamble or fewer than a threshold number of preambles are received before the one or more timer(s) runs out, reconfiguring with the original RACH configuration; and if any other preamble or more than a threshold number of preambles are received before the one or more timers runs out, resetting and/or restarting a running timer.” Conceivably, the network node could receive a number of preambles that satisfies both clauses (i.e., that a received preamble satisfies “fewer than a threshold number” and “any other preamble”).
Claim 20 contains the same issues listed above and is rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons. For search and prior art purposes, the claims will be interpreted as best understood. Claims 2-9 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 4, this claim is found to be indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Claim language “wherein a configuration adaptation is based on/weighted towards a type of User Equipment” is unclear as to whether both “based on” and “weighted towards” are required or if these phrases are claimed in the alternative.
Claim language “the performance-optimized configuration” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim language (emphasis added by the Office) “adaptation from an energy-efficient to the performance-optimized configuration is done sooner when a delay-sensitive UE accesses a network whereas such adaptation may take place later in case a delay-tolerant type of UE accesses the network” is unclear for the following reasons. First, the terms “sooner” and “later” are relative terms, as related to time, but there is no basis on which to determine a point at which an action could be performed “sooner” versus “later” in the claim language. Further, the language “whereas” and “may take place”, which are narrative in nature, render the claim indefinite because it is not clear whether this is a required feature in the claim.
Further regarding Claim 5, the claim language “wherein configuration being performed sooner” appears to refer to a feature, albeit differently phrased, found in Claim 4. However, as Claim 5 depends on Claim 1, this limitation lacks antecedent basis as currently drafted. Additionally, the claim language “being performed sooner” is a relative term, as related to time, but there is no basis on which to determine a point at which an action could be performed “sooner” in the claim language. While the claim recites a condition for performing configuration sooner, it does not resolve the temporal issue identified above.
Further regarding Claim 6, the claim language “wherein configuration being performed later” appears to refer to a feature, albeit differently phrased, found in Claim 4. However, as Claim 6 depends on Claim 1, this limitation lacks antecedent basis as currently drafted. Additionally, the claim language “being performed later” is a relative term, as related to time, but there is no basis on which to determine a point at which an action could be performed “later” in the claim language. While the claim recites a condition for performing configuration sooner, it does not resolve the temporal issue identified above. Further, the claim language “performing when a higher threshold for number of users or no adaptation at all” is unclear what action is being performed or what condition would need to be met in order for an action to be performed. Specifically, the claim term “higher” is relative; however, there is no standard by which to determine that a threshold can be considered higher recited in the claim.
Further regarding Claim 7, claim language “the adaptations between the energy efficient and the performance optimized configurations” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 7 depends on Claim 1, which does not provide antecedent basis for “the adaptations”. Claim 8 is rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 7.
Further regarding Claim 8, the claim language ““few access attempt”-hours comprise fewer than a threshold” is unclear as to what is “fewer than a threshold”. It is not clear that “accesses” linked to the “busy access attempt”-hours also relates to the ““few access attempt”-hours”.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim language recites (emphasis added by the Office) “transmitting a preamble in a RACH Occasion of a network node” and “determining whether a RACH-configuration period and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration was dynamically changed according to whether a preamble was received in a RACH Occasion.” This language is not clear as to whether the two recitations of “a preamble” refer to the same preamble, as well as whether the two recitations of “a RACH Occasion” refer to the same RACH Occasion. Further, one “RACH Occasion” is linked to a network node, while the second recitation is not linked to any network element in the claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is not clear, as the determining step is performed based on a step that is not claimed as occurring at the UE (i.e., “receiving a preamble”) and is claimed as already having occurred (“was dynamically changed according to whether a preamble was received in a RACH Occasion”). Claim 22 recites the same language and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 11. Claims 12-17 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 11. For search and prior art purposes, the claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 6.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claims 7 and 8, respectively.
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)(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 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0254899), hereinafter Roy.
Regarding Claim 22, Roy discloses a User Equipment (UE) (Figure 1B – WTRU 102) for enabling an energy efficient Random Access Channel (RACH) the UE comprising:
processing circuitry (Figure 1B – processor 118); and
memory storing instructions executable by the processing circuitry (Figure 1B – non-removable memory 130),
whereby the UE is operable to:
transmit a preamble in a RACH Occasion of a network node (Figure 4 at step 415 – the WRTU transmits a first RA preamble to a gNB); and
determine whether a RACH-configuration period and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration was dynamically changed according to whether the preamble was received in the RACH Occasion (Figure 4 at step 417 – the UE can use a RACH occasion associated with a different SS/PBCH block (e.g., a second highest RSRP) to transmit a second message to the gNB).
Claim 11 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the UE in Claim 22. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented for Claim 22 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ko et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2022/0338264) is directed to a method of overriding, updating, and/or reconfiguring a RACH configuration parameter for configuring an RACH occasion and an apparatus for supporting the method.
Guo et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2021/0266982) is directed to determining a changed RACH occasion based on configuration information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472