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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a continuation of application 18605389.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
3. Regarding the prior art rejection, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant states that the prior art, 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #94 R2-163371 in view of Tirronen (US 20180255585 A1) and in further view of Deenoo (US 20190182884 A1), does not teach the independent claims. Specifically, the Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach “selecting a preamble, for requesting system information, based on information relating to a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS)”. 3GPP discloses a preamble for requesting SI (see section 2 and Fig. 2; the Examiner notes that sending a preamble necessarily involves selecting a preamble). Deenoo discloses using e.g. a PSS/SSS to set preamble timing. The Examiner understands the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation “selecting a preamble” to be inclusive of all aspects of selecting the preamble (e.g. selecting the preamble timing), as a preamble transmitted at time t=0 is a different entity than a preamble transmitted at time t=1. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #94 R2-163371 in view of Tirronen (US 20180255585 A1) and in further view of Deenoo (US 20190182884 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 3GPP discloses subject matter relating to system information transmission. Specifically, 3GPP discloses a method performed by a terminal device (UE; see section 2), the method comprising:
selecting a preamble, for requesting a system information (connection setup incl. preamble for requesting SI; see section 2 and Fig. 2), based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS);
transmitting, to a network device, the preamble for requesting the system information (UE transmits RA Preamble to network node; see Fig. 2; this is a request for on demand SI; see section 2.1) based on a configuration index; and
receiving the system information from the network device based on a timing, wherein the timing is determined based on a periodicity of the system information (SI response; see section 2.1 and Fig. 2; SI in general is broadcast periodically; see sections 5 and 6; the Examiner notes that all subsequent transmissions (and therefore transmission timings) are based on the reception of the SI e.g. the MIB and SIB1)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the transmission of the preamble is based on a PRACH configuration index, or the PSS/SSS.
Tirronen discloses subject matter relating to random access, including the transmission of the request based on the PRACH configuration index
(PRACH resources are defined by parameters incl. PRACH Configuration Index; see paragraph [0116])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Tirronen by specifying that the preamble is transmitted based on the PRACH configuration index. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this is standard practice in LTE, and allows for streamlined processing of the RACH. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
3GPP and Tirronen do not explicitly disclose the PSS/SSS limitation.
Deenoo discloses subject matter relating to network access. Specifically, Deenoo discloses:
based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (WTRU uses a preamble timing based on signature comprising PSS and SSS; see paragraph [0082])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP ‘371 and Tirronen with Deenoo by incorporating the PSS/SSS, and using them to select and transmit the preamble. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do, as this is standard practice in cellular systems. Doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 6, and 8, 3GPP ‘371, Tirronen, and Deenoo teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s). 3GPP ‘371 further discloses:
wherein the preamble is transmitted in a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) (PRACH preamble; see Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 3, 3GPP discloses a terminal device (UE; see section 2) comprising:
at least one memory (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising memory); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising processors coupled to memory):
select a preamble, for requesting a system information (connection setup incl. preamble for requesting SI; see section 2 and Fig. 2), based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS);
transmit, to a network device, the preamble for requesting the system information (UE transmits RA Preamble to network node; see Fig. 2; this is a request for on demand SI; see section 2.1) based on a configuration index; and
receive the system information from the network device based on a timing, wherein the timing is determined based on a periodicity of the system information (SI response; see section 2.1 and Fig. 2; SI in general is broadcast periodically; see sections 5 and 6; the Examiner notes that all subsequent transmissions (and therefore transmission timings) are based on the reception of the SI e.g. the MIB and SIB1)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the transmission of the preamble is based on a PRACH configuration index, or the PSS/SSS.
Tirronen discloses subject matter relating to random access, including the transmission of the request based on the PRACH configuration index
(PRACH resources are defined by parameters incl. PRACH Configuration Index; see paragraph [0116])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Tirronen by specifying that the preamble is transmitted based on the PRACH configuration index. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this is standard practice in LTE, and allows for streamlined processing of the RACH. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
3GPP and Tirronen do not explicitly disclose the PSS/SSS limitation.
Deenoo discloses subject matter relating to network access. Specifically, Deenoo discloses:
based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (WTRU uses a preamble timing based on signature comprising PSS and SSS; see paragraph [0082]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP ‘371 and Tirronen with Deenoo by incorporating the PSS/SSS, and using them to select and transmit the preamble. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do, as this is standard practice in cellular systems. Doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 5, 3GPP discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising (UE; see section 2; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising media storing programs):
selecting a preamble, for requesting a system information (connection setup incl. preamble for requesting SI; see section 2 and Fig. 2), based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS);
transmitting, to a network device, the preamble for requesting the system information (UE transmits RA Preamble to network node; see Fig. 2; this is a request for on demand SI; see section 2.1) based on a configuration index; and
receiving the system information from the network device based on a timing, wherein the timing is determined based on a periodicity of the system information (SI response; see section 2.1 and Fig. 2; SI in general is broadcast periodically; see sections 5 and 6; the Examiner notes that all subsequent transmissions (and therefore transmission timings) are based on the reception of the SI e.g. the MIB and SIB1)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the transmission of the preamble is based on a PRACH configuration index, or the PSS/SSS.
Tirronen discloses subject matter relating to random access, including the transmission of the request based on the PRACH configuration index
(PRACH resources are defined by parameters incl. PRACH Configuration Index; see paragraph [0116])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Tirronen by specifying that the preamble is transmitted based on the PRACH configuration index. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this is standard practice in LTE, and allows for streamlined processing of the RACH. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
3GPP and Tirronen do not explicitly disclose the PSS/SSS limitation.
Deenoo discloses subject matter relating to network access. Specifically, Deenoo discloses:
based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (WTRU uses a preamble timing based on signature comprising PSS and SSS; see paragraph [0082]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP ‘371 and Tirronen with Deenoo by incorporating the PSS/SSS, and using them to select and transmit the preamble. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do, as this is standard practice in cellular systems. Doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 7, 3GPP discloses a method performed by a network device (NB; see Fig. 2), the method comprising:
receiving, from a terminal device, a preamble, for requesting a system information (preamble for requesting SI sent to NB; see section 2 and Fig. 2), based on a configuration index, the preamble for requesting the system information being based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS); and
transmitting the system information to the terminal device based on a timing, wherein the timing is determined based on a periodicity of the system information (SI response; see section 2.1 and Fig. 2; SI in general is broadcast periodically; see sections 5 and 6; the Examiner notes that all subsequent transmissions (and therefore transmission timings) are based on the reception of the SI e.g. the MIB and SIB1)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the transmission of the preamble is based on a PRACH configuration index, or the PSS/SSS.
Tirronen discloses subject matter relating to random access, including the transmission of the request based on the PRACH configuration index
(PRACH resources are defined by parameters incl. PRACH Configuration Index; see paragraph [0116])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Tirronen by specifying that the preamble is transmitted based on the PRACH configuration index. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this is standard practice in LTE, and allows for streamlined processing of the RACH. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
3GPP and Tirronen do not explicitly disclose the PSS/SSS limitation.
Deenoo discloses subject matter relating to network access. Specifically, Deenoo discloses:
based on a signal, the signal including a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (WTRU uses a preamble timing based on signature comprising PSS and SSS; see paragraph [0082]
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP ‘371 and Tirronen with Deenoo by incorporating the PSS/SSS, and using them to select and transmit the preamble. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do, as this is standard practice in cellular systems. Doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Mallick – US 20180324862 A1 – RA
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464