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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 1-4, 7-9, 10-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 20250071682 A1) in view of Elshafie (US 20250203511 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wong discloses:
“A communication method, wherein the method comprises: sending first signaling…” ([¶ 0096]: “The UE has sufficient energy to transmit a PRACH and receive Message 2 from the network.”)
“…receiving first indication information from a first terminal device, wherein the first indication information indicates that the first terminal device cannot complete the random access or data transmission after the random access.” ([¶¶ 0096-0097]: “However, the UE realises that it would not have sufficient energy to move into Connected Mode and so it transmits Message 3 with a blackout message indicating that it will blackout for T.sub.Blackout duration. The gNB is then aware that the UE has entered into a blackout and delays transmitting Message 4. Alternatively, the UE can still receive Message 4 to complete the RACH procedure but the gNB expects the subsequent transmission (after Message 4) to be delayed as the UE has entered into a blackout period.”)
Wong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first signaling indicates a terminal device to initiate random access on a first random access occasion”
However, Elshafie discloses the missing feature “wherein the first signaling indicates a terminal device to initiate random access on a first random access occasion” ([¶ 0128]: “In some examples, (e.g., at a time indicated by the UE, such as a time for a random access procedure), the network entity may assign one or more resources (e.g., dedicated resources) at a number or quantity of occasions for a random access procedure (e.g., a RACH procedure involving one or more of Msg1, Msg2, Msg3, or Msg4) that may be a contention-free random access procedure.”)
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 Wong and Elshafie, to modify the random access procedure as disclosed by Wong, to utilize random access occasions signaled as disclosed by Elshafie. The motivation for doing so is that, as implied in ¶ 128 of Elshafie, doing so enhances reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wong with Elshafie to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong further discloses “sending second signaling, wherein the second signaling indicates a second terminal device to initiate random access on a second random access occasion.” (¶ 0069]: “Escalating a page over a large area involving multiple gNBs would lead to unnecessary transmissions to page a UE, which is undesirable since that would affect other UEs' power consumption as these other UEs may have to decode a paging message in a PDSCH even though they are not being paged. Paging over multiple gNBs would also waste paging resources and would cause interference since paging is typically transmitted to reach the cell edge of each gNB.” Wherein Wong discloses the use of multiple EH-UEs and thus it would be obvious to also apply the combined technique as disclosed in relation to the parent claim to the other EH-UEs because it would lead to similar results.)
Regarding claim 3, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong further discloses “wherein the second random access occasion is a next random access occasion after the first random access occasion.” (The term “next” is broad, and thus could reasonably be interpreted by one having ordinary skill in the art as the random access occasion that is indicated after the first random access occasion. This is taught by the portions of Wong and Elshafie as discussed in relation to the parent claims.)
Regarding claim 4, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong further discloses “wherein the first indication information indicates that the first terminal device cannot complete the random access or data transmission after the random access comprises at least one of: the first indication information indicates that stored energy of the first terminal device is insufficient; the first indication information indicates that residual energy of the first terminal device is less than or equal to a first threshold; the first indication information indicates that signal received power of the first terminal device is less than or equal to a second threshold; or the first indication information indicates that a quantity of times of repeated data transmission of the first terminal device is greater than or equal to a third threshold.” ([¶¶ 0096-0097]: “However, the UE realises that it would not have sufficient energy to move into Connected Mode and so it transmits Message 3 with a blackout message indicating that it will blackout for T.sub.Blackout duration. The gNB is then aware that the UE has entered into a blackout and delays transmitting Message 4. Alternatively, the UE can still receive Message 4 to complete the RACH procedure but the gNB expects the subsequent transmission (after Message 4) to be delayed as the UE has entered into a blackout period.”)
Regarding claim 7, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong further discloses “determining, based on the first indication information, not to send response information to the first terminal device.” ([¶¶ 0096-0097]: “The gNB is then aware that the UE has entered into a blackout and delays transmitting Message 4.”)
Regarding claim 8, Wong discloses:
“A communication method, wherein the method comprises: receiving first signaling from a network device,…” ([¶ 0096]: “The UE has sufficient energy to transmit a PRACH and receive Message 2 from the network.”)
“…sending first indication information to the network device, wherein the first indication information indicates that a first terminal device cannot complete the random access or data transmission after the random access.” ([¶¶ 0096-0097]: “However, the UE realises that it would not have sufficient energy to move into Connected Mode and so it transmits Message 3 with a blackout message indicating that it will blackout for T.sub.Blackout duration. The gNB is then aware that the UE has entered into a blackout and delays transmitting Message 4. Alternatively, the UE can still receive Message 4 to complete the RACH procedure but the gNB expects the subsequent transmission (after Message 4) to be delayed as the UE has entered into a blackout period.”)
Wong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first signaling indicates a terminal device to initiate random access on a first random access occasion.”
However, Elshafie discloses the missing feature “wherein the first signaling indicates a terminal device to initiate random access on a first random access occasion” ([¶ 0128]: “In some examples, (e.g., at a time indicated by the UE, such as a time for a random access procedure), the network entity may assign one or more resources (e.g., dedicated resources) at a number or quantity of occasions for a random access procedure (e.g., a RACH procedure involving one or more of Msg1, Msg2, Msg3, or Msg4) that may be a contention-free random access procedure.”)
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 Wong and Elshafie, to modify the random access procedure as disclosed by Wong, to utilize random access occasions signaled as disclosed by Elshafie. The motivation for doing so is that, as implied in ¶ 128 of Elshafie, doing so enhances reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wong with Elshafie to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong further discloses “wherein the first indication information indicates that a first terminal device cannot complete the random access or data transmission after the random access comprises at least one of: the first indication information indicates that stored energy of the first terminal device is insufficient; the first indication information indicates that residual energy of the first terminal device is less than or equal to a first threshold; the first indication information indicates that signal received power of the first terminal device is less than or equal to a second threshold; or the first indication information indicates that a quantity of times of repeated data transmission of the first terminal device is greater than or equal to a third threshold.” ([¶¶ 0096-0097]: “However, the UE realises that it would not have sufficient energy to move into Connected Mode and so it transmits Message 3 with a blackout message indicating that it will blackout for T.sub.Blackout duration. The gNB is then aware that the UE has entered into a blackout and delays transmitting Message 4. Alternatively, the UE can still receive Message 4 to complete the RACH procedure but the gNB expects the subsequent transmission (after Message 4) to be delayed as the UE has entered into a blackout period.”)
Claims 10-13 and 16 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 and 7, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-4 and 7 are directed towards a method while claims 10-13 and 16 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Wong in paragraphs 40-41. Thus, claims 10-13 and 16 are rejected for substantially similar reasons to claims 1-4 and 7.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong (US 20250071682 A1) in view of Elshafie (US 20250203511 A1) and further in view of Wong2 (US 20210259013 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong does not explicitly disclose “wherein before the sending second signaling, the method further comprises: receiving a random number for initiating the random access from the first terminal device.”
However, Wong2 discloses the missing feature “wherein before the sending second signaling, the method further comprises: receiving a random number for initiating the random access from the first terminal device.” ([¶ 0069]: “In the existing system the UE includes a 40 bit ID in its Message 3 which can be the S-TMSI, C-RNTI (e.g. for non-contention based transmission) or a randomly generated ID.”)
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 Wong and Wong2, to modify the first indication information (message 2) as disclosed by Wong, to include a randomly generated ID as disclosed by Wong2. The motivation for doing so is that it allows identification of the UE, thus preventing collisions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wong with Wong2 to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Wong in view of Elshafie discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Wong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the random number and the first indication information are carried in same signaling.”
However, Wong2 discloses the missing “wherein the random number and the first indication information are carried in same signaling.” ([¶ 0069]: “In the existing system the UE includes a 40 bit ID in its Message 3 which can be the S-TMSI, C-RNTI (e.g. for non-contention based transmission) or a randomly generated ID.”)
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 Wong and Wong2, to modify the first indication information (message 3) as disclosed by Wong, to include a randomly generated ID as disclosed by Wong2. The motivation for doing so is that it allows identification of the UE, thus preventing collisions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wong with Wong2 to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 14-15 are substantially similar to claims 5-6 and are rejected for similar reasons.
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