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 .
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)(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, 8-9, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sung (US 12,004,231), hereinafter Sung.
Regarding Claim 1, Sung teaches: A method comprising: broadcasting a message to a plurality of communication devices: “the method includes broadcasting the PDCCH CCE AL in a broadcasting message to the UE at step 612” (Sung Col 14 Lines 25-26); wherein the message comprises one or more first identifiers representing one or more first communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, the broadcasting message to the UE includes the PRACH preamble group assigned. In some embodiments, the broadcasting message to the UE includes the PRACH preamble group assigned but not the PDCCH CCE AL” (Sung Col 14 Lines 26-31); and wherein one or more first packets transmitted from the one or more first communication devices via one or more first channels have been successfully received and decoded: “the method comprises determining a radio frequency condition for the device based on the one or more signals. Based on the radio frequency condition, the method determines a PRACH preamble group for the device for scheduling the PDCCH CCE AL, the PRACH preamble group corresponding to the CSS. Upon receiving the request, the method broadcasts the PRACH preamble group to the device” (Sun Col 4 Lines 52-58), and amplitudes of the one or more first channels are smaller than a first threshold: “in embodiments, the radio frequency condition corresponds to whether a downlink RSRP or a downlink SINR is above the threshold. The threshold may be easier for a UE to reach when measuring the downlink RSRP, relative to the threshold for the downlink SINR, and vice versa” (Sun Col 11 Lines 10-15).
Regarding Claim 2, Sung teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more first identifiers comprise one or more first preambles of the one or more first communication devices: “the method comprises determining a radio frequency condition for the device based on the one or more signals. Based on the radio frequency condition, the method determines a PRACH preamble group for the device for scheduling the PDCCH CCE AL, the PRACH preamble group corresponding to the CSS. Upon receiving the request, the method broadcasts the PRACH preamble group to the device” (Sun Col 4 Lines 52-58), and/or are associated with a first feedback type.
Regarding Claim 8, Sung teaches: An apparatus comprising: a processor for: broadcasting a message to a plurality of communication devices: “network environment 300 comprises UEs 302, 304, and 306; network 308; database 310; cell site 314 having a first antenna array 315, which has antenna elements 316; and AL management engine 320. AL management engine 320 comprises receiver 322, threshold determination component 324, RF condition determination component 326, PRACH preamble group assigning component 328, PDCCH CCE AL determination component 330, and broadcasting component 332” (Shah Col 6 lines 23-31); wherein the message comprises one or more first identifiers representing one or more first communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, the broadcasting message to the UE includes the PRACH preamble group assigned. In some embodiments, the broadcasting message to the UE includes the PRACH preamble group assigned but not the PDCCH CCE AL” (Sung Col 14 Lines 26-31); and wherein one or more first packets transmitted from the one or more first communication devices via one or more first channels have been successfully received and decoded: “the method comprises determining a radio frequency condition for the device based on the one or more signals. Based on the radio frequency condition, the method determines a PRACH preamble group for the device for scheduling the PDCCH CCE AL, the PRACH preamble group corresponding to the CSS. Upon receiving the request, the method broadcasts the PRACH preamble group to the device” (Sun Col 4 Lines 52-58), and amplitudes of the one or more first channels are smaller than a first threshold: “in embodiments, the radio frequency condition corresponds to whether a downlink RSRP or a downlink SINR is above the threshold. The threshold may be easier for a UE to reach when measuring the downlink RSRP, relative to the threshold for the downlink SINR, and vice versa” (Sun Col 11 Lines 10-15).
Regarding Claim 9, Sung teaches: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more first identifiers comprise one or more first preambles of the one or more first communication devices: “the method comprises determining a radio frequency condition for the device based on the one or more signals. Based on the radio frequency condition, the method determines a PRACH preamble group for the device for scheduling the PDCCH CCE AL, the PRACH preamble group corresponding to the CSS. Upon receiving the request, the method broadcasts the PRACH preamble group to the device” (Sun Col 4 Lines 52-58), and/or are associated with a first feedback type.
Regarding Claim 14, Sung teaches: One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices comprising computer-executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause a processor to perform actions comprising: “network environment 300 comprises UEs 302, 304, and 306; network 308; database 310; cell site 314 having a first antenna array 315, which has antenna elements 316; and AL management engine 320. AL management engine 320 comprises receiver 322, threshold determination component 324, RF condition determination component 326, PRACH preamble group assigning component 328, PDCCH CCE AL determination component 330, and broadcasting component 332” (Shah Col 6 lines 23-31): broadcasting a message to a plurality of communication devices; wherein the message comprises one or more first identifiers representing one or more first communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, the broadcasting message to the UE includes the PRACH preamble group assigned. In some embodiments, the broadcasting message to the UE includes the PRACH preamble group assigned but not the PDCCH CCE AL” (Sung Col 14 Lines 26-31); and wherein one or more first packets transmitted from the one or more first communication devices via one or more first channels have been successfully received and decoded: “the method comprises determining a radio frequency condition for the device based on the one or more signals. Based on the radio frequency condition, the method determines a PRACH preamble group for the device for scheduling the PDCCH CCE AL, the PRACH preamble group corresponding to the CSS. Upon receiving the request, the method broadcasts the PRACH preamble group to the device” (Sun Col 4 Lines 52-58), and amplitudes of the one or more first channels are smaller than a first threshold: “in embodiments, the radio frequency condition corresponds to whether a downlink RSRP or a downlink SINR is above the threshold. The threshold may be easier for a UE to reach when measuring the downlink RSRP, relative to the threshold for the downlink SINR, and vice versa” (Sun Col 11 Lines 10-15).
Regarding Claim 15, Sung teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices of claim 14, wherein the one or more first identifiers comprise one or more first preambles of the one or more first communication devices: “the method comprises determining a radio frequency condition for the device based on the one or more signals. Based on the radio frequency condition, the method determines a PRACH preamble group for the device for scheduling the PDCCH CCE AL, the PRACH preamble group corresponding to the CSS. Upon receiving the request, the method broadcasts the PRACH preamble group to the device” (Sun Col 4 Lines 52-58), and/or are associated with a first feedback type.
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 3-5, 10-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung and Shah as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Hosseini et al. (US 2020/0053744), hereinafter Hosseini.
Regarding Claim 3, Sung teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15); and amplitudes of the one or more second channels are greater than the first threshold: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57).
Sung does not teach: and wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode.
Regarding Claim 3, Hosseini teaches: wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Hosseini for the purpose of reducing latency and reliability issues. According to Hosseini: “the base station may detect which UEs transmitted data even though the corresponding data may not have been successfully received by the base station. In the case of detection, a base station may attempt to remedy the collisions by sending grants to each of the UEs whose uplink transmissions were not successfully received by the base station. In some examples, the base station may send a separate grant to each of the detected UEs. However, sending individual uplink grants to each involved UE for re-transmissions could be costly and cause latency and reliability issues” (Hosseini ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 4, Sung teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein the one or more second identifiers are associated with a second feedback type, and/or comprise one or more second preambles of the one or more second communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15).
Regarding Claim 5, Sung teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers associated with a second feedback type, the one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15); and amplitudes of the one or more second channels are smaller than the first threshold and greater than a second threshold: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57).
Sung does not teach: and wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode.
Regarding Claim 5, Hosseini teaches: wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Hosseini for the purpose of reducing latency and reliability issues. According to Hosseini: “the base station may detect which UEs transmitted data even though the corresponding data may not have been successfully received by the base station. In the case of detection, a base station may attempt to remedy the collisions by sending grants to each of the UEs whose uplink transmissions were not successfully received by the base station. In some examples, the base station may send a separate grant to each of the detected UEs. However, sending individual uplink grants to each involved UE for re-transmissions could be costly and cause latency and reliability issues” (Hosseini ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 10, Sung teaches: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15); and amplitudes of the one or more second channels are greater than the first threshold: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57).
Sung does not teach: and wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode.
Regarding Claim 10, Hosseini teaches: wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Hosseini for the purpose of reducing latency and reliability issues. According to Hosseini: “the base station may detect which UEs transmitted data even though the corresponding data may not have been successfully received by the base station. In the case of detection, a base station may attempt to remedy the collisions by sending grants to each of the UEs whose uplink transmissions were not successfully received by the base station. In some examples, the base station may send a separate grant to each of the detected UEs. However, sending individual uplink grants to each involved UE for re-transmissions could be costly and cause latency and reliability issues” (Hosseini ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 11, Sung teaches: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the one or more second identifiers are associated with a second feedback type, and/or comprise one or more second preambles of the one or more second communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15).
