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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to the RCE filed on 12/29/25. Claims 1 – 11, 17 and 27 have been canceled and claims 12 – 16, 18 – 26 and 28 – 37 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Lim and Haghighat do not disclose control circuitry, which, in operation, determines, based on a first parameter included in a message B which is a response to a transmission of a random access signal, a resource used for transmission of a response signal to the message B; and transmission circuitry, which, in operation, in a case where the message B includes first information identifying on user identity (UE ID) of the terminal, performs a transmission of the response signal to the message B in the resource, the first information being the same as second information included in a message A; and in a case where the message B requests retransmission of a data part of the random access signal, performs a message 3 transmission by using another resource indicated by the message B.
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the rejection below. The first limitation is taught by Lim in at least paragraphs 70-73: " One or more new MAC RAR (each new MAC RAR is responding to a UE and contains the contents of existing RAR and also include DL assignment for the ContentionResolutionldentifier MAC CE and DL payload) to form a RAR MAC PDU and the ContentionResolutionldentifier MAC CE+MAC SDUs (DL payload) of each of the UE are sent separately in another MAC PDU and is sent in L1 resources indicated in DL assignment; [0071] One or more new MAC CE (each new MAC CE is responding to a UE and contains the C-RNTI, UL grant." Note the UL grant (resource) is used for transmission in response to the message received from the network (also see paragraphs 68, 119-120).
The second limitation is taught by Haghighat in at least paragraphs 119-120: In some cases, at 802, the DCI does contain an uplink grant (e.g., DCI Format 0_1) rather than a downlink assignment associated with msgB ( e.g., FIG. 7). [0120] At 803, if the PDCCH associated with msgB carrying the uplink grant is addressed by the RA-RNTI, then following may apply: the msg3 information part of msgA has not received successfully at the gNB (e.g., HARQ NACK for msg3); uplink grant is for retransmission of msg3 on a PUSCH. Note: the uplink grant represents the resource and the RNTI represents the first information identifying the terminal).
The third imitation is also taught by Haghighat in at least paragraph 120: At 803, if the PDCCH associated with msgB carrying the uplink grant is addressed by the RA-RNTI, then following may apply: the msg3 information part of msgA has not received successfully at the gNB (e.g., HARQ NACK for msg3); uplink grant is for retransmission of msg3 on a PUSCH; this 2-Step Random Access procedure is unsuccessful; the gNB has switched the WTRU from a 2-Step RACH to a 4-Step RACH procedure.
Therefore, the claim limitations as written have been met and the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the UE ID" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the UE ID" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 12 – 16, 18 – 26, 28 – 31, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 2022/0150973 A1) in view of Haghighat et al. (US 2022/0190906 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Lim teaches a terminal (Figs. 1 and 12: UE), comprising: control circuitry (Fig. 12: application circuitry 1205), which, in operation, determines, based on a first parameter included in a message B which is a response to a transmission of a random access signal, a resource used for transmission of a response signal to the message B (paragraphs 70-73: One or more new MAC RAR (each new MAC RAR is responding to a UE and contains the contents of existing RAR and also include DL assignment for the ContentionResolutionIdentifier MAC CE and DL payload) to form a RAR MAC PDU and the ContentionResolutionIdentifier MAC CE+MAC SDUs (DL payload) of each of the UE are sent separately in another MAC PDU and is sent in L1 resources indicated in DL assignment; [0071] One or more new MAC CE (each new MAC CE is responding to a UE and contains the C-RNTI, UL grant…; paragraph 73: the DL assignment can include one or more following parameters); and transmission circuitry (Fig. 12: Radio Front End Module 1215).
Lim does not explicitly disclose in a case where the message B includes first information identifying the terminal, performs a transmission of the response signal to the message B in the resource, the first information being the same as second information included in a message A; and in a case where the message B requests retransmission of a data part of the random access signal, performs a message 3 transmission by using another resource indicated by the message B.
However, Haghighat teaches transmission circuitry (Fig. 1B: transceiver 120), which, in operation, in a case where the message B includes first information identifying the terminal, performs a transmission of the response signal to the message B in the resource, the first information being the same as second information included in a message A (paragraph 119-1120: In some cases, at 802, the DCI does contain an uplink grant (e.g., DCI Format 0_1) rather than a downlink assignment associated with msgB (e.g., FIG. 7). [0120] At 803, if the PDCCH associated with msgB carrying the uplink grant is addressed by the RA-RNTI, then following may apply: the msg3 information part of msgA has not received successfully at the gNB (e.g., HARQ NACK for msg3); uplink grant is for retransmission of msg3 on a PUSCH. Note: the uplink grant represents the resource and the RNTI represents the first information identifying the terminal); and in a case where the message B requests retransmission of a data part of the random access signal, performs a message 3 transmission by using another resource indicated by the message B (paragraph 120: At 803, if the PDCCH associated with msgB carrying the uplink grant is addressed by the RA-RNTI, then following may apply: the msg3 information part of msgA has not received successfully at the gNB (e.g., HARQ NACK for msg3); uplink grant is for retransmission of msg3 on a PUSCH; this 2-Step Random Access procedure is unsuccessful; the gNB has switched the WTRU from a 2-Step RACH to a 4-Step RACH procedure).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim’s terminal by incorporating the teachings of Haghighat, for the purpose of performing transmission according to a specified technique given certain conditions.
Regarding claims 13 and 23, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the control circuitry determines the resource based on the first parameter without using bits of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and a control channel element (CCE) index (paragraph 102: The PDCCH uses CCEs to convey the control information. Before being mapped to resource elements, the PDCCH complex-valued symbols may first be organized into quadruplets, which may then be permuted using a sub-block interleaver for rate matching. Each PDCCH may be transmitted using one or more of these CCEs, where each CCE may correspond to nine sets of four physical resource elements known as REGs.).
Regarding claims 14 and 24, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the control circuitry determines the resource, based on the first parameter, from a plurality of resources, the plurality of resources being indicated by a higher layer signaling (paragraph 101: The PDSCH carries user data and higher-layer signaling to the UEs 801. The PDCCH carries information about the transport format and resource allocations related to the PDSCH channel).
Regarding claims 15 and 25, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the message B further includes transmission timing information used for the transmission of the response signal to the message B (paragraph 71: One or more new MAC CE (each new MAC CE is responding to a UE and contains the C-RNTI, UL grant, UL timing advance value. Also described in paragraph 74: time window; and paragraph 52).
Regarding claims 16 and 26, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the control circuitry considers a random access procedure is successfully completed in the case where the first information identifying the terminal is included in the message B (paragraph 43: in MsgB, the gNB sends a response message back to the UE, which can include the preamble ID for identification and UE ID for contention resolution in case of contention based random access. Also described in paragraph 111).
Regarding claims 18 and 28, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the first information identifying the terminal is not included in the message B in the case where the message B requests retransmission of the data part of the random access signal (paragraphs 55 – 56: In some embodiments (such as: cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI)—which may be used to differentiate/identify a connected UE in the cell; a specific radio channel; a group of UEs in case of paging, etc.), MsgB may not be needed by the UE…).
Regarding claims 19 and 29, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the control circuitry starts a window relating to the message B after the transmission of the random access signal, and the transmission circuitry performs retransmission of the random access signal in a case where the message B is not received within the window (paragraphs 73-74: Retransmission of MsgB MAC PDU can be scheduled by DL DCI with CRC scrambled by TC-RNTI or C-RNTI. [0074] Further, when DL assignment for scheduling MsgB MAC PDU is indicated in the DCI, a time window may be defined, where the starting slot and duration of the time window may be configured by SIB).
Regarding claims 20 and 30, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the message B does not include control information of one or more terminals, of which a preamble part of the random access signal is not detected at a base station (paragraph 43: In some embodiments, in MsgB, the gNB sends a response message back to the UE, which can include the preamble ID for identification and UE ID for contention resolution in case of contention based random access. In order to support the sending of the RRC Setup, Resume and Re-establishment message, the Msg2 also carries a payload for RRC messages. Further described in paragraphs 48-54).
Regarding claims 21 and 31, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal according to claim 12, wherein Lim further teaches the random access signal includes both of a Random access channel (RACH) preamble and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (paragraph 29: In Step 1, a first message (MsgA) comprising a preamble and a payload is sent by UE. The physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble can be used as reference signals for coherent detection of payload transmitted, as well as for time alignment if needed. Also described in paragraph 75: RACH and paragraph 98: PUSCH).
Regarding claims 36 and 37, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal of claim 12, wherein, Lim fails to explicitly disclose the resource used for the transmission of the response signal to the message B is a PUCCH resource.
However, Haghighat further teaches the resource used for the transmission of the response signal to the message B is a PUCCH resource (paragraph 156: The PDCCH may contain an indication of available time/frequency resources for PUCCH transmission. The WTRU may use the PUCCH resources to send (e.g., declare) a UCI containing an ACK acknowledging the reception of the msgB confirming the beam failure recovery procedure is complete).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim’s terminal by incorporating the teachings of Haghighat, for the purpose of performing transmission according to a specified technique given certain conditions.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim and Haghighat as applied to claims 12 and 22 above, and further in view of Gao (CN 110138523 B).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal of claim 12, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein, the resource is determined based on the first parameter included in the message B without using bits of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and without using a control channel element (CCE) index, and a number of bits of the first parameter included in the message B is larger than a number of bits of a second parameter included in the PDCCH.
However, Gao teaches wherein, the resource is determined based on the first parameter without using bits of a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and without using a control channel element (CCE) index, and a number of bits of the first parameter included in the message B is larger than a number of bits of a second parameter included in the PDCCH (paragraph 196: Assuming that the terminal does not receive the PDCCH with a smaller CCE index in CORSET 1, the terminal generates HARQ-ACK feedback information for each PDCCH scheduled by the received PDCCH, and then cascades the corresponding feedback information according to the order of the PDCCH, and generates NACK/DTX for the position where the PDCCH is not received. As shