Detailed Action
1. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-22, and 25-28 are presented for examination. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 23, and 24 are canceled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 8/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues, “Yi fails to teach or suggest generating the information message "based on transmission duration of the Msg3" (see applicant’s remarks pgs. 6-7). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited in the previous office action, Yi discloses claim 1 as a whole. For example, the cited portions recite the following: “In terms of signaling TDM between different subcarrier spacing, at least one of the following options may be considered. (1) Period, duration or offset of each subcarrier spacing may be signaled. For example, {3.75 kHz, 100 ms, 50 ms, 0}, {15 kHz, 100 ms, 50 ms, 50} may be used for configuration of TDM. [0149] (2) If a UE supports only one subcarrier spacing, non-supported subcarrier duration may be considered as invalid UL subframes where transmissions will be postponed or dropped. Extending this, the configuration may be given as valid UL subframe configuration format as well. (3) In terms of selected subcarrier spacing, it may follow subcarrier or the number of tones used for Msg 3 transmission (scheduled by UL grant or determined by PRACH transmission or PRACH coverage level or PRACH repetition level or PRAH format).” Therefore, Yi does read upon applicant’s claimed feature “generating an information message that indicates a slot offset, wherein generating the information message comprises generating the information message based on transmission duration of the Msg3.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 15, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0249509 A1 by Yi (provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as Yi).
Regarding claim 1, Yi teaches a method of scheduling Msg3 configuration by a network node (see at least Fig. 10 and ¶ [0065], [0095]), the method comprising:
generating an information message (see at least ¶ [0147]-[0150]) that indicates a slot offset (see at least ¶ [0148]), wherein generating the information message comprises generating the information message based on transmission duration of the Msg3 (see at least ¶ [0148]; “(1) Period, duration or offset of each subcarrier spacing may be signaled. For example, {3.75 kHz, 100 ms, 50 ms, 0}, {15 kHz, 100 ms, 50 ms, 50} may be used for configuration of TDM.”).
Regarding claim 5, Yi in view of Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. In addition, Yi further teaches wherein the information message includes an entry in a time domain assignment table that indicates the slot offset, the time domain assignment table being configured using radio resource control, RRC (see at least Fig. 11 and ¶ [0041]) (see at least Table 1 and ¶ [0103]- [0107]).
Regarding claim 7, Yi in view of Chen teaches the method of Claim 1. In addition, Yi further teaches wherein a dependency of the subcarrier spacing is configured in system information (see at least ¶ [0036], [0037], and [0041]).
Regarding claim 15, Yi teaches a network node (see at least Fig. 19) comprising:
a network interface (see at least Fig. 19);
a processor connected to the network interface (see at least Fig. 19); and
a memory storing program code (see at least Fig. 19) that is executed by the processor to perform operations comprising:
generating an information message (see at least ¶ [0147]- [0150]) including information to control transmission of a Msg3, the information including an indication of a slot offset (subcarrier spacing is considered in PUSCH for transmission, ¶ [0108]- [0110], [0137], [0140]; subcarrier spacing is dynamically signaled in UL grant, ¶ [0146]; [0147]- [0148] describe that period, duration or offset of each subcarrier spacing is signaled including {3.75khz, 100ms, 50ms, Oms} and {15khz, 100ms, 50ms, Oms} used for TDM configuration), wherein the slot offset depends on a subcarrier spacing, wherein the slot offset depends on a subcarrier spacing (see at least ¶ [0148]; “(1) Period, duration or offset of each subcarrier spacing may be signaled. For example, {3.75 kHz, 100 ms, 50 ms, 0}, {15 kHz, 100 ms, 50 ms, 50} may be used for configuration of TDM.”).
Regarding claim 18, Yi in view of Chen teaches the network node of Claim 15. In addition, Yi further teaches wherein the slot offset depends on a subcarrier spacing, and wherein a scheduling offset is dependent on the subcarrier spacing (subcarrier spacing is considered in PUSCH for transmission, ¶ [0108]-[0110], [0137], [0140]; subcarrier spacing is dynamically signaled in UL grant, ¶ [0146]-[0148] describe that period, duration or offset of each subcarrier spacing is signaled including {3.75khz, 100ms, 50ms, Oms} and {15khz, 100ms, 50ms, Oms} used for TDM configuration).
Regarding claim 19, Yi in view of Chen teaches the network node of Claim 15. In addition, Yi further teaches wherein the information message includes an entry in a time domain assignment table that is configured using radio resource control, RRC (see at least Fig. 11 and ¶ [0041]).
Regarding claim 21, Yi in view of Chen teaches the network node of Claim 15. In addition, Yi further teaches wherein the slot offset depends on a subcarrier spacing, and wherein a dependency of the subcarrier spacing is configured in system information and/or RRC (see at least ¶ [0036], [0037], and [0041]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yi as applied to claims 5, and 19 above, in view of US 2019/0149365 A1 by Chatterjee et al. (provided by applicant, hereafter referred to as Chatterjee).
Regarding claim 6, Yi teaches the method of Claim 5.
Yi does not appear to expressly teach wherein the RRC is provided using remaining minimum system information, RMSI.
In the same field of endeavor, Chatterjee further teaches wherein the RRC is provided using remaining minimum system information, RMSI (see at least ¶ [0315]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the table taught by Yi with the table as described in Chatterjee in order to efficiently map access signals.
Regarding claim 20, Yi teaches the network node of Claim 19.
Yi does not appear to expressly teach wherein the RRC is provided using remaining minimum system information, RMSI.
In the same field of endeavor, Chatterjee further teaches wherein the RRC is provided using remaining minimum system information, RMSI (see at least ¶ [0315]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the table taught by Yi with the table as described in Chatterjee in order to efficiently map access signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 4 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
13. Claims 8, 11-14, 22, and 25-28 are allowed.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights