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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the application filed on 07/01/2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending in this application, with claims 1,6 and 11 being independent.
Attorney Information Request
For efficient and faster prosecution of the current application, please provide direct phone number and email address of an attorney filing a response to this office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,3-4,6-8,11 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, the claim recites “cell selection or reselection” without giving further information about what is being performed by selecting a cell
In Claim 6, the claim recites limitations which are missing in claims 1 and 11 and combination/subcombination of independent claims and its dependent claims does not make claim 6 same as claims 1 and 11. During the prosecution, if claim 6 deviates more and more away from claims 1 and 11 then it will result in a potential restriction
In claim 3, line 2, the claim recites “..and/or..”. The examiner will interpret the limitation using “non selective option OR”
In claim 4, line 5, the claim recites “..and/or..”. The examiner will interpret the limitation using “non selective option OR”
In claim 6, line 9, the claim recites “..and/or..”. The examiner will interpret the limitation using “non selective option OR”
In claim 7, line 2, the claim recites “..and/or..”. The examiner will interpret the limitation using “non selective option OR”
In claim 8, line 1, the claim recites “in response to transmitting” without giving further information about before or after transmitting
In claim 11, line 12, the claim recites “cell selection or reselection” without giving further information about what is being performed by selecting a cell
In claim 13, line 2, the claim recites “..and/or..”. The examiner will interpret the limitation using “non selective option OR”
In claim 14, line 4, the claim recites “..and/or..”. The examiner will interpret the limitation using “non selective option OR”
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Jeong et al. (US 2022/0124834 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Jeong”).
Regarding Claims 1,6 and 11, Jeong discloses A method for a User Equipment (UE) (Jeong Fig.6 Para[0073] A UE), comprising: initiating a Random Access (RA) procedure in a first cell (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0111] The UE initiates RA procedure); determining, in response to initiating the RA procedure, whether second type RA resources are available (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The set of preambles for no valid location information (i.e. second set)); during the RA procedure, in response to determining that Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) status of the UE is not qualified (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The second set of preambles used by the UE when no valid location (i.e. GNSS not qualified)): the second type RA resources are selected for the RA procedure if the second type RA resources are available (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The second set of preambles are selected); or cell selection or reselection is performed if the second type RA resources are not available (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Claim 6 differs by the following limitations, which is also taught by the prior art, Jeong teaches
first type Random Access (RA) resources and second type RA resources from a network (Jeong Fig.9 Para[0088-90] The separate preamble sets based on valid (i.e. first set) and no valid location of the UE); selecting, in response to initiating the RA procedure, the first type RA resources based on Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) status of the UE being qualified (Jeong Fig.6,11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The first set of preambles used by the UE when valid location (i.e. GNSS qualified)).
Specifically for claim 11, Jeong discloses the UE that includes a processor (Jeong Fig.3) and a memory (Jeong Fig.3).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong further discloses wherein first type RA resources are provided for the first cell (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90] The first set of RACH preambles for the gNB).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong further discloses wherein the GNSS status of the UE is not qualified if the strength of a GNSS signal is below or equal to a threshold (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), the GNSS signal is not available (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), and/or GNSS information is invalid (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The location information is not valid).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. The claim recites wherein the cell selection or reselection is performed by at least one or more of: stopping the RA procedure; initiating an RRC re-establishment procedure; selecting a second cell; and/or initiating another RA procedure on the second cell using the second type RA resources (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong further discloses selecting, in response to determining that the GNSS status of the UE is qualified, first type RA resources or the second type RA resources for the RA procedure (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The first set of preambles are selected due to valid location information available).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong further discloses wherein the GNSS status of the UE is not qualified if the strength of a GNSS signal is below or equal to a threshold, the GNSS signal is not available, and/or GNSS information is invalid (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The location information is not valid).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong further discloses wherein the first type RA resources are for the UE with GNSS (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The first set of preambles are selected when location information is valid).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong further discloses wherein the second type RA resources are for the UE without GNSS (Jeong Fig.11A Para[0088-90,0111-112] The second set of preambles are selected when location information is not valid).
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 (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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of NISHIO et al. (US 2022/0191946 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Nishio”).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong discloses the method and the UE as explained above for Claim 1. Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination is performed in response to transmitting a Msgl or a MSGA.
However, Nishio from the same field of invention discloses wherein the determination is performed in response to transmitting a Msgl or a MSGA (Nishio Fig.1,12 Para[0058,0165-166] The UE determines different resource types for retrial after the transmission failure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Jeong to have the feature of “wherein the determination is performed in response to transmitting a Msgl or a MSGA” as taught by Nishio. The motivation would have been to reduce RACH resource consumption (Nishio Para[0095]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
Additional References
The following prior arts are made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0072679 to Lauridsen (Fig.7 and associated paragraphs)
Conclusion
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/defau1Vfiles/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM 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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights