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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see section II, with respect to claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section III, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive because of Applicant’s claim amendments. The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see section IV, with respect to claims 5, 7-10, 15, and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 5, 7-10, 15, and 17-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that PRASAD does not disclose that the RA procedure is determined to have been successfully completed "after transmission of Msg 1." Rather, PRASAD discloses that it is determined that the RA procedure has been successfully completed "after transmission of Msg 1 (random access preamble) and reception corresponding to Msg 2, or in response thereto." Accordingly, PRASAD determines that the RA procedure has been successfully completed after reception of Msg 2, rather than upon transmission of Msg 1 (random access preamble)”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. The limitation “the first random access procedure is considered as completed based on the transmission of the random access preamble” does not indicate how the first random access procedure is considered as completed (e.g., without reception of Msg2), just that the first random access procedure is considered as completed is based on the transmission of the random access preamble. This means that “the first random access procedure is considered as completed” does not exclude the possibility of also being based on reception of a Msg2 or some other reason. In view of this, Prasad teaches “the first random access procedure is considered as completed based on the transmission of the random access preamble”.
Applicant argues: “Such disclosures do not directly or necessarily indicate that the RA procedure is considered completed solely by transmission of the RA preamble…absence of such disclosure does not mean that PRASAD discloses that the RA procedure is considered completed solely by transmission of the RA preamble”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the RA procedure/”the first random access procedure” is considered completed solely by transmission of the RA preamble/”the transmission of the random access preamble”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues: “PRASAD, when considered as a whole, consistently presupposes that a response to the preamble is received following transmission of the preamble. Furthermore, a person skilled in the art would understand the RA procedure to encompass both transmission of the preamble and reception of a response thereto. Accordingly, merely because Figure 17 omits an explicit description regarding reception of a response to the preamble, it would be improper to conclude that PRASAD discloses that the RA procedure is considered completed solely by transmission of the RA preamble”
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. Applicant has chosen one or more embodiments of Prasad that shows a response to a preamble is received following transmission of the preamble to show a RA procedure be considered as completed, but other embodiment(s) of Prasad shows there is a transmission of a preamble without a reception of a reception and then continuing processing as normal such as shown in fig. 17, thus showing that an RA procedure could be/is just RA preamble transmission. Additionally, Applicant’s statement of “a person skilled in the art would understand the RA procedure to encompass both transmission of the preamble and reception of a response thereto” is untrue for all situations since Prasad shows a transmission of a preamble without reception of a response to the transmission of the preamble with no problems and even Applicant’s remarks above argues that a RA procedure is/is completed without a reception of a response to a transmission of a preamble. Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the RA procedure/”the first random access procedure” is considered completed solely by transmission of the RA preamble/”the transmission of the random access preamble”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues: “Accordingly, Applicant submits that PRASAD fails to teach that the random access procedure is considered completed merely by (or based solely on) transmission of the preamble, as recited in the present application. Therefore, PRASAD is distinguishable from the present application, in which the random access procedure is considered completed based on transmission of the preamble. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is improper and withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 is respectfully requested”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. For at least the reasons presented above and the rejection shown below for claims 1 and 11, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 11.
Applicant argues: “Claim 3-6 and 13-16 variously depend from independent claims 1 and 11. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 1 and 11, dependent claims 3-6 and 13-16 are patentable for at least the reasons that claims 1 and 11 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. For at least the reasons presented above and the rejection shown below for claims 1 and 11 and 3-6 and 13-16, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 3-6 and 13-16.
Applicant argues: “Amended independent claim 17 includes similar features as independent claim 1 and is allowable for at least the reasons that independent claim 1 is allowable…Applicant submits that neither PRASAD nor Yi, alone or in any proper combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests the features recited in claim 7”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. For at least the reasons presented above, the rejection shown below for claim 7, and the Examiner’s remarks below, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 7.
Applicant argues: “the present application and PRASAD relate to an LTM technique for fast and seamless handover while the UE is in an RRC connected state. In contrast, Yi relates to a technique for transmitting small data through Msg A while the UE is in an RRC inactive state. In other words, with respect to the present application (and PRASAD), which concerns a UE in an RRC connected state for performing handover rapidly, combining Yi, which relates to a technology in an RRC inactive state, would involve combining technologies directed to contradictory states”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. The claim(s) in question do/does not indicate any sort of RRC states and Prasad has UE in RRC inactive state while at least transmitting a preamble (see e.g., ¶ 170 and/or ¶ 356). Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that combining technologies directed to contradictory states, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues: “the present application aims to reduce latency by considering the random access procedure to be completed through transmission of only a preamble. In contrast, Yi aims to reduce power consumption by not transmitting an RAR. That is, the technical problems to be solved by the present application and Yi are also different”.
In response to applicant's argument that there is reduction of latency by considering the random access procedure to be completed through transmission of only a preamble, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues: “Applicant submits that it is improper to combine PRASAD and Yi in an attempt to deny the inventive step of the present application. Therefore, Applicant submits that Yi fails to cure the deficiencies of Prasad. Accordingly, Applicant submits that neither Prasad nor Yi, alone or in any proper combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests features recited in claims 7 and 17. As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is improper and withdrawal of the rejection of independent claims 7 and 17 is respectfully requested”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. For at least the reasons presented above and the rejection shown below for claims 7 and 17, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 7 and 17.
Applicant argues: “Claim 2, 8-10, 12, and 18-20 variously depend from independent claims 7 and 17. Because the applied references fail to disclose or render obvious the features presently recited in independent claims 7 and 17, dependent claims 2, 8-10, 12, and 18- 20 are patentable for at least the reasons that claims 7 and 17 are patentable, as well as for the additional features recited therein. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested”.
In response to Applicant’s arguments above, the Examiner respectfully disagree. For at least the reasons presented above and the rejection shown below for claims 1, 11, 7, 17, and dependent claims 2, 8-10, 12, and 18- 20, the Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 2, 8-10, 12, and 18- 20.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant has amended this claim to recite “in case the UE performs a second random access (which is different from the first random access), a LTM cell execution is successfully completed when the second random access procedure is successfully completed”. Applicant does not provide support for this amendment nor has the Examiner found support for this amendment within the specification. The closest the Examiner could find within the specification is in ¶ 170 of the published specification which recite in part “Upon successful completion of the random access procedure initiated for LTM execution (or LTM cell switch or LTM execution procedure or by the reception of the first MAC CE), the MAC entity shall: [0171] 1> indicate the successful completion of the random access procedure (or the LTM execution procedure)” and ¶ 174 of the published specification which recite “For RACH-based LTM execution procedure (i.e., LTM execution procedure with random access procedure), the UE considers that LTM execution procedure is successfully completed when the RACH is successfully completed”. Claim 16 recite similar limitations of claim 6 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 11-20 is/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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the LTM cell switch execution" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear in view of “the at least one processor” being, for example, one processor, how there is one processor collectively (collectively with what?) cause the UE to perform the claimed operations. Claims 12-16 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 11 and/or recite similar deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale. Claim 17 recite similar deficiency of claim 11 and is thus rejected under similar rationale. Claims 18-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 17 and/or recite similar deficiency and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the LTM cell switch execution" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250234257 by Prasad et al. (hereinafter Prasad).
Regarding claim 11, Prasad teaches a user equipment (UE) supporting a layer 1/layer 2 (L1/L2) triggered mobility (LTM) in a wireless communication system (fig. 15, wireless device 1502; ¶ 48, The term wireless device encompasses other terminology, including user equipment (UE)), the UE comprising:
at least one transceiver (fig. 15, tx processing system 1520 and rx processing system 1522; ¶ 208, data to be sent to base station 1504 may be provided to a transmission processing system 1520 of the wireless device 1502; ¶ 209, a reception processing system 1522 may receive the downlink transmission from base station 1504);
at least one memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions (¶ 211, Memory 1514 and memory 1524 (e.g., one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums) may store computer program instructions or code that may be executed by the processing system 1508 and/or the processing system 1518 to carry out one or more of the functionalities discussed in the present application);
and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory (fig. 15, processing system 1518 communicatively coupled to memory 1524 and tx processing system 1520 and rx processing system 1522),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the UE to (fig. 15, processing system 1518; ¶ 211, Memory 1514 and memory 1524 (e.g., one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums) may store computer program instructions or code that may be executed by the processing system 1508 and/or the processing system 1518 to carry out one or more of the functionalities discussed in the present application):
receive, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including LTM candidate cell configuration information (fig. 17, UE receiving config. of candidate cells (Cell 1, Cell 2, etc.) from Cell 0; ¶ 361, wireless device may receive one or more candidate/target (LTM cell) configurations from the base station via/from/of a source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 17); ¶ 221, base station may provide, e.g., for LTM (or an LTM procedure), one or more candidate (LTM) cell configurations to the wireless device through/via message(s) (e.g., RRC message(s)),
identify whether a first random access procedure is triggered by a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order (¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble),
and in case that the first random access procedure is triggered by the PDCCH order (¶ 434), transmit, to a LTM candidate cell, a random access preamble based on the LTM candidate cell configuration information (¶ 238, The early synchronization may comprise DL synchronization to/with/for/of candidate/target cell(s) of the one or more candidate/target cells (e.g., indicated in the one or more candidate/target (LTM cell) configurations); ¶ 378, After receiving the one or more candidate/target (LTM cell) configurations, the wireless device may perform early sync and/or LTM execution (e.g., as shown in FIG. 17, but not entirely (e.g., all steps involved) shown in FIG. 21); fig. 17, shows in early sync, UE transmitting UL signal, e.g., preamble to Candidate Cell (Cell 1) after receiving config. of candidate cells (Cell 1, Cell 2, etc.); ¶ 407, an LTM cell switch from the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 22) to the candidate/target cell (e.g., Cell 1 in FIG. 22)), and
wherein the first random access procedure is considered as completed based on the transmission of the random access preamble (¶ 185, UE may determine that a random access procedure successfully completes after or in response to transmission of Msg 1 1321…The UE may determine that a random access procedure successfully completes; ¶ 171, Msg 1 1311 may include and/or be referred to as a preamble (or a random access preamble); ¶ 177, UE may determine that a random access procedure completed unsuccessfully, for example, if the number of preamble transmissions exceeds a threshold; ¶ 366, an RA procedure (e.g.,…RA preamble transmission). As suggested by ¶ 366, an RA procedure is just RA preamble transmission; ¶ 239, The wireless device may perform timing advance (TA) acquisition (e.g., using an RA procedure as shown in FIG. 17 by transmitting an RA preamble…); fig. 17, shows UL signal, e.g., preamble transmission then UE performing TA acquisition with no RAR present. As suggested by ¶ 239 and fig. 17, an RA procedure is just RA preamble transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Regarding claim 13, Prasad teaches the UE of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the UE to (Prasad fig. 15 and ¶ 211):
transmit, to the base station, a L1 measurement report (Prasad fig. 17, shows UE transmitting L1/2 measurement report to Cell 0; ¶ 236, The wireless device may transmit the one or more measurement reports to/via a base station/gNB (e.g., via Cell 0 in FIG. 17, a source/serving cell)),
receive, from the base station, a LTM cell switch command including timing advance (TA) information associated with a target cell (Prasad fig. 17, shows UE receiving MAC CE triggering cell switch to Cell 1 from Cell 0; ¶ 413, The wireless device may receive, from the base station and via the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0…), a control command (e.g., cell switch MAC CE) indicating a cell switch from the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0…) to a candidate/target cell (e.g., Cell 1…) of the one or more candidate/target cells; ¶ 384, The control command (e.g., cell switch MAC CE) may indicate a TAG of/comprising/associated with the candidate/target cell, of the one or more candidate/target cells),
and based on the LTM cell switch command, switch to the target cell (Prasad ¶ 413, The wireless device may receive, from the base station and via the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0…), a control command (e.g., cell switch MAC CE) indicating a cell switch from the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0…) to a candidate/target cell (e.g., Cell 1…) of the one or more candidate/target cells; ¶ 244, The wireless device may indicate, for example, to/via the candidate/target cell/gNB/base station, of a successful completion of (LTM) cell switch towards the candidate/target cell; ¶ 362, The wireless device may switch (e.g., cell switch) to a first candidate/target cell, of the N candidate/target cells, at/in/after/during LTM. The wireless device may switch (e.g., cell switch) to a second candidate/target cell, of the N candidate/target cells, at/in/after/during subsequent LTM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Regarding claim 14, Prasad teaches the UE of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the UE to (Prasad fig. 15 and ¶ 211):
in case that the first random access procedure triggered by the PDCCH order is associated with an initial transmission (Prasad ¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble; ¶ 177, The UE may select an initial preamble transmit power; ¶ 432, initial RA preamble transmit/transmission power; ¶ 481, an initial RA preamble transmission; ¶ 544, transmitting an initial transmission of a preamble), set a preamble power ramping counter to 1 (Prasad ¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble; fig. 24, shows transmit with a first power determined based on a first equation; ¶ 480, one or more parameters of the first equation (e.g.,…power ramping counter…); ¶ 477, The wireless device may determine, e.g., for the first equation, the PRACH target received power based on the value for/of the PRACH target received power; ¶ 466, the wireless device may determine the PRACH target reception power as preambleReceivedTargetPower+delta preamble (e.g., determined based on an RA preamble format)+ (power ramping counter−1)*preamble power ramping step; ¶ 474, The wireless device may determine (e.g., set, assign, and the like) a value of the power ramping counter to a first value; ¶ 475, the first value may be a maximum value of the power ramping counter among a plurality of values of the power ramping counter. The plurality of values of the power ramping counter may be, for example, {1…}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Regarding claim 15, Prasad teaches the UE of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the UE to (Prasad fig. 15 and ¶ 211):
in case the first random access procedure triggered by the PDCCH order is associated with a re-transmission (Prasad ¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble; ¶ 177, UE may perform a preamble retransmission if no response is received following a preamble transmission), increasing a preamble power ramping counter by 1 (Prasad ¶ 420, At every retransmission attempt, the wireless device may ramp up the transmission power using a power ramping counter; ¶ 474, The wireless device may determine (e.g., set, assign, and the like) a value of the power ramping counter to a first value; ¶ 475, the first value may be a maximum value of the power ramping counter among a plurality of values of the power ramping counter. The plurality of values of the power ramping counter may be, for example, {1…}).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Regarding claim 16, Prasad teaches the UE of claim 11, wherein in case that the UE performs a second random access procedure, a LTM cell execution is successfully completed when the second random access procedure is successfully completed (given non-patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04(I) and (II)), and wherein in case of a random access channel (RACH)-less LTM (Prasad figs. 20-23, shows LTM that are RACH-less), the LTM cell switch execution is considered as successfully completed when the UE determines that the base station has successfully received first uplink (UL) data (Prasad ¶ 220, LTM is a procedure in which a base station…may receive one or more layer 1/2 (L-1/2), e.g., physical layer, medium access control (MAC) layer, lower layer, and the like, measurement reports from wireless devices. Based on (or on the basis of receiving) the one or more L-1/2 measurement reports…the base station may change/switch a wireless device's serving cell(s) through/via/using a control command (e.g., medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), L-1/2 control command, DCI, PDCCH, and the like); ¶ 242, The base station/gNB may decide to execute LTM cell switch to a target/candidate cell, of the one or more candidate/target cells, for example, based on (receiving) the L-1/2 measurements. The base station may transmit (e.g., via the source cell) a control command (e.g., cell switch MAC CE) triggering LTM cell switch (e.g., cell switch, cell switch for LTM, and the like); ¶ 244, The wireless device may indicate, for example, to/via the candidate/target cell/gNB/base station, of a successful completion of (LTM) cell switch towards the candidate/target cell. The wireless device may transmit one or more uplink (UL) messages to indicate LTM completion. LTM completion may comprise the successful completion of (LTM) cell switch towards the candidate/target cell; figs. 20-23, shows UE sending measurement report(s) and based on the sent/received measurement report(s) UE receiving MAC CE triggering cell switch. As discussed above in ¶ 220 and ¶ 242, the wireless device knows that the base station has received uplink measurement report(s) based on receiving a MAC CE triggering LTM cell switch because base station sends a MAC CE triggering LTM cell switch when the base station receives uplink measurement report(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Claims 1 and 3-6 recite similar limitations of claims 11 and 13-16, respectively and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 7-10, 12, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250234257 by Prasad et al. (hereinafter Prasad) in view of US 20250203666 by Yi.
Regarding claim 12, Prasad teaches the UE of claim 11, wherein the UE does not compute a random access-radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) for the random access preamble (Prasad fig. 17, shows after transmission of UL signal, e.g., preamble, there is no showing of a calculation/determination of RA-RNTI; ¶ 178, UE may (which indicates may not) determine the RA-RNTI based on: an OFDM symbol index; a slot index; a frequency domain index; and/or a UL carrier indicator of the PRACH occasions; ¶ 179, ul_carrier_id may be a UL carrier used for a preamble transmission. As discussed in ¶ 178-179, the UE may not determine/compute RA-RNTI based on/for preamble transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Although Prasad teaches the UE and the base station and no reception of a random access response for a timing advance (TA) acquisition (Prasad fig,. 17, shows no reception of a random access response for a TA acquisition in the early sync dotted box), Prasad does not explicitly disclose the UE does not receive a random access response for a timing advance (TA) acquisition from the base station.
Yi in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the UE does not receive a random access response from the base station (fig. 13, shows at s1303 there is transmission and reception of MsgA (RA preamble) between UE and network; ¶ 227, UE transmits MsgA including RA preamble 7 and data to the network, S1303; ¶ 78, wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the network 300 via the BSs 200; ¶ 228, After transmitting the MsgA, the UE stays in RRC_INACTIVE without starting RAR window and without monitoring RAR, in S1304. When the network receives MsgA including RA preamble 7 and data, the UE (this is an error) processes the data but do not transmit RAR, S1305; fig. 13, shows at s1305, network process data and do not transmit RAR; claim 1, based on the RA preamble being transmitted to the network (which indirectly teaches base station receives the RA preamble since the base station is in between the UE and network), considering the RA procedure completed; claim 2, based on the RA preamble being transmitted to the network (which indirectly teaches base station receives the RA preamble since the base station is in between the UE and network), the RA procedure is considered as being completed without monitoring a RA Response (RAR) related to the RA preamble). By modifying Prasad’s teachings of the UE and the base station and no reception of a random access response for a timing advance (TA) acquisition with Yi’s teachings of the UE does not receive a random access response from the base station, the modification results in the UE does not receive a random access response for a timing advance (TA) acquisition from the base station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Yi’s above teachings. The motivation is UE power can be saved and radio resource can also be saved (Yi ¶ 229). Known work in one field of endeavor (Yi prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Prasad prior art) based on design incentives (UE power can be saved and radio resource can also be saved) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 recite similar limitations of claim 12 and is thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Prasad teaches a base station supporting a layer 1/layer 2 (L1/L2) triggered mobility (LTM) in a wireless communication system (fig. 15, base station 1504), the base station comprising:
at least one transceiver (fig. 15, tx processing system 1510 and rx processing system 1512; ¶ 208, data to be sent to the wireless device 1502 may be provided to a transmission processing system 1510 of base station 1504; ¶ 209, a reception processing system 1512 may receive the uplink transmission from the wireless device 1502);
at least one memory, comprising one or more storage media, storing instructions (¶ 211, Memory 1514 and memory 1524 (e.g., one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums) may store computer program instructions or code that may be executed by the processing system 1508 and/or the processing system 1518 to carry out one or more of the functionalities discussed in the present application);
and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the at least one transceiver and the at least one memory (fig. 15, processing system 1508 communicatively coupled to memory 1514 and tx processing system 1510 and rx processing system 1512),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the base station to (fig. 15, processing system 1508; ¶ 211, Memory 1514 and memory 1524 (e.g., one or more non-transitory computer readable mediums) may store computer program instructions or code that may be executed by the processing system 1508 and/or the processing system 1518 to carry out one or more of the functionalities discussed in the present application):
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a radio resource control (RRC) message including LTM candidate cell configuration information (fig. 17, UE receiving config. of candidate cells (Cell 1, Cell 2, etc.) from Cell 0; ¶ 361, wireless device may receive one or more candidate/target (LTM cell) configurations from the base station via/from/of a source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 17); ¶ 221, base station may provide, e.g., for LTM (or an LTM procedure), one or more candidate (LTM) cell configurations to the wireless device through/via message(s) (e.g., RRC message(s)),
and in case that a first random access procedure is triggered by a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order (¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble), receive, from the UE, a random access preamble based on the LTM candidate cell configuration information (¶ 238, The early synchronization may comprise DL synchronization to/with/for/of candidate/target cell(s) of the one or more candidate/target cells (e.g., indicated in the one or more candidate/target (LTM cell) configurations); ¶ 378, After receiving the one or more candidate/target (LTM cell) configurations, the wireless device may perform early sync and/or LTM execution (e.g., as shown in FIG. 17, but not entirely (e.g., all steps involved) shown in FIG. 21); fig. 17, shows in early sync, UE transmitting UL signal, e.g., preamble to Candidate Cell (Cell 1) after receiving config. of candidate cells (Cell 1, Cell 2, etc.); ¶ 407, an LTM cell switch from the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 22) to the candidate/target cell (e.g., Cell 1 in FIG. 22); ¶ 414, The wireless device may transmit one or more UL signals/messages to the base station, e.g., via the candidate/target cell (e.g., Cell 1 in FIG. 23), for example, as part of LTM completion procedure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Although Prasad teaches the first random access procedure and the reception of the random access preamble, Prasad does not explicitly disclose the first random access procedure is considered as completed based on the reception of the random access preamble.
Yi in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches the first random access procedure is considered as completed based on the reception of the random access preamble (fig. 13, shows at s1303 there is transmission and reception of MsgA (RA preamble) between UE and network; ¶ 227, UE transmits MsgA including RA preamble 7 and data to the network, S1303; ¶ 78, wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the network 300 via the BSs 200; ¶ 228, After transmitting the MsgA, the UE stays in RRC_INACTIVE without starting RAR window and without monitoring RAR, in S1304. When the network receives MsgA including RA preamble 7 and data, the UE (this is an error) processes the data but do not transmit RAR, S1305; fig. 13, shows at s1305, network process data and do not transmit RAR; claim 1, based on the RA preamble being transmitted to the network (which indirectly teaches base station receives the RA preamble since the base station is in between the UE and network), considering the RA procedure completed; claim 2, based on the RA preamble being transmitted to the network (which indirectly teaches base station receives the RA preamble since the base station is in between the UE and network), the RA procedure is considered as being completed without monitoring a RA Response (RAR) related to the RA preamble).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Prasad’s teachings with Yi’s above teachings. The motivation is UE power can be saved and radio resource can also be saved (Yi ¶ 229). Known work in one field of endeavor (Yi prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one (Prasad prior art) based on design incentives (UE power can be saved and radio resource can also be saved) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the base station of claim 17, wherein the base station does not transmit a random access response for a timing advance (TA) acquisition to the UE (Yi fig. 3, network does not transmit RAR at s1305; ¶ 78, wireless devices 100a to 100f may be connected to the network 300 via the BSs 200; Prasad fig,. 17, shows no reception of a random access response for a TA acquisition in the early sync dotted box), and wherein a random access-radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) for the random access preamble is not computed (Prasad fig. 17, shows after transmission of UL signal, e.g., preamble, there is no showing of a calculation/determination of RA-RNTI; ¶ 178, UE may (which indicates may not) determine the RA-RNTI based on: an OFDM symbol index; a slot index; a frequency domain index; and/or a UL carrier indicator of the PRACH occasions; ¶ 179, ul_carrier_id may be a UL carrier used for a preamble transmission. As discussed in ¶ 178-179, the UE may not determine/compute RA-RNTI based on/for preamble transmission).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Yi’s above teachings. The motivation is UE power can be saved and radio resource can also be saved (Yi ¶ 229).
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the base station of claim 17, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the base station to (Prasad fig. 15 and ¶ 211):
receive, from the UE, a L1 measurement report (Prasad fig. 17, shows UE transmitting L1/2 measurement report to Cell 0; ¶ 236, The wireless device may transmit the one or more measurement reports to/via a base station/gNB (e.g., via Cell 0 in FIG. 17, a source/serving cell)),
and transmit, to the UE, a LTM cell switch command including timing advance (TA) information associated with a target cell (Prasad fig. 17, shows UE receiving MAC CE triggering cell switch to Cell 1 from Cell 0; ¶ 413, The wireless device may receive, from the base station and via the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0…), a control command (e.g., cell switch MAC CE) indicating a cell switch from the source/serving cell (e.g., Cell 0…) to a candidate/target cell (e.g., Cell 1…) of the one or more candidate/target cells; ¶ 384, The control command (e.g., cell switch MAC CE) may indicate a TAG of/comprising/associated with the candidate/target cell, of the one or more candidate/target cells).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the base station of claim 17, wherein in case that the first random access procedure triggered by the PDCCH order is associated with an initial transmission (Prasad ¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble; ¶ 177, The UE may select an initial preamble transmit power; ¶ 432, initial RA preamble transmit/transmission power; ¶ 481, an initial RA preamble transmission; ¶ 544, transmitting an initial transmission of a preamble), a preamble power ramping counter of the UE is set to 1 (Prasad ¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble; fig. 24, shows transmit with a first power determined based on a first equation; ¶ 480, one or more parameters of the first equation (e.g.,…power ramping counter…); ¶ 477, The wireless device may determine, e.g., for the first equation, the PRACH target received power based on the value for/of the PRACH target received power; ¶ 466, the wireless device may determine the PRACH target reception power as preambleReceivedTargetPower+delta preamble (e.g., determined based on an RA preamble format)+ (power ramping counter−1)*preamble power ramping step; ¶ 474, The wireless device may determine (e.g., set, assign, and the like) a value of the power ramping counter to a first value; ¶ 475, the first value may be a maximum value of the power ramping counter among a plurality of values of the power ramping counter. The plurality of values of the power ramping counter may be, for example, {1…}), and wherein in case that the random access procedure triggered by the PDCCH order is associated with a re-transmission (Prasad ¶ 434, The wireless device may receive a first PDCCH order, e.g., from the base station and/or via the first cell (e.g., Cell 0 in FIG. 24, the source cell, the serving cell, and the like). The first PDCCH order may trigger/initiate a first RA procedure…The wireless device may transmit, for the first RA procedure and via the first cell, a first RA preamble; ¶ 177, UE may perform a preamble retransmission if no response is received following a preamble transmission), the preamble power ramping counter of the UE is increased by 1 (Prasad ¶ 420, At every retransmission attempt, the wireless device may ramp up the transmission power using a power ramping counter; ¶ 474, The wireless device may determine (e.g., set, assign, and the like) a value of the power ramping counter to a first value; ¶ 475, the first value may be a maximum value of the power ramping counter among a plurality of values of the power ramping counter. The plurality of values of the power ramping counter may be, for example, {1…}). It is noted that Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 appears to indicate that a UE is setting/increasing a preamble power ramping counter whereas the claim is directed to a base station. Thus, claim 20 could be given non-patentable weight since the two wherein clauses are directed to processes done by the UE. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner provided a showing above on how the two wherein clauses are taught by prior reference(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination with Prasad’s one or more other embodiments’ teachings. The motivation is signaling overhead may be reduced, battery life of the wireless device may be improved, power consumption may be reduced at the base station and the wireless device, and latency may be reduced (¶ 351).
Claims 7-10 recite similar limitations of claims 17-20 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET M-F.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights