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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 10-16, 19-20, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) merely a single transmission of information. This is described at a high level of generality such that it could be performed by the human mind, and thus the claims are a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although claim 1 recites “wherein the random access message is used for the network device to schedule a transmission of a subsequent message of the terminal,” the claim does not describe how, and thus this is only a generic recitation that does not add meaningful limitations to the claim. Furthermore, this language may also be interpreted as intended use and not given patentable weight. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because features like “a random message,” “a network device,” and “physical layer” are well-understood and routine.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maamari (US 20240090018 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maamari discloses:
“A method for a terminal to be scheduled, executed by the terminal, comprising: sending a random access message to a network device, wherein the random access message is used for the network device to schedule a transmission of a subsequent message of the terminal; wherein the random access message indicates at least one of information on a physical layer channel/signal processing capability comprising: a type of the terminal; one or both of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) processing capability or a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) processing capability of the terminal; or a processing delay of the terminal for the random access message.” ([¶ 0009]: “Optionally, in any of the preceding aspects, the indicating comprises: sending, by the UE to the gNB when determining to indicate during the RA procedure, a first message indicating the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure, the first message comprising a message 1 (Msg1) of the RA procedure, a message 3 (Msg3) of the RA procedure, or a message A (MsgA) of the RA procedure of the RA procedure.”)
Regarding claim 2, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “wherein the type of the terminal is one of an evolved terminal with a reduced capability, a normal terminal with a reduced capability, or a normal terminal.” ([¶ 0229]: “The RedCap UE has a quantity of receive branches less than a minimum number of receive branches of a non-RedCap UE, or has a bandwidth less than a minimum bandwidth of the non-RedCap UE The UE may indicate, to the gNB, that it is the RedCap UE according to a determination result (block 904). The non-RedCap UE may be a legacy UE.” Wherein evolved/normal are not terms of art and are not defined by the specification and are thus being interpreted broadly.)
Regarding claim 5, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “wherein the random access message is a random access message A in a two-step random access; and the processing delay for the random access message is a time interval between a transmitting end time point when the terminal receives a second random access message and a transmitting start time point when the terminal sends a corresponding feedback.” ([¶ 0149]: “If the UE indicates in MsgA, coverage recovery means may be applied for transmitting MsgB to the UE. The UE may apply received coverage recovery techniques to receive these DL transmissions. In the uplink, the UE may repeat transmission of a message during the RA procedure. When both a UE and a network support Msg3 repetition, the UE may repeat transmissions of Msg3 according a configuration for repetition. Msg3 may also be retransmitted based on a HARQ procedure, which may incur a larger delay.”)
Claims 11-12 and 15 are substantially similar to claims 1-2 and 5 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2 and 5 are from the perspective of the terminal while claims 11-12 and 15 are from the perspective of the network device. Thus, claims 11-12 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2 and 5.
Claims 23 is substantially similar to claim 1, with the differences amounting to that claim 1 is directed towards a method while claim 23 is directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Maamari in paragraph 231. Thus, claim 23 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “A network device, comprising a processor and a memory for storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor ([¶ 0231]: “FIG. 11 illustrates a block diagram of an embodiment processing system 1100 for performing methods described herein, which may be installed in a host device. As shown, the processing system 1100 includes a processor 1104, a memory 1106, and interfaces 1110-1114, which may (or may not) be arranged as shown in FIG. 11.”)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maamari (US 20240090018 A1) in view of Lei (US 20230044766 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari does not explicitly disclose “wherein the random access message is used to indicate the PUSCH processing capability and the PDSCH processing capability of the terminal; wherein the PUSCH processing capability is a relaxed processing capability; and the PDSCH processing capability is a relaxed processing capability.”
However, Lei discloses “wherein the random access message is used to indicate the PUSCH processing capability and the PDSCH processing capability of the terminal; wherein the PUSCH processing capability is a relaxed processing capability; and the PDSCH processing capability is a relaxed processing capability.” ([¶ 0109]: “In some aspects, the indicated capabilities of the UE comprise at least one of: a capability of the UE to support the second type of RACH procedure, a capability of the UE to support CE, a capability of the UE to support HD FDD, a RF retuning capability of the UE, or a capability of the UE for processing PDCCH, PUSCH, or PUSCH transmissions.”;[¶ 0068]: “As discussed above, RedCap UEs may have reduced capabilities with respect to ‘normal’ capability UEs (e.g., non-RedCap UEs). For example, RedCap UEs may have… a relaxed processing timeline at various layers (L1/L2/L3).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Maamari and Lei, to modify the RedCap indication as disclosed by Maamari, to indicate PDSCH/PUSCH processing capability as disclosed by Lei. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network to take these into account, thus allowing for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maamari with Lei to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 4, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari does not explicitly disclose “wherein the random access message is used to indicate one of: the PUSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability; the PUSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability; the PUSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability; or the PUSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability.”
However, Lei discloses “wherein the random access message is used to indicate one of: the PUSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability; the PUSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability; the PUSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being a relaxed processing capability; or the PUSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability, and the PDSCH processing capability being an unrelaxed processing capability.” ([¶ 0109]: “In some aspects, the indicated capabilities of the UE comprise at least one of: a capability of the UE to support the second type of RACH procedure, a capability of the UE to support CE, a capability of the UE to support HD FDD, a RF retuning capability of the UE, or a capability of the UE for processing PDCCH, PUSCH, or PUSCH transmissions.”;[¶ 0068]: “As discussed above, RedCap UEs may have reduced capabilities with respect to ‘normal’ capability UEs (e.g., non-RedCap UEs). For example, RedCap UEs may have… a relaxed processing timeline at various layers (L1/L2/L3).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Maamari and Lei, to modify the RedCap indication as disclosed by Maamari, to indicate PDSCH/PUSCH processing capability as disclosed by Lei. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network to take these into account, thus allowing for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maamari with Lei to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari does not explicitly disclose “wherein there is a mapping relationship between the physical layer channel/signal processing capability of the terminal and the processing delay for the random access message.”
However, Lei discloses “wherein there is a mapping relationship between the physical layer channel/signal processing capability of the terminal and the processing delay for the random access message.” ([¶ 0149]: “In some examples, the minimum gap is determined based on at least one of a BWP switching delay that depends on UE capability or an HD FDD switching delay that depends on UE capability.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Maamari and Lei, to modify the capability as disclosed by Maamari, to map to delay as disclosed by Lei. The motivation for doing so is that it improves interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maamari with Lei to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “wherein the terminal is an evolved terminal with a reduced capability…” ([¶ 0116]: “That is, at the same time, a gNB may provide configuration to allow some RedCap UEs to be identified early while others are identified at later stages (as opposed to having all RedCap UEs be identified at the same time—either early or not). Some RedCap UEs may have a similar identification as normal UEs (using the current initial access process) until the capability exchange, where they would be identified as RedCap UEs, while other RedCap UEs may be identified at Msg1 or Msg3 stage. For the latter case, additional capability exchange may be done after (or at) Msg5 after the RA procedure.”)
Maamari does not explicitly disclose “and the random access message sent by the terminal indicates the information on the physical layer channel/signal processing capability.”
However, Lei discloses “and the random access message sent by the terminal indicates the information on the physical layer channel/signal processing capability.” ([¶ 0109]: “In some aspects, the indicated capabilities of the UE comprise at least one of: a capability of the UE to support the second type of RACH procedure, a capability of the UE to support CE, a capability of the UE to support HD FDD, a RF retuning capability of the UE, or a capability of the UE for processing PDCCH, PUSCH, or PUSCH transmissions.”;[¶ 0068]: “As discussed above, RedCap UEs may have reduced capabilities with respect to ‘normal’ capability UEs (e.g., non-RedCap UEs). For example, RedCap UEs may have… a relaxed processing timeline at various layers (L1/L2/L3).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Maamari and Lei, to modify the RedCap indication as disclosed by Maamari, to indicate PDSCH/PUSCH capability as disclosed by Lei. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network to take these into account, thus allowing for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maamari with Lei to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Maamari in view of Lei discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “wherein determining the indication information from the network device comprises: in response to resources for sending the random access message corresponding to the physical layer channel/signal processing capability being not configured by the network device, determining that the indication information is to deactivate using the random access message to indicate the physical layer channel/signal processing capability; and in response to the resources for sending the random access message corresponding to the physical layer channel/signal processing capability being configured by the network device, determining that the indication information is to activate using the random access message to indicate the physical layer channel/signal processing capability.” ([¶ 0116]: “That is, at the same time, a gNB may provide configuration to allow some RedCap UEs to be identified early while others are identified at later stages (as opposed to having all RedCap UEs be identified at the same time—either early or not). Some RedCap UEs may have a similar identification as normal UEs (using the current initial access process) until the capability exchange, where they would be identified as RedCap UEs, while other RedCap UEs may be identified at Msg1 or Msg3 stage. For the latter case, additional capability exchange may be done after (or at) Msg5 after the RA procedure.”)
Regarding claim 10, Maamari discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “determining indication information from the network device; wherein the indication information is configured to indicate the terminal to activate or deactivate using the random access message to indicate the information on the physical layer channel/signal processing capability, wherein the indication information is configured to indicate at least one of: activating or deactivating using the random access message… or activating or deactivating using the random access message...” ([¶ 0009]: “Optionally, in any of the preceding aspects, the indicating comprises: sending, by the UE to the gNB when determining to indicate during the RA procedure, a first message indicating the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure, the first message comprising a message 1 (Msg1) of the RA procedure, a message 3 (Msg3) of the RA procedure, or a message A (MsgA) of the RA procedure of the RA procedure.”)
Maamari does not explicitly disclose “to indicate the PUSCH processing capability… to indicate the PDSCH processing capability.”
However, Lei discloses “to indicate the PUSCH processing capability… to indicate the PDSCH processing capability.” ([¶ 0109]: “In some aspects, the indicated capabilities of the UE comprise at least one of: a capability of the UE to support the second type of RACH procedure, a capability of the UE to support CE, a capability of the UE to support HD FDD, a RF retuning capability of the UE, or a capability of the UE for processing PDCCH, PUSCH, or PUSCH transmissions.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Maamari and Lei, to modify the RedCap indication as disclosed by Maamari, to indicate processing capability as disclosed by Lei. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the network to take these into account, thus allowing for improved optimization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maamari with Lei to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are substantially similar to claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10 with the differences amounting to that claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10 are from the perspective of the terminal while claims 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are from the perspective of the network device. Thus, claims 13-14, 16-17, and 20 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10.
Regarding claim 19, Maamari in view of Lei discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Maamari further discloses “wherein the indication information is configuration information of resources, and the resources are configured to send the random access message corresponding to the physical layer channel/signal processing capability.” ([¶ 0191]: “Having identified the RedCap UE PRACH resources via the PRACH configuration, a UE may transmit a PRACH preamble (random access preamble) accordingly to a gNB (in a PRACH occasion).”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights