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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Application filed 01/23/2025
Claim 16-35 are pending in this action. Claims 16, 26, 34, and 35 are independent
This Application claims priority from PCT/KR2023/010768 filed 07/25/2023 which claims priority from CN202310798277.2 filed 06/30/2023 which claims priority from CN202211672608.X filed 12/22/2022 which claims priority from CN202211167818.3 which claims priority from 09/23/2022 which claims priority from CN202210884311.3 07/25/2022
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.
Claims 16-18, 20-22, 26-28, 30-32, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20240340724, effectively filed 2021-09-17, (hereinafter Ramachandra) in view of Stauffer et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20200112988, published 2020-04-09 (hereinafter Stauffer).
As for independent claim 16, Ramachandra discloses a system and method comprising transmitting, to the second entity, the LBT failure information, wherein the LBT failure information is used for self-optimization of the second entity.
(Ramachandra discloses a second device (called a wireless device) receiving from a first entity (called a wireless network) a report containing LBT failure which is used for optimization, “As shown at block 310, the method includes the step of receiving a report of a HOF experienced by a wireless device in connection with a reconfiguration of at least one connection of the wireless device to the wireless network, the report comprising one or both of (a) an indication of at least one listen-before-talk, LBT, failure experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration or (b) an indication of a random access problem experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration. Again, in a 3GPP network, this reconfiguration may be a so-called “reconfiguration with sync,” as the illustrated method takes place in the context of handover.” [0143], “As shown at block 320, the method further includes the step of performing one or more network optimization tasks, based on the indication.” [0144])
Ramachandra does not appear to disclose a system and method performed by a first entity in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a second entity, at least one of a user equipment (UE) information request message or a message to request listen before talk (LBT) failure information.
However, Stauffer does disclose a system and method performed by a first entity in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a second entity, at least one of a user equipment (UE) information request message or a message to request listen before talk (LBT) failure information.
(Stauffer discloses a second entity (UE) sending to a first entity (base station) an LBT information request (which is interpreted to the information request message of the claim) which the base station responds with a message, “At 502, the UE 110 transmits to the base station 120 an LBT request message. The LBT request message includes LBT control parameters.” [0052], “At 504, after configuring its wireless-communication components, the base station 120 transmits messages to the UE 110.” [0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Stauffer, adding a UE initiate LBT failure diagnostic, to the network manager of Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
As for claim 17, the limitations of the parent claim 16 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the LBT failure information comprises information indicating a number of LBT failures.
(Ramachandra discloses the LBT failure information including the number of LBT failures, “A UL LBT failure flag may be set when one or more LBT failures were experienced when attempting to transmit a RACH message, e.g., msg1/msgA, or msg3, or when at least a certain number of LBT failures (said consistent LBT failure) were experienced when attempting to transmit a RACH message during this random access procedure in a certain UL BWP.” [0066])
As for claim 18, the limitations of the parent claim 17 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the LBT failure information further comprises a LBT failure indication associated with consistent uplink LBT failures.
(Ramachandra discloses the LBT failure information including the section of uplink bandwidth which experienced the failure, “In some embodiments or instances, the one or more messages may identify at least one uplink bandwidth part (UL BWP) in which at least one LBT failure was experienced by the wireless device. In some embodiments or instances, the one or more messages may indicate an uplink message for which at least one LBT failure was experienced by the wireless device.” [0139])
As for claim 20, the limitations of the parent claim 16 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the transmitting of the LBT failure information comprises: transmitting a UE information response message comprising the LBT failure information.
(Ramachandra discloses a wireless device (which could be a UE) receiving from a first entity (called a wireless network) a report containing LBT failure, “As shown at block 310, the method includes the step of receiving a report of a HOF experienced by a wireless device in connection with a reconfiguration of at least one connection of the wireless device to the wireless network, the report comprising one or both of (a) an indication of at least one listen-before-talk, LBT, failure experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration or (b) an indication of a random access problem experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration. Again, in a 3GPP network, this reconfiguration may be a so-called “reconfiguration with sync,” as the illustrated method takes place in the context of handover.” [0143])
As for claim 21, the limitations of the parent claim 20 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the UE information response message comprises a random access (RA) report comprising the LBT failure information.
(Ramachandra discloses the report containing random access information with LBT failure information, “In some embodiments or instances, the one or more messages may comprise, for each of one or more random access attempts associated with the RLF, an indication of whether the respective random access attempt suffered an LBT failure in transmitting a random access message.” [0140])
As for claim 22, the limitations of the parent claim 20 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the UE information response message comprises a radio link failure (RLF) report comprising the LBT failure information.
(Ramachandra discloses the report containing RLF information with LBT failure information, “In some embodiments or instances, the report may comprise, for each of one or more random access attempts associated with the RLF, an indication of whether the respective random access attempt suffered an LBT failure in transmitting a random access message.” [0148])
As for independent claim 26, claim 26 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 16 and is rejected alongside the same rationale. (Ramachandra paragraph [0164], [0179], [0182] – [0187] discloses transceivers and processors).
As for claim 27, the limitations of the parent claim 26 have been discussed. Claim 27 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 17 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
As for claim 28, the limitations of the parent claim 27 have been discussed. Claim 28 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 18 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
As for claim 30, the limitations of the parent claim 26 have been discussed. Claim 30 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 20 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
As for claim 31, the limitations of the parent claim 30 have been discussed. Claim 31 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 21 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
As for claim 32, the limitations of the parent claim 30 have been discussed. Claim 32 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 22 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
As for independent claim 34, Ramachandra discloses a system and method comprising receiving, from the first entity, the LBT failure information and performing self optimization based on the LBT failure information.
(Ramachandra discloses a second device (called a wireless device) receiving from a first entity (called a wireless network) a report containing LBT failure which is used for optimization, “As shown at block 310, the method includes the step of receiving a report of a HOF experienced by a wireless device in connection with a reconfiguration of at least one connection of the wireless device to the wireless network, the report comprising one or both of (a) an indication of at least one listen-before-talk, LBT, failure experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration or (b) an indication of a random access problem experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration. Again, in a 3GPP network, this reconfiguration may be a so-called “reconfiguration with sync,” as the illustrated method takes place in the context of handover.” [0143], “As shown at block 320, the method further includes the step of performing one or more network optimization tasks, based on the indication.” [0144])
Ramachandra does not appear to disclose a system and method comprising: transmitting, to a first entity, at least one of a user equipment (UE) information request message or a message to request listen before talk (LBT) failure information
However, Stauffer does disclose a system and method comprising: transmitting, to a first entity, at least one of a user equipment (UE) information request message or a message to request listen before talk (LBT) failure information
(Stauffer discloses a second entity (UE) sending to a first entity (base station) an LBT request which the base station responds with a message, “At 502, the UE 110 transmits to the base station 120 an LBT request message. The LBT request message includes LBT control parameters.” [0052], “At 504, after configuring its wireless-communication components, the base station 120 transmits messages to the UE 110.” [0054])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Stauffer, adding a UE initiate LBT failure diagnostic, to the network manager of Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
As for independent claim 35, claim 35 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 34 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
Claims 19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Stauffer in further view of Terry et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20220039016, published 2022-02-03 (hereinafter Terry), in further view of Wang, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20220191966, published 2022-06-16 (hereinafter Wang).
As for claim 19, the limitations of the parent claim 17 have been discussed. Terry discloses a system and method wherein the LBT failures are downlink LBT failures.
(Terry discloses LBT failure information including downlink LBT failure, “wherein the downlink information is associated with channel access of the base station and may include an indication of downlink listen-before-talk failure” [0599])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Terry, adding downlink LBT failure information, to the network manager of Stauffer and Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
Neither Terry nor Ramachandra appear to disclose a system and method wherein the LBT failure information further comprises UE identification information.
However, Wang does disclose a system and method wherein the LBT failure information further comprises UE identification information.
(Wang discloses the LBT failure information being associated with UE identification information, “The at least one condition may comprise a tenth condition that is met when an identity of the wireless device is associated with the channel occupancy time. In other words, the wireless device ID (such as C-RNTI) may be determined to be relevant to the COT. The determination may be made via explicit signaling (such as Downlink Control Information (DCI), or Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE)” [0083], “The at least one condition may comprise an eleventh condition that is met when a measured channel occupancy or a number of listen before talk (LBT) failures is below a configured threshold. A LBT failure occurs when the channel is determined to be busy by the wireless device. In other words, upon detection of DL signaling indicating a coming DL data burst associated with a COT period, a wireless device may determine to extend its DRX active time when the measured channel occupancy or the number of occurrences of LBT failures is below a configured threshold, meaning that the system (cell, bandwidth part (BWP), subband or channel) has a low load, so that all or most wireless devices in the system can be quickly serviced within a short time period. … The enabling or disabling may require additional signaling, such as a RRC signaling message, a MAC CE or a DCI signaling.” [0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Wang, adding UE identification information, to the network manager of Terry, Stauffer, and Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
As for claim 29, the limitations of the parent claim 27 have been discussed. Claim 29 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 19 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Stauffer in further view of Zhang et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20230328603, effectively filed 2021-10-11 (hereinafter Zhang).
As for claim 23, the limitations of the parent claim 16 have been discussed. Zhang discloses a system and method wherein the self optimization comprises mobility robustness optimization.
(Zhang discloses a determination of mobility robustness optimization (MRO) needing to be done based on LBT failure detection, “In order to facilitate the understanding of a method for determining an MRO critical scenario in the embodiments of the present disclosure, the too late handover, the too early handover and the handover to wrong cell will be described hereinafter at first.” [0080], “In addition, in a New Radio (NR) system, the RLF is caused by one of the following reasons: … (5) an LBT failure occurs continuously under a certain condition;” [0098])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Zhang, adding UE identification information, to the network manager of Stauffer and Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
As for claim 33, the limitations of the parent claim 26 have been discussed. Claim 33 is directed to a system for implementing the method of claim 23 and is rejected alongside the same rationale.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Stauffer in further view of Wang.
As for claim 24, the limitations of the parent claim 16 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the transmitting of the LBT failure information comprises: transmitting an access and mobility indication message comprising the LBT failure information.
(Ramachandra discloses the message including handover failure (HOF) information which according to applicant specification [0292] involves mobility information and random access information, “As shown at block 220, the method further includes the step of sending, to the wireless network, one or more messages reporting the HOF, the one or more messages comprising one or both of (a) an indication of at least one listen-before-talk, LBT, failure experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration or (b) an indication of a random access problem” [0136])
Ramachandra does not appear to disclose a system and method wherein the message to request the LBT failure information is a Xn message.
However, Stauffer discloses a system and method wherein the message to request the LBT failure information is a Xn message.
(Stauffer discloses using a Xn interface to communicate between the first entity (base station) and second entity (UE), “The base stations 120 also include an inter-base station interface 266, such as an Xn and/or X2 interface, which the base station manager 264 configures to exchange user-plane and control-plane data between another base station 120, to manage the communication of the base stations 120 with the UE 110. The base stations 120 include a core network interface 268 that the base station manager 264 configures to exchange user-plane and control-plane data with core network functions and entities.” [0043])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Stauffer, adding Xn format communication, to the network manager of Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable communication between BS and UE.
Neither Ramachandra nor Stauffer appear to disclose a system and method wherein the LBT failure information is a message comprising UE identification information.
However, Wang does disclose a system and method wherein the LBT failure information is a message comprising UE identification information.
(Wang discloses the LBT failure information being associated with UE identification information, “The at least one condition may comprise a tenth condition that is met when an identity of the wireless device is associated with the channel occupancy time. In other words, the wireless device ID (such as C-RNTI) may be determined to be relevant to the COT. The determination may be made via explicit signaling (such as Downlink Control Information (DCI), or Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE)” [0083], “The at least one condition may comprise an eleventh condition that is met when a measured channel occupancy or a number of listen before talk (LBT) failures is below a configured threshold. A LBT failure occurs when the channel is determined to be busy by the wireless device. In other words, upon detection of DL signaling indicating a coming DL data burst associated with a COT period, a wireless device may determine to extend its DRX active time when the measured channel occupancy or the number of occurrences of LBT failures is below a configured threshold, meaning that the system (cell, bandwidth part (BWP), subband or channel) has a low load, so that all or most wireless devices in the system can be quickly serviced within a short time period. … The enabling or disabling may require additional signaling, such as a RRC signaling message, a MAC CE or a DCI signaling.” [0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Wang, adding UE identification information, to the network manager of Stauffer and Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Stauffer in further view of Wang in further view of Mukherjee et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20210076424, published 2021-03-11 (hereinafter Mukherjee).
As for claim 25, the limitations of the parent claim 16 have been discussed. Ramachandra discloses a system and method wherein the first entity is a gNB-distributed unit(DU) and the second entity is a gNB-centralized unit(CU)
(Ramachandra discloses where the first and second entity could be gNBs which are centralized or distributed, “FIG. 6 shows a network node 600 in accordance with some embodiments. As used herein, network node refers to equipment capable, configured, arranged and/or operable to communicate directly or indirectly with a UE and/or with other network nodes or equipment, in a telecommunication network. Examples of network nodes include, but are not limited to, access points (APs) (e.g., radio access points), base stations (BSs) (e.g., radio base stations, Node Bs, evolved Node Bs (eNBs) and NR NodeBs (gNBs)).” [0177], “Base stations may be categorized based on the amount of coverage they provide (or, stated differently, their transmit power level) and so, depending on the provided amount of coverage, may be referred to as femto base stations, pico base stations, micro base stations, or macro base stations. A base station may be a relay node or a relay donor node controlling a relay. A network node may also include one or more (or all) parts of a distributed radio base station such as centralized digital units and/or remote radio units (RRUs), sometimes referred to as Remote Radio Heads (RRHs). Such remote radio units may or may not be integrated with an antenna as an antenna integrated radio. Parts of a distributed radio base station may also be referred to as nodes in a distributed antenna system (DAS).” [0178])
wherein the transmitting of the LBT failure information comprises: transmitting an access and mobility indication message comprising the LBT failure information.
(Ramachandra discloses the message including handover failure (HOF) information which according to applicant specification [0292] involves mobility information and random access information, “As shown at block 220, the method further includes the step of sending, to the wireless network, one or more messages reporting the HOF, the one or more messages comprising one or both of (a) an indication of at least one listen-before-talk, LBT, failure experienced by the wireless device in connection with the reconfiguration or (b) an indication of a random access problem” [0136])
Neither Ramachandra nor Stauffer appear to disclose a system and method wherein the LBT failure information is a message comprising UE identification information.
However, Wang does disclose a system and method wherein the LBT failure information is a message comprising UE identification information.
(Wang discloses the LBT failure information being associated with UE identification information, “The at least one condition may comprise a tenth condition that is met when an identity of the wireless device is associated with the channel occupancy time. In other words, the wireless device ID (such as C-RNTI) may be determined to be relevant to the COT. The determination may be made via explicit signaling (such as Downlink Control Information (DCI), or Medium Access Control Control Element (MAC CE)” [0083], “The at least one condition may comprise an eleventh condition that is met when a measured channel occupancy or a number of listen before talk (LBT) failures is below a configured threshold. A LBT failure occurs when the channel is determined to be busy by the wireless device. In other words, upon detection of DL signaling indicating a coming DL data burst associated with a COT period, a wireless device may determine to extend its DRX active time when the measured channel occupancy or the number of occurrences of LBT failures is below a configured threshold, meaning that the system (cell, bandwidth part (BWP), subband or channel) has a low load, so that all or most wireless devices in the system can be quickly serviced within a short time period. … The enabling or disabling may require additional signaling, such as a RRC signaling message, a MAC CE or a DCI signaling.” [0084])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Wang, adding UE identification information, to the network manager of Stauffer and Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
Neither Wang, Ramachandra, nor Stauffer appear to disclose a system and method wherein the message to request the LBT failure information is a F1 message.
However Mukherjee does disclose a system and method wherein the message to request the LBT failure information is a F1 message.
(Mukherjee discloses using the F1 format for transmitting LBT information, “Each frame 301a-c and 303a-c includes data and control signals in the DL/UL. The first frames 301a-c are associated to frequency spectrum F1 (Band A)” [0106], “A first frame 401 is an example of a frame associated to the frequency Band A in a periodic 3GPP (e.g., NR) radio frame transmission, and the second frame 409 is associated to the frequency Band B in a periodic NR radio frame transmission. Radio frames 401,409 are 10 ms long and consist of 10 slots. Each slot length is 1 ms, and maybe used for DL or UL. The control signals for the frame 401 are transmitted through Physical Dedicated Control Channel (PDCCH) 405. The data signals for the first frame 401 are transmitted through Physical Dedicated Shared Channel (PDSCH) 407. The LBT procedure 403 are used to request LBT access on unlicensed frequency Band A.” [0107])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the network manager of Mukherjee, adding the F1 message format, to the network manager of Wang, Stauffer, and Ramachandra in order to have a more reliable error detection system.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
You et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20220322452, discloses self-optimization after LBT failure in paragraphs [0100-0104].
Lee et al, U. S. Patent Publication No. 20220116911, discloses sending UE identifier information with LBT failure information in paragraphs [0037-0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C LAWRENCE whose telephone number is (571)272-9833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/JOHN CALEB LAWRENCE/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
/JEANETTE J PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights