DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RCE filed 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 8, 17, and 24 are amended, claims 7 and 23 are cancelled.
Claims 9-16 and 25-30 had been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-6, 8, 17-22, and 24 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 17-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakola et al. (US20200267768A1; “Hakola”) in view of Ali et al. (US20230032007A1; “Ali”) and Bhattad et al. (US20180097541; “Bhattad”).
Regarding claims 1 and 17,
Hakola discloses Beam Refinement in Two-Step Random Access Channel (RACH) Procedure (Title) including an apparatus for wireless communication (Fig. 9, 900), comprising a transceiver (902A); a memory (906); and one or more processors (904) coupled with the memory and the transceiver, the memory storing instructions (paragraphs 90-95) executable by the one or more processors to cause the apparatus to perform a method (Fig. 3) comprising receiving, from a network node, a configuration indicating whether the network node uses beam refinement in a two-step random access procedure (Title; Abstract; Fig. 3, step 312; paragraphs 5, 28, 35; UE receives multiple SSBs/CSI-RSs and RACH config from gNB enabling beam refinement of a two-step RACH between gNB and UE) to receive, from a user equipment, multiple repetitions of a first random access message (paragraph 37; repetition enabled/ON).
Hakola further shows selecting, based on the configuration indicating that the network node uses beam refinement (Fig. 4, selection from multiple SSBs/sub-beams of each SSB; paragraphs 37-40; gNB configures multiple CSI-RS sets with repetition enabled including CSI-RSs/SSB associations to use refined transmit beams for transmitting/receiving the second/data portion of MsgA), one or more parameters for transmitting a repetition of at least a portion of the first random access message/MsgA in the two-step random access procedure (Fig. 3, steps 314-316; paragraphs 35-40; select preamble associated with selected SSB/CSI-RS and determining refined beams associated with a specific CSI-RS) and transmitting, to the network node and based on the one or more parameters, the first random access message/MsgA as part of the two-step random access procedure (Fig. 3, steps 318-320; paragraphs 42-43; preamble and data portion of random access message/MsgA are transmitted on the indicated preferred CSI-RS resource indicating the refined beam used for reception).
Hakola discloses measuring RSRP of received SSBs for narrowing/refining beams (paragraph 38-41) but does not expressly disclose transmitting the multiple repetitions of a MsgA using a different receive beam for each of the multiple repetitions.
Ali discloses analogous art (Title: Indicating Beam Correspondence using a RACH Procedure) including transmitting multiple repetitions of a MsgA using a different receive beam for each of the multiple repetitions (paragraphs 88, 118, 126; multiple repetitions of MsgA with the same preamble using different set of beams) and transmitting of one or more additional repetitions of the random access message based on whether the network node uses beam refinement and based on comparing a received signal power of a SSB to a threshold (paragraph 90, 118-122, 127; beam refinement and MsgA repetitions; paragraph 107; UE transmits multiple preambles using multiple beams selected based on meeting a predefined threshold of detected SSBs RSRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Hakola by transmitting the multiple repetitions of a MsgA using a different receive beam for each of the multiple repetitions and transmitting of one or more additional repetitions of the random access message based on whether the network node uses beam refinement and based on comparing a received signal power of a SSB to a threshold, as shown by Ali, thereby increasing the likelihood of LBT access providing LBT mechanism for each of the multiple CSI-RS in Hakola.
The combination of Hakola and Ali do not expressly show additional repetitions based on received signal power being less than a threshold.
Bhattad discloses analogous art (Title: coverage enhancement and normal modes switching related optimization) including additional repetitions based on received signal power being less than a threshold (paragraphs 13, 22, 31; coverage extension including additional repetitions based on detecting channel coverage conditions below a threshold).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Hakola and Ali by including additional repetitions based on received signal power being less than a threshold, as shown by Bhattad, thereby improving reliability.
Regarding claims 2 and 18,
The combination of Hakola, Ali, and Bhattad discloses selecting the one or more parameters, based on whether the base station uses beam refinement, to include resources over which to transmit the first random access message (Fig. 3, steps 314-316; paragraphs 35-40; determining refined RX beam specifically for certain CSI-RS resource).
Regarding claims 3 and 19,
The combination of Hakola, Ali, and Bhattad discloses selecting the one or more parameters, based on whether the base station uses beam refinement, to include a mapping of random access occasion to payload occasion for transmitting the first random access message (paragraph 36; various mappings in RACH config data).
Regarding claims 4, 5, 20, and 21,
The combination of Hakola, Ali, and Bhattad discloses selecting the one or more parameters, based on whether the base station uses beam refinement, to include a random access preamble to use in transmitting the first random access message and payload resources for transmitting the first random access message (as shown above; Fig. 3, steps 314-320; paragraphs 35-43; select preamble associated with selected SSB/CSI-RS and determining refined beams associated with a specific CSI-RS; preamble and data portion of random access message are transmitted on the indicated preferred CSI-RS resource indicating the refined beam used for data part reception).
Regarding claims 6 and 22,
The combination of Hakola, Ali, and Bhattad discloses selecting the one or more parameters, based on whether the base station uses beam refinement, to include transmission properties for transmitting the first random access message (paragraph 36).
Regarding claims 8 and 24,
The combination of Hakola, Ali, and Bhattad discloses receiving the configuration in remaining minimum system information or primary broadcast channel transmitted by the base station (paragraphs 35-36).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 6-8 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Hakola fails to disclose or suggest receiving, from a network node, a configuration indicating whether the network node uses beam refinement in a two-step random access procedure to receive, from a UE, multiple repetitions of a first random access message. Applicant contends the RACH configuration in Fig. 3, step 312 of Hakola does not indicate whether the gNB uses beam refinement to receive multiple repetitions but, rather, only describes beam refinement in the context of the UE refining beams. On pgs. 8-10, Applicant further contends the rejection improperly separates the definition of beam refinement for “receiving multiple repetitions…..using a different receive beam for each of the repetitions” and, further, that the UE is simply configured to transmit repetitions in Hakola, not based on any indication that the network node uses beam refinement.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As now shown in the rejection of the independent claims, as previously for now-cancelled dependent claims 7 and 23, Hakola clearly discloses “beam refinement” (Title; Abstract and throughout the cited disclosure) between UE and gNB, where one of ordinary skill in the art would not construe such disclosure as applying to either the UE or gNB, but to the communication between UE and gNB. Hakola’s entire disclosure focuses on the use of such beam refinement in a two-step RACH procedure, as claimed, and provides a definition of “beam refinement” in paragraph 28 that is far broader in scope than alleged by Applicant. More specifically, Hakola describes how the use of multiple SSBs/CSI-RSs received by the UE from the gNB in Fig. 3, step 312, enables the refining of beams for the UE to send preamble and data of MsgA transmission (steps 318-320) to the gNB. Hakola further expressly discloses the configuration of “multiple CSI-RSs with repetition enabled (e.g. turned ON) including CSI-RSs/SSB associations so that the UE can refine transmit beams for those repetitions (paragraph 37). Hakola is only admittedly deficient in using multiple beams for those multiple repetitions, thus the rejection relies on Ali to more expressly show the use of multiple beams for transmitting the multiple repetitions in Hakola, while Bhattad is further relied upon to show the further claim requirement of additional repetitions based on received signal power being less than a threshold. Therefore, the rejections based on the combined disclosures of Hakola, Ali, and Bhattad are properly maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached on 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477