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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04 November 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 04 November 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 04 November 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 61-62, 64-66, 71, 83, and 86-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abedini et al. (US 20220053433 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Abedini”).
Regarding Claim 61, Abedini discloses an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
at least one memory (¶8, Abedini discloses a relay device including a memory); and
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory (¶8, Abedini discloses a relay device further including a processor coupled to the memory) and configured to:
transmit a first message to a network entity (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4008), Abedini discloses transmitting, by a repeater to a network access node, a repeater-device specific MSG1), the first message including an identifier associated with the apparatus for use as part of a multi-step Random Access Channel (RACH) process (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4008) & ¶434 & Fig. 39 (3908), Abedini discloses that the repeater-device specific MSG1 includes a preamble that identifies the repeater for use in a 4-step random access channel (RACH) process); and
receiving, from the network entity, a second message (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4010), Abedini discloses receiving, from the network access node, a random access response (RAR)) at least one of identifying or authorizing the apparatus for the RACH process (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4010) & ¶434 & Fig. 39 (3910), Abedini discloses that the RAR authorizes the repeater by assigning/allocating resources for the repeater device 3904 to transmit an RRC connection request (Msg3)).
Regarding Claim 62, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
Abedini further discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with the network entity using at least one of a Physical (PHY) layer or a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer (¶444 & Fig. 10 (4008), Abedini discloses that the first message may transmitted via a lower layer signal, such as a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE)).
Regarding Claim 64, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
Abedini further discloses wherein the network entity comprises a base station (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a next generation node (gNB)) or one of a centralized unit (CU) (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a centralized unit (CU)), a distributed unit (DU) (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a distributed unit (DU)), or a core network (CN) of the base station (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a centralized unit (CU) where the CU acts as a node in the central network).
Regarding Claim 65, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
Abedini further discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a network-controlled repeater (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4010), Abedini discloses that the network access node is capable of controlling how the repeater via configuration. For example, the random access response (RAR) configures the repeater to transmit MSG3 on certain resources).
Regarding Claim 66, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
Abedini further discloses wherein the first message comprises a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (¶444 & Fig. 10 (4008), Abedini dislcoses that the first message may be a media access control (MAC) control element (CE)).
Regarding Claim 71, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
Abedini further discloses wherein the second message comprises the identifier associated with the apparatus (¶370, Abedini discloses that the RAR comprises a preamble identifier (ID)) and an identification and authorization feedback result for the apparatus as part of the multi-step RACH process (¶370, Abedini discloses that the RAR comprises an ID for contention resolution. Here, the RAR authorizes the repeater to perform additional steps of the RACH process by indicating the resources for contention resolution and the ID for contention resolution).
Regarding Claim 83, Abedini discloses an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
at least one memory (¶8, Abedini discloses a relay device including a memory); and
at least one processor coupled to at least one memory (¶8, Abedini discloses a relay device further including a processor coupled to the memory) and configured to:
transmit an authenticator to a network entity (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4008), Abedini discloses transmitting, by a repeater to a network access node, a repeater-device specific MSG1) via a Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (¶444 & Fig. 10 (4008), Abedini dislcoses that the first message is transmitted via a media access control (MAC) control element (CE)) for performing authentication of the apparatus; and
receive an authentication result from the network entity (¶443 & Fig. 40 (4010), Abedini discloses receiving a random access response (RAR) from the network access node).
Regarding Claim 86, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 83.
Abedini further discloses wherein the network entity comprises
a distributed unit (DU) of a base station (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a distributed unit (DU) where the DU can be collocated in the gNB), a centralized unit (CU) of the base station (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a centralized unit (CU) where the CU can be collocated in the gNB), or a core network (CN) (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a centralized unit (CU) where the CU acts as a node in the centralized network).
Regarding Claim 87, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 86.
Abedini further discloses wherein the authentication of the apparatus is performed by the DU (¶180 & Fig. 10, Abedini discloses that the network access node may be a distributed unit (DU) where the DU can be collocated in the gNB).
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 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Kim et al. (US 20220182173 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding Claim 63, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
However, Abedini does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with the network entity using at least one of a Physical (PHY) layer or a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer.
Kim, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate with the network entity using at least one of a Physical (PHY) layer or a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer (¶65-67 & Fig. 3A-3C, Kim discloses that the relay is configured to communicate with a base station as a L0/L1 relay or a L2 relay. Examiner correlates L0/L1 relay as a relay that can communicate using a Physical (PHY) layer. Examiner correlates the L2 relay as a relay that can communicate using a Media Access Control (MAC) layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abedini by requiring that the at least one processor is configured to communicate with the network entity using at least one of a Physical (PHY) layer or a Medium Access Control (MAC) layer as taught by Kim because relaying data is improved by relaying based on network coding (NC) and/or superposition coding (Kim, ¶2).
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Hampel et al. (US 20190053317 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Hampel”).
Regarding Claim 76, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
However, Abedini does not disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit an authenticator to the network entity for authentication of the apparatus.
Hampel, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit an authenticator to the network entity for authentication of the apparatus (¶88-89 & Fig. 10 (1035), Hampel discloses that a relay is configured to transmit an non-access stratum (NAS) N2 protocol data unit (PDU) Session Establishment Request to perform authentication/authorization with the core network).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abedini by requiring that the at least one processor is configured to transmit an authenticator to the network entity for authentication of the apparatus as taught by Hampel because communication security is improved when the RAN device is deployed in a physically insecure area by preventing the malicious behavior of an attacker and user plane data exposure (Hampel, ¶3-4).
Claims 79-81 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Jeon et al. (US 20200351955 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Jeon”).
Regarding Claim 79, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
However, Abedini does not disclose wherein the first message comprises the identifier associated with the apparatus as part of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and a preamble.
Jeon, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first message comprises the identifier associated with the apparatus as part of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and a preamble (¶341 & ¶328, Jeon discloses that a wireless device may transmit a first random access channel (RACH) message, or MSGA, where the MSGA comprises a payload for PUSCH transmission occasion and a preamble corresponding to a preamble identifier).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abedini by requiring that the first message comprises the identifier associated with the apparatus as part of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) and a preamble as taught by Jeon because signalling resources for retransmission of MSGA are conserved when the RAR/MSGB indicates a successful transmission (Jeon, ¶435).
Regarding Claim 80, Abedini discloses the apparatus of claim 61.
However, Abedini does not disclose wherein the second message comprises a success random-access response (successRAR) message.
Jeon, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second message comprises a success random-access response (successRAR) message (¶328-329 & ¶295, Jeon discloses that a wireless device may receive a second random access response (RAR), or MSGB, where the reception of the RAR is successful if the preamble identifier matches the preamble of MSGA).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abedini by requiring that the second message comprises a success random-access response (successRAR) message as taught by Jeon because signalling resources for retransmission of MSGA are conserved when the RAR/MSGB indicates a successful transmission (Jeon, ¶435).
Regarding Claim 81, Abedini in view of Jeon discloses the apparatus of claim 80.
Jeon, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches wherein the successRAR message comprises the identifier associated with the apparatus (¶328-329 & ¶295, Jeon discloses that the RAR, or MSGB, includes the preamble identifier).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abedini in view of Jeon by requiring that the successRAR message comprises the identifier associated with the apparatus as taught by Jeon because signalling resources for retransmission of MSGA are conserved when the RAR/MSGB indicates a successful transmission (Jeon, ¶435).
Claim 82 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abedini in view of Jeon in further view of Kim et al. (US 20210120581 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Kim2”).
Regarding Claim 82, Abedini in view of Jeon discloses the apparatus of claim 80.
However, Abedini in view of Jeon does not disclose wherein a reserved bit is used for the successRAR message in a Medium Access Control (MAC) sub-Protocol Data Unit (subPDU).
Kim2, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a reserved bit is used for the successRAR message in a Medium Access Control (MAC) sub-Protocol Data Unit (subPDU) (¶475, Kim discloses that a specific bit pattern is used to determine whether the successful RAR in a MAC sub-PDU indicates the RAR is successful).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abedini in view of Jeon by requiring that a reserved bit is used for the successRAR message in a Medium Access Control (MAC) sub-Protocol Data Unit (subPDU) as taught by Kim2 because communication system performance is improved by employing a two-step random access process (Kim2, Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 67-70, 72-75, 77-78, 84-85, and 88-90 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.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights