Jump to content

Patent Application 18298698 - ADJUSTMENT OF SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 18298698 - ADJUSTMENT OF SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK

Title: ADJUSTMENT OF SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK TRANSMISSIONS FOR REPEATER DEVICE MIGRATION

Application Information

  • Invention Title: ADJUSTMENT OF SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK TRANSMISSIONS FOR REPEATER DEVICE MIGRATION
  • Application Number: 18298698
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2023-04-11T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2023-04-11T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 370
  • National Sub-Class: 331000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 80471
  • Art Unit: 2645
  • Tech Center: 2600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 4

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
1.	The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .

Claim Interpretation
2.	The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.

The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.


3.	Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).  The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. 
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph).  The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function. 
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.  Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 

4.	The limitations “means for receiving” and “means for transmitting”
as in claims 27-28 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), because they use a non-structural term “means” coupled with functional language, e.g., “receiving” and “transmitting”,  without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier. 
Since these claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), claims 27-28 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structures (or material or acts) described in the specification at paragraph [0106] and in Figure 7, elements 710 and 715, that achieve the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. 
 If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5.	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.  

6.	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.


7.	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.

8.	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.

9.	Claims 1, 6-7, 11, 15, 20-21, 25, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0170962 (hereinafter Ali), in view of Baba et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0211521 (hereinafter Baba).
	Regarding claim 1, Ali discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a first network entity (disclosed is a cellular base station [“apparatus”], according to [0047], [0065], Fig. 1 [element 121]), comprising: 
	a processor (the base station comprises a processor, according to [0164], Fig. 8 [element 805]); 
memory coupled with the processor (the base station comprises a memory coupled to the processor, according to [0167], Fig. 8 [element 810]); and 
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (the base station’s memory stores instructions that are executed by the base station’s processor, according to [0167]) to cause the apparatus to: 
receive, from a repeater device, a report that indicates signal measurements associated with a first cell (the base station receives, from a repeater, a report of measurements made by said repeater on a reference signal transmitted from said base station, according to [0139]); 
transmit, based at least in part on the report, a first signal that indicates to adjust transmission of a plurality of synchronization signal blocks by a second network entity using the first cell (based on the measurement report received from the repeater, the base station configures said repeater [“second network entity”] to use the beam direction/spatial filter associated with the highest RSRP beam for the next CSI-RS period (which is associated with an SSB, according to [0092], [0143]), according to [0141]).
Ali does not expressly disclose that the apparatus transmits, based at least in part on the first signal, a second signal that indicates to perform a handover operation for the repeater device from a second cell to the first cell.
Baba discloses that the apparatus transmits, based at least in part on the first signal, a second signal that indicates to perform a handover operation for the repeater device from a second cell to the first cell (in response to a request for handover received from a repeater, a base station transmits a message, granting permission for handover, to said repeater, according to [0247]-[0248], Fig. 27 [steps S3603 and S3604]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali with Baba such that the apparatus transmits, based at least in part on the first signal, a second signal that indicates to perform a handover operation for the repeater device from a second cell to the first cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accommodate repeaters that are mounted in vehicles (Babe:  [0368]).
Claim 15 recites the method (Ali discloses a method for repeated configuration, according to Abstract) according to which the apparatus recited in claim 1 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 27 recites the apparatus, comprising means for receiving and means for transmitting (the cellular base station of Ali comprises a transceiver, according to [0164], Fig. 8 [element 825]), that corresponds to the apparatus recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 29 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a first network entity, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor to perform the steps (the cellular base station of Ali comprises a non-transitory storage devices that stores code that is executed by the processor, according to [0029]-[0031]) that are performed by the apparatus recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.  Additionally, Ali discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a third signal that indicates a time period over which the second network entity transmits one or more synchronization signal blocks using the first cell (the base station indicates the CSI-RS time period during which the repeater is to use the assigned beam (which has a corresponding SSB, according to [0143]), according to [0141]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.  Additionally, Ali discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a third signal that indicates to deactivate transmission of one or more synchronization signal blocks associated with the repeater device using the second cell (a repeater may be instructed by the base station to deactivate, and therefore no longer transmit its associated SSBs, according to [0143]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.  Additionally, Ali discloses that the first signal indicates to adjust transmission of the plurality of synchronization signal blocks prior to the repeater device connecting to the first cell or the first signal indicates to adjust transmission of the plurality of synchronization signal blocks after the repeater device connects to the first cell (the base station configures the repeater to use the beam direction/spatial filter associated with the highest RSRP beam for the next CSI-RS after having previously connecting with said repeater [“the first signal indicates to adjust transmission of the plurality of synchronization signal blocks after the repeater device connects to the first cell”], according to [0139]-[0141]).
Claim 20 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
Claim 21 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claim 25 does not differ substantively from claim 11, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 11.

10.	Claims 2-5, 16-19, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Baba as applied to claims 1, 15, 27, and 29 above, further in view of Ang et al., CN 113853822 A (hereinafter Ang). 
	Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.  Additionally, Ali discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, prior to transmitting the first signal, a third signal that indicates a first quantity of synchronization signal blocks (the base station configures the repeater to use the beam direction/spatial filter associated with the highest RSRP beam for the next CSI-RS, after receiving the measurement report, associated with a number of SSBs, from the repeater, according to [0139]-[0143]).
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the first signal indicates for the second network entity to transmit a second quantity of synchronization signal blocks greater than the first quantity of synchronization signal blocks using the first cell.
	Ang discloses that the first signal indicates for the second network entity to transmit a second quantity of synchronization signal blocks greater than the first quantity of synchronization signal blocks using the first cell (a UE performs a random access process with a base station using synchronization signal block mapping, according to Abstract, whereby a number of synchronization signal blocks that is greater than a threshold are mapped to a physical random access channel opportunity, according to page 6 lines 9-16). 
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba with Ang such that the first signal indicates for the second network entity to transmit a second quantity of synchronization signal blocks greater than the first quantity of synchronization signal blocks using the first cell.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a reliable and efficient random access process (Ang:  Abstract).
	Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ali, Baba, and Ang discloses all the limitations of claim 2.  
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that two or more synchronization signal blocks of the second quantity of synchronization signal blocks are associated with the repeater device.
	Ang discloses that two or more synchronization signal blocks of the second quantity of synchronization signal blocks are associated with the repeater device (the base station serving the UE may be a relay base station, according to page 17 lines 52-57, page 18 lines 13-23).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba as modified by Ang with Ang such that two or more synchronization signal blocks of the second quantity of synchronization signal blocks are associated with the repeater device.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a reliable and efficient random access process (Ang:  Abstract).
	Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ali, Baba, and Ang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.  
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a fourth signal that indicates a directional beam for the two or more synchronization signal blocks associated with the repeater device, wherein the directional beam is directed towards the repeater device.
	Ang discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a fourth signal that indicates a directional beam for the two or more synchronization signal blocks associated with the repeater device, wherein the directional beam is directed towards the repeater device (based on system information signalling or radio resource control (RRC) signalling, the UE determines the association between beams carrying synchronization signal blocks and additional beams carrying a random access preamble, according to Abstract).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba as modified by Ang with Ang such that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a fourth signal that indicates a directional beam for the two or more synchronization signal blocks associated with the repeater device, wherein the directional beam is directed towards the repeater device.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate a reliable and efficient random access process (Ang:  Abstract).
	Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ali, Baba, and Ang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.  Additionally, Ali discloses that the first signal indicates to activate transmission of the two or more synchronization signal blocks associated with the repeater device using the first cell (the base station configures the repeater to use a particular beam direction (which is associated with a periodic SSB/CSI-RS resource, according to [0110], [0143]), according to [0141]).
	Claims 16, 28, and 30 do not differ substantively from claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claim 17 does not differ substantively from claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claim 18 does not differ substantively from claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 19 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.

11.	Claims 8-10 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Baba as applied to claims 1, 7, 15, and 21 above, further in view of Cho et al., CN 105850176 B (hereinafter Cho).
	Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a fourth signal that indicates to release a user equipment context, wherein the fourth signal comprises the third signal.
	Cho discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a fourth signal that indicates to release a user equipment context, wherein the fourth signal comprises the third signal (an MME transmits, to an eNB, a UE context release request, according to page 13 lines 9-14).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba with Cho such that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a fourth signal that indicates to release a user equipment context, wherein the fourth signal comprises the third signal.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control congestion in a mobile communication system (Cho:  Abstract).
	Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on receiving the report, a third signal requesting to establish a user equipment context, wherein the third signal comprises the first signal.
	Cho discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on receiving the report, a third signal requesting to establish a user equipment context, wherein the third signal comprises the first signal (based on receiving, from a UE, an extended service request comprising reported information, an MME transmits, to an eNB, a UE context establishment request, according to page 13 lines 9-14).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba with Cho such that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on receiving the report, a third signal requesting to establish a user equipment context, wherein the third signal comprises the first signal.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control congestion in a mobile communication system (Cho:  Abstract).
	Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on receiving the report, a third signal requesting to modify a user equipment context, wherein the third signal comprises the first signal.
	Cho discloses that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on receiving the report, a third signal requesting to modify a user equipment context, wherein the third signal comprises the first signal (based on receiving, from a UE, an extended service request comprising reported information, an MME transmits, to an eNB, a UE context modification request, according to page 13 lines 9-14).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba with Cho such that the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on receiving the report, a third signal requesting to modify a user equipment context, wherein the third signal comprises the first signal.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to control congestion in a mobile communication system (Cho:  Abstract).
Claim 22 does not differ substantively from claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Claim 23 does not differ substantively from claim 9, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 9.
Claim 24 does not differ substantively from claim 10, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 10.

12.	Claims 12-14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Baba as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, further in view of Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0174770 (hereinafter Wang).
	Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the second network entity comprises a distributed unit (DU) that supports the first cell and the second cell.
	Wang discloses that the second network entity comprises a distributed unit (DU) that supports the first cell and the second cell (a DU supports a plurality of cells, according to [0805]).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba with Wang such that the second network entity comprises a distributed unit (DU) that supports the first cell and the second cell.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the use of urgent services by users (Wang:  [0555]).
	Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ali and Baba discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the second network entity comprises a first distributed unit (DU) that supports the first cell and a third network entity comprises a second DU that supports the second cell.
	Wang discloses that the second network entity comprises a first distributed unit (DU) that supports the first cell and a third network entity comprises a second DU that supports the second cell (discloses are a first DU and a second DU serving respective cells, according to [1027]-[1028]).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba with Wang such that the second network entity comprises a first distributed unit (DU) that supports the first cell and a third network entity comprises a second DU that supports the second cell.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the use of urgent services by users (Wang:  [0555]).
	Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ali, Baba, and Wang discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
	Neither Ali nor Baba expressly discloses that the first network entity comprises first a central unit (CU) that supports the second DU and a fourth network entity comprises a second central unit (CU) that supports the first DU.
	Wang discloses that the first network entity comprises first a central unit (CU) that supports the second DU and a fourth network entity comprises a second central unit (CU) that supports the first DU (disclosed are two CUs that each support a corresponding DU, according to [1027]-[1028]).
	It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ali as modified by Baba as modified by Wang with Wang such that the first network entity comprises first a central unit (CU) that supports the second DU and a fourth network entity comprises a second central unit (CU) that supports the first DU.
	One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the use of urgent services by users (Wang:  [0555]).
	Claim 26 does not differ substantively from claim 12, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 12.

Conclusion
13.	Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.

/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645                                                                                                                                                                                                        


    
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
        
            
    


Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.