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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of the following references in the in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement.
Signaling procedure for LTM, from R2-2213332 38.300 on page 2 line 7.
Uplink-downlink timing relation, from 3GPP 38.211 on page 2 line 10.
MIMO Evolution for Downlink and Uplink; [10] 3GPP 38.211 vl 7.1.0 on page 3 line 16.
Timing Advance Command MAC CE, from 3GPP 38.321 on page 6 line 5.
37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper.” Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boström et al. (US 2014/0198729 A1) in view of Kanneath (WO 2024/219764 A1)
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Boström discloses a method of a User Equipment (UE), comprising and a User Equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and a processor operatively coupled with the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute a program code to (Boström [0102] “The method steps performed by the UE 120 are performed by functional elements of the processing circuitry 300 ... these functions are carried out by appropriately programmed microprocessors or microcontrollers, alone or in conjunction with other digital hardware, which may include Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) ... microprocessors and digital hardware may be configured to execute program code stored in memory.”)
receiving a first Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order (Boström [0038]: “The base station initiates a non-contention based random access either by sending a PDCCH order or indicating it in an RRC message”);
Boström does not explicitly disclose initiating an RA procedure to an LTM candidate cell specifically for early TA acquisition in response to receiving the PDCCH order: initiating, in response to receiving the first PDCCH order, a first Random Access (RA) procedure to a candidate cell for early Timing Advance (TA) acquisition
However, Kanneath in paragraph [39] discloses initiating an RA procedure to an LTM candidate cell specifically for early TA acquisition in response to a PDCCH order: (Kanneath [39] “the method includes receiving, by the UE, a configuration to perform random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early TA. Further, the method includes receiving, by the UE, a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order from a serving cell to perform the random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early timing advance.”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Boström- Kanneath such that UE initiates an RA procedure to an LTM candidate cell specifically for early TA acquisition in response to a PDCCH order from the source gNB, storing and reporting the first RA information to a network in response to a request from the network, as taught by Kanneath, in the RA procedure on a Secondary Cell (SCell) with associated timer-based tracking, as taught by Boström.
Boström does not explicitly disclose a step for storing a first RA information associated with the RA procedure: storing a first RA information associated with the first RA procedure reporting the first RA information to a network in response to a request from the network
However, Kanneath in paragraph [0039] discloses a step for logging and reporting by UE on random access related information about the performed random access: [0039] “the method includes performing, by the UE, random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early timing advance. Further, the method includes logging and reporting, by the UE, random access related information about the performed random access.
Therefore, 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 method of Boström to include storing/logging a RA information associated as taught by Kanneath with the contention-based random access procedure taught by Boström in paragraph [0034] and reporting the RA information to a network in response to a request from the network, as taught by Kanneath, rendering this limitation obvious by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of enhanced RA logging and reporting in mobility scenarios per MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Doing so allows the UE to log and report random access related information about the performed random access towards the LTM candidate cell for receiving the early timing advance, thereby enabling the network to analyze and optimize LTM procedures for reduced mobility interruption time and improved handover efficiency (Kanneath [0039]).
Regarding claim 2 and 16, Boström does not explicitly disclose a step for setting a RA information purpose to be either first or second: The method of claim 1, wherein a purpose of the first RA information is set to a first purpose or a second purpose
However, Kanneath in paragraph [152] discloses a method for providing raPurpose field in a RA-Report to indicate procedures being executed: (Kanneath [152]: “raPurpose: This field is used to indicate the RA scenario for which the RA report entry is triggered . . . The indicator ulUnSynchronized is used if the random-access procedure is initiated in a SpCell by downlink (DL) or uplink (UL) data arrival during RRC_CONNECTED . . . The indicator noPUCCHResourceAvailable is used when the UE (100) has no valid SR PUCCH resources configured.”
Regarding claim 3 and 17, Boström does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 2, wherein the first purpose is ‘early TA acquisition’, ‘early-TA’, or ‘LTMRelated’
However, Kanneath in [39] and [48] discloses RA information purposes linked to early TA for LTM-related mobility, rendering this limitation obvious by applying known LTM techniques to specify report purposes for optimization per MPEP 2143(I) (Kanneath [0039] “The method includes receiving, by the UE, a configuration to perform random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early TA ... [48] ... wherein the capability information indicates whether the UE is capable for performing random access for early TA on at least one LTM candidate cell. Further, the random access controller is configured to receive a configuration to perform random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early TA. Further, the random access controller is configured to receive a PDCCH order from a serving cell to perform the random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early timing advance”)
Regarding claim 4 and claim 18, Boström does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 2, wherein the second purpose is ‘ulUnSynchronized’
However, Kanneath teaches a method of creating “raPurpose” field in a RA-Report to indicate “ulUnSynchronized” if the random access procedure is initiated in a SpCell by DL or UL data arrival during RRC _ CONNECTED: (Kanneath [152]: “raPurpose: This field is used to indicate the RA scenario for which the RA report entry is triggered . . . The indicator ulUnSynchronized is used if the random-access procedure is initiated in a SpCell by downlink (DL) or uplink (UL) data arrival during RRC_CONNECTED)
Regarding claim 5, Boström in paragraph [0083], [088] and [0147] discloses a method of using a timer based of sending multiple PDCCH orders for a RA procedure on the SCell upon expiration of timer in an effort to receive a response from the base station (i.e., [0147] . . send another PDCCH order starting a new random access procedure for this SCell upon expiry of the timer) : The method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving a second PDCCH order, and initiating a second RA procedure to a serving cell in response to receiving the second PDCCH order; and storing a second RA information associated with the second RA procedure, wherein a purpose of the second RA information is set to the second purpose ([0083] “. . . this action of requesting the RACH report, is performed after said second timer has expired . . . [0088] “the base station 110 may in combination with this method implement timer i.e. the second timer, to be started at the PDCCH order for RACH, and upon whose expiry the base station could request this information . . . [0147] Also the base station 110 may upon expiry of this timer decide to deactivate said SCell or decide to send another PDCCH order starting a new random access procedure for this SCell.”)
Regarding claim 6, Boström does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 2, further comprising: receiving an L1/L2-triggered Mobility (LTM) cell switch command, and initiating a third RA procedure to the candidate cell in response to receiving the LTM cell switch command;
However, Kanneath in paragraph [0081] discloses receiving an LTM cell switch command via Downlink (DL) Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Elements (CEs) a (i.e., L1/L2 signaling) that triggers mobility to a candidate cell, where an RA procedure is initiated if TA is not pre-acquired: Kanneath [0081] “TA will be received in the random access response (RAR), but it may be also received through a DL MAC CE such as the LTM Cell Switch Command Though early TA is used widely for LTM, it may be used for any type of mobility including the traditional handovers.”)
Further, Boström does not explicitly disclose: and storing a third RA information associated with the third RA procedure, wherein a purpose of the third RA information is set to the first purpose
Regarding claim 7 and claim 19, Boström does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the UE indicates an identity of a Special Cell (SpCell) in the first RA information
However, Kanneath in paragraph [0184] discloses the UE indicating the identity (CGI) of the SpCell (PSCell or PCell) in the RA report for procedures on associated cells (e.g., candidate/SCell) (Kanneath [0184] “If the UE performs RA procedure on a SCell associated to the SCG, then this field is set to the CGI of the PSCell. If the CGI of the PSCell is not available at the UE for the RA procedure performed on a SCell associated to the SCG... this field is set to the CGI of the PCell.”).
Regarding claim 8, Boström does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 7, wherein the identity of the SpCell is an identity of a Primary Cell (PCell) if the candidate cell is in MCG or an identity of a Primary Secondary Cell (PSCell) if in SCG
However, Kanneath in paragraph [184] discloses indicating the identity (CGI) of the SpCell as PSCell when the RA is on a cell (e.g., candidate) associated with SCG, or as PCell otherwise (implying MCG association), rendering this limitation obvious by applying known dual-connectivity reporting techniques to differentiate group configurations for accurate network diagnostics per MPEP 2143(I)(A) (Kanneath [0184] “If the UE performs RA procedure on a SCell associated to the SCG, then this field is set to the CGI of the PSCell. If the CGI of the PSCell is not available at the UE for the RA procedure performed on a SCell associated to the SCG... this field is set to the CGI of the PCell.”).
Regarding claim 9, Boström discloses a step for UE attempting multiple transmission attempts of RA preamble on (i.e., “first, second, third, fourth ... RA preamble transmission” as claimed), to search for PCell: The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a third PDCCH order, and initiating a fourth RA procedure to the candidate cell for early TA acquisition in response to receiving the third PDCCH order, wherein the first RA information includes information of a second RA preamble transmission of the fourth RA procedure (Boström [0044] “When random access fails continuously on the PCell, the maximum number of expected transmission attempts of MSG1, which is the transmission of the Random Access (RA) preamble on PCRACH, preambleTransMax, will be exceeded. When the preambleTransMax threshold is exceeded, the user equipment will indicate a random access problem to higher layers. This will lead to that the user equipment declares radio link failure on the PCell.”)
Regarding claim 10 and 20, Boström in paragraph [0130] teaches a step for keeping track of maximum RA re-attempts (i.e., “first, second, third, fourth ... RA preamble transmission” as claimed), by a UE for searching a candidate cell while Kanneath in paragraph [39] teaches UE receiving at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early TA: The method of claim 1, wherein information of a first RA preamble transmission of the first RA procedure and information of a second RA preamble transmission of a fourth RA procedure to the candidate cell for early TA acquisition are indicated or stored by a same RA-Report (Boström [0130] “The RACH report request may specify which cell or cells out of the serving cells of the UE 120 the RACH report is requested for e.g. by using Cell Index in an information request message . . . [0146] For one UE embodiment, the base station timer is configured so that the preambleTransMax expected re-transmission interval>base station timer. preambleTransMax is a threshold for setting a maximum number of preamble re-transmissions, i.e. maximum RA re-attempts, by a UE. In LTE Release-8/9 when there is only the PCell, a UE will then declare RLF when the maximum number of attempts has been exceeded” . . . Kanneath [39] “… receiving, by the UE, a configuration to perform random access towards the at least one LTM candidate cell for receiving the early TA”)
Regarding claim 11, Boström discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the first RA information is included in an RA-Report or is the RA-Report ([0086] “The information may for example comprise information about the status, progress, successfulness, and/or unsuccessfulness of the RA which the UE 120 is performing or has been performing on the serving cells which were indicated in the RACH report request.”)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boström et al. (US 2014/0198729 A1) in view of Kanneath (WO 2024/219764 A1) and further in view of VEERAMALLU et al. (US 2019/0028905 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Boström does not explicitly disclose the first RA procedure is Random Access Response (RAR)-less: The method of claim 1, wherein the first RA procedure is Random Access Response (RAR)-less
However, Veeramallu discloses the RA procedure with RAR but teaches contention-free RA (i.e., “Random Access Response (RAR)-less” as claimed) where the response is streamlined: ([0056] “When establishing an initial radio link, the random access procedure also serves the purpose of assigning a unique identity, the C - RNTI (Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier), to the terminal. Either a contention - based or contention - free random-access procedure can be used. Contention - based random access uses a four - step procedure, and contention - free random access procedure uses a three - step procedure).
Therefore, 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 RA procedure of Boström in view of Kanneath to include a contention-free RA procedure that is RAR-less, as taught by Veeramallu.
Doing so allows for a streamlined three-step contention-free random access procedure (preamble, streamlined response, completion) without the need for a full RAR in certain scenarios, reducing signaling overhead and latency in the early TA acquisition process for LTM candidate cells, yielding predictable results of improved efficiency in mobility management and reduced handover interruption time per MPEP 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Regarding claim 13, Boström does not explicitly disclose RA information including information of a first RA preamble transmission of the first RA procedure: The method of claim 1, wherein the first RA information includes information of a first RA preamble transmission of the first RA procedure and/or includes ra-InformationCommon
However, Kanneath discloses in FIG.4 ref S410 and paragraph [172]-[173] a method of logging and reporting the random-access related information. ([172] for performing the random access for the early TA, [173] “At S410, the method includes logging and reporting the random access related information about the performed random access.”)
Regarding claim 14, Boström does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the request is successHO-ReportReq or ra-ReportReq
PNG
media_image1.png
593
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Kanneath in [Fig. 7] step 1 discloses “ra-ReportReq and at step 2, Network returns with the requested report back to the UE.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478