Regarding Claim 12, Sung teaches: The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers associated with a second feedback type, the one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15); and amplitudes of the one or more second channels are smaller than the first threshold and greater than a second threshold: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57).
Sung does not teach: and wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode.
Regarding Claim 12, Hosseini teaches: wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Hosseini for the purpose of reducing latency and reliability issues. According to Hosseini: “the base station may detect which UEs transmitted data even though the corresponding data may not have been successfully received by the base station. In the case of detection, a base station may attempt to remedy the collisions by sending grants to each of the UEs whose uplink transmissions were not successfully received by the base station. In some examples, the base station may send a separate grant to each of the detected UEs. However, sending individual uplink grants to each involved UE for re-transmissions could be costly and cause latency and reliability issues” (Hosseini ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 16, Sung teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices of claim 14, wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15); and amplitudes of the one or more second channels are greater than the first threshold: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57).
Sung does not teach: and wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode.
Regarding Claim 16, Hosseini teaches: wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Hosseini for the purpose of reducing latency and reliability issues. According to Hosseini: “the base station may detect which UEs transmitted data even though the corresponding data may not have been successfully received by the base station. In the case of detection, a base station may attempt to remedy the collisions by sending grants to each of the UEs whose uplink transmissions were not successfully received by the base station. In some examples, the base station may send a separate grant to each of the detected UEs. However, sending individual uplink grants to each involved UE for re-transmissions could be costly and cause latency and reliability issues” (Hosseini ¶ 0004).
Regarding Claim 17, Sung teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices of claim 16, wherein the one or more second identifiers are associated with a second feedback type, and/or comprise one or more second preambles of the one or more second communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15).
Regarding Claim 18, Sung teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices of claim 14, wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers associated with a second feedback type, the one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “In some embodiments, a first set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a first PRACH preamble group and a second set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a second PRACH preamble group, the second set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the first set. In addition, a third set of consecutive PRACH preambles are assigned to a third PRACH preamble group, the third set of consecutive PRACH preambles having higher preamble IDs than the second set” (Sung Col 12 Lines 6-15); and amplitudes of the one or more second channels are smaller than the first threshold and greater than a second threshold: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57).
Sung does not teach: and wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode.
Regarding Claim 18, Hosseini teaches: wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Hosseini for the purpose of reducing latency and reliability issues. According to Hosseini: “the base station may detect which UEs transmitted data even though the corresponding data may not have been successfully received by the base station. In the case of detection, a base station may attempt to remedy the collisions by sending grants to each of the UEs whose uplink transmissions were not successfully received by the base station. In some examples, the base station may send a separate grant to each of the detected UEs. However, sending individual uplink grants to each involved UE for re-transmissions could be costly and cause latency and reliability issues” (Hosseini ¶ 0004).
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung as applied to claims 1, 8, and 14 above, and further in view of Shah et al. (US 10,154,368), hereinafter Shah.
Regarding Claim 6, Sung teaches: The method of claim 1.
Sung does not teach: the message further comprises a first pilot signal; or wherein the message further comprises a first pilot signal and a second pilot signal, the second pilot signal being the first pilot signal multiplied by the first threshold.
Regarding Claim 6, Shah teaches: the message further comprises a first pilot signal: “the RAN 102 may provide service on one or more carrier frequencies. In at least one embodiment, on a given carrier frequency, the forward link defines a pilot channel on which the RAN 102 broadcasts a pilot signal for use by mobile devices to detect and evaluate coverage (with each pilot signal including or embodying an identifier of the coverage area), a paging channel on which the RAN 102 pages mobile devices, and one or more traffic channels on which the RAN 102 transmits bearer data to mobile devices that are actively engaged in calls (e.g., voice calls or data communications)” (Shah Col 4 Lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Shah for the purpose of providing system acquisition parameters on standardized frequencies. According to Shah: “To address these issues as well as others, presently disclosed are systems and methods for providing system-acquisition parameters on standardized frequencies” (Shah Col 2 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 13, Sung teaches: The apparatus of claim 8.
Sung does not teach: the message further comprises a first pilot signal; or wherein the message further comprises a first pilot signal and a second pilot signal, the second pilot signal being the first pilot signal multiplied by the first threshold.
Regarding Claim 13, Shah teaches: the message further comprises a first pilot signal: “the RAN 102 may provide service on one or more carrier frequencies. In at least one embodiment, on a given carrier frequency, the forward link defines a pilot channel on which the RAN 102 broadcasts a pilot signal for use by mobile devices to detect and evaluate coverage (with each pilot signal including or embodying an identifier of the coverage area), a paging channel on which the RAN 102 pages mobile devices, and one or more traffic channels on which the RAN 102 transmits bearer data to mobile devices that are actively engaged in calls (e.g., voice calls or data communications)” (Shah Col 4 Lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Shah for the purpose of providing system acquisition parameters on standardized frequencies. According to Shah: “To address these issues as well as others, presently disclosed are systems and methods for providing system-acquisition parameters on standardized frequencies” (Shah Col 2 Lines 36-38).
Regarding Claim 19, Sung teaches: The one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices of claim 14.
Sung does not teach: the message further comprises a first pilot signal; or wherein the message further comprises a first pilot signal and a second pilot signal, the second pilot signal being the first pilot signal multiplied by the first threshold.
Regarding Claim 19, Shah teaches: the message further comprises a first pilot signal: “the RAN 102 may provide service on one or more carrier frequencies. In at least one embodiment, on a given carrier frequency, the forward link defines a pilot channel on which the RAN 102 broadcasts a pilot signal for use by mobile devices to detect and evaluate coverage (with each pilot signal including or embodying an identifier of the coverage area), a paging channel on which the RAN 102 pages mobile devices, and one or more traffic channels on which the RAN 102 transmits bearer data to mobile devices that are actively engaged in calls (e.g., voice calls or data communications)” (Shah Col 4 Lines 37-47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Sung with Shah for the purpose of providing system acquisition parameters on standardized frequencies. According to Shah: “To address these issues as well as others, presently disclosed are systems and methods for providing system-acquisition parameters on standardized frequencies” (Shah Col 2 Lines 36-38).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 20 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Sung teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein amplitudes of the one or more second channels are smaller than the first threshold and greater than a second threshold, the one or more second identifiers representing one or more second communication devices of the plurality of communication devices: “if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above the threshold, then the device is assigned to the second PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the second PRACH preamble group. Furthermore, if the downlink RSRP or the downlink SINR of the corresponding device is not above a second threshold that is lower than the first threshold, then the device is assigned to the third PRACH preamble group and the PDCCH CCE AL for the device is determined based on the third PRACH preamble group” (Sung Col 12 Lines 47-57), meaning the second PRACH preamble group is smaller than the first threshold but greater than the second threshold.
Regarding Claim 7, Hosseini teaches: wherein the message further comprises one or more second identifiers associated with a second feedback type: “when a base station detects a collision, the base station may transmit a group feedback indication (e.g., a NAK) to all of the UEs in the group of UEs scheduled for transmissions at that time. UEs that sent a transmission may monitor for and receive the group feedback indication, and then retransmit based on receipt of a NAK (regardless of whether the NAK pertained to their previous transmission). UEs that did not send a transmission may elect to not monitor for the group feedback indications, or if a NAK is detected, these UEs may choose to ignore the group feedback indication. In some examples, the ACK or NAK could be sent separately for each UE. For example, the ACK or NAK could be sent separately using different sequences (e.g., a Physical Channel Hybrid ARQ Indicator Channel (PHICH) or similar) or using a group-common Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)” (Hosseini ¶ 0067); wherein one or more second packets transmitted from the one or more second communication devices via one or more second channels have been received but failed to decode: “The communications manager 1110 may transmit, to a group of UEs, a configuration for SPS of uplink transmissions by the UEs. The communications manager 1110 may fail to decode a message that one of the UEs attempted to transmit to the base station in accordance with the configuration and transmit a group feedback signal to the group of UEs on resources specified by the configuration, the group feedback signal being based on the failure to decode the message” (Hosseini ¶ 0174).
However, no prior art could be found that taught the claim limitation of: wherein the message further comprises a third pilot signal, the third pilot signal being the first pilot signal multiplied by the second threshold.
For similar reasons, Claim 20 is objected to as being depended on by a rejected claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/KWANG B YAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights