DETAILED ACTION
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 information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-6, 8, 11, 17, 19, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 49-50 and 55 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims need to recite the steps or limitations as cited in the claims 1, 12, and 23 respectively. 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 23-24 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Regarding independent claims 23 and 55, the claim recites the limitation “…the network device is located based on a relaxed random access message processing time delay of the terminal device.” the limitation is unclear because, it is not clear how the network location is associated relaxed random access message processing time delay of the terminal device. Since the claim should be self-consistent and able, alone, to unambiguously define the subject matter of the invention, said limitation should be clearly discloses the essential or needed steps for how the network device is located based on a relaxed random access message processing time delay. The specification as originally filed does not suggests or provide sufficient evidence of the association between the network device and the relaxed random access message processing time delay. Regarding dependent claim 24, the claim failed to rectify the problem raised above, thus,
they are subject to the same rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4, 12-14, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US20220039115).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Sun discloses a terminal device scheduling method, performed by a terminal device (¶0026 discloses a method performed by a UE in a communication system), comprising: determining a resource corresponding to a random access message based on a physical layer channel or signal processing capability of the terminal device (¶0026 discloses transmitting, to a base station, a random access preamble and capability information of the UE; receiving, from the base station, a random access response including time domain scheduling information being based on the capability information); and sending the random access message through the resource to a network device (¶0026 discloses and transmitting, to the base station, data based on the time domain scheduling information), to enable the network device to determine a random access message processing time delay of the terminal device based on the resource corresponding to the random access message and to schedule a transmission of a subsequent random access message of the terminal device (¶0166 discloses that the base station may configure the time interval not less than the required capabilities according to the capabilities reported by the UE… The at least one time interval includes at least one of the followings: uplink and downlink transition time, retuning time, PUSCH additional delay time, PDSCH additional delay time, PUCCH additional delay time, time from PDCCH scheduling to PUSCH transmission, time from PDCCH scheduling to PDSCH reception, time from PDSCH reception to ACK/NACK feedback. ¶0202 further discloses that the base station may schedule the time interval for the multiple UEs. For example, the base station may reserve enough processing time based on the potential worst UE capabilities. For example, the processing time may include, but not be limited to, in the random access procedure, the minimum processing time between the PRACH and Msg2, the scheduling time between Msg2 and Msg3, the time interval between the UE
performing uplink transmission and the UE performing downlink reception).
Regarding claim 2, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. Sun further discloses wherein a physical layer channel or signal comprises one or more of: a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH), a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH), a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH), a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH), a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH), a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS), a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS), a Phase Tracking Reference Signal (PTRS), or a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) (¶0150).
Regarding claim 3, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 1. Sun further teach receiving configuration or indication information sent by the network device; wherein the configuration or indication information is used for configuring or indicating candidate resource groups corresponding to at least two types of physical layer channel or signal processing capabilities of terminal devices (¶0212 discloses the base station … configure the time domain resource scheduling scheme for UE, the time domain resource scheduling tables for all UE capabilities predefined or supported by the base station configurations that may be configured by the base station).
Regarding claim 4, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 3. Sun further teaches wherein the physical layer channel or signal processing capabilities of different terminal devices correspond to different candidate resource groups (¶0212 discloses the base station … configure the time domain resource scheduling scheme for UE, the time domain resource scheduling tables for all UE capabilities predefined or supported by the base station configurations that may be configured by the base station).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same
features of the method of claim 2. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 2.
Regarding claims 49-50, the cited reference Sun discloses a communication device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor(See Fig 3A/3B); wherein the processor is configured to perform substantially the same features
of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Claims 1, 12, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sui et al (US20230072551).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Sun discloses a terminal device scheduling method, performed by a terminal device (¶0021 discloses methods... These methods can include transmitting, to a network node during a random-access procedure in a cell), comprising: determining a resource corresponding to a random access message based on a physical layer channel or signal processing capability of the terminal device (¶0022 discloses transmitting, to a base station, a random access preamble and capability information of the UE; receiving, from the base station, a random access response including time domain scheduling information being based on the capability information); and sending the random access message through the resource to a network device (¶0026 discloses and transmitting, to the base station, data based on the time domain scheduling information), to enable the network device to determine a random access message processing time delay of the terminal device based on the resource corresponding to the random access message and to schedule a transmission of a subsequent random access message of the terminal device (¶0166 discloses that the base station may configure the time interval not less than the required capabilities according to the capabilities reported by the UE… The at least one time interval includes at least one of the followings: uplink and downlink transition time, retuning time, PUSCH additional delay time, PDSCH additional delay time, PUCCH additional delay time, time from PDCCH scheduling to PUSCH transmission, time from PDCCH scheduling to PDSCH reception, time from PDSCH reception to ACK/NACK feedback. ¶0202 further discloses that the base station may schedule the time interval for the multiple UEs. For example, the base station may reserve enough processing time based on the potential worst UE capabilities. For example, the processing time may include, but not be limited to, in the random access procedure, the minimum processing time between the PRACH and Msg2, the scheduling time between Msg2 and Msg3, the time interval between the UE performing uplink transmission and
the UE performing downlink reception).
Regarding claim 12, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Regarding claims 49-50, the cited reference Sun discloses a communication device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor(See Fig 11/12); wherein the processor is configured to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
Claims 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoang et al (US20220159741).
Regarding claim 1, the cited reference Hoang discloses a terminal device scheduling method, performed by a network device, comprising: scheduling a transmission of a subsequent random access message of a terminal device in a serving cell where the network device is located based on a relaxed random access message processing time delay of the terminal device (¶0182 discloses that the WTRU may transmit multiple Msg1 transmissions before receiving Msg2. In an embodiment, the WTRU may determine to transmit N Msg1s before each RACH occasion and the WTRU may transmit such N Msg1s over MRACH occasions. The WTRU may apply various (e.g., different) power adjustments for the different transmissions of Msg1. The power adjustment may be determined based on the PRACH location and/or an assumption about the delay between the WTRU and the network).
Regarding claim 55, the cited reference Hoang discloses a communication device, comprising; a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor(See Fig 1B); wherein the processor is configured to perform substantially the same features of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sui et al (US20230072551), in view of Feng (US20210144547).
Regarding claim 3, the cited reference Sui discloses all limitations of claim 1. However, Sui does not explicitly teach receiving configuration or indication information sent by the network device; wherein the configuration or indication information is used for configuring or indicatingcandidate resource groups corresponding to at least two types of physical layer channel or signal processing capabilities of terminal devices.
In an analogous art Feng teaches receiving configuration or indication information sent by the network device; wherein the configuration or indication information is used for configuring or indicating candidate resource groups corresponding to at least two types of physical layer channel or signal processing capabilities of terminal devices (¶0104 discloses that the network device determines, based on the capability information of the terminal device, the first processing capability configuration information of the at least one frequency band used for the terminal device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Feng to reduce workload of the terminal device, and enable a consistent understanding between the terminal device and the network device.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to a method performing substantially the same
features of the method of claim 3. Therefore, the claim is subject to the same rejection as claim 3.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US20220039115), in view of Xu (US20230217503).
Regarding claim 16, the cited reference Sun discloses all limitations of claim 14. However, Sun does not explicitly teach wherein determining the random access message processing time delay of the terminal device based on the resource corresponding to the random access message comprises: in response to the resource corresponding to the random access message being a set resource in at least two candidate resource groups, determining that the random access message processing time delay of the terminal device is a relaxed delay.
In an analogous art Xu teaches wherein determining the random access message processing time delay of the terminal device based on the resource corresponding to the random access message comprises: in response to the resource corresponding to the random access message being a set resource in at least two candidate resource groups, determining that the random access message processing time delay of the terminal device is a relaxed delay (¶0095 discloses that the period of a PRACH resource affects the delay of random access, and a short PRACH period may shorten the delay of random access. On the contrary, a long PRACH period leads to a prolonged delay of random access).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Xu to support random access requests
from UEs distributed at various beams.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoang et al (US20230072551), in view of Li et al (US20230156538).
Regarding claim 24, the cited reference Hoang discloses all limitations of claim 23. However, Hoang does not explicitly teach the serving cell supports an access of a reduced capability terminal device.
In an analogous art Li teaches the serving cell supports an access of a reduced capability terminal device (¶0023 discloses that the cell supports the access of the reduced capability terminal equipment (RedCap UE)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of Xu to to avoid congestion caused by the access and connection of a large number of reduced capability terminal equipments, maintain network capabilities, and provide good services to other conventional terminal equipments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1656. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571)272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Respectfully submitted,
/ABDELILLAH ELMEJJARMI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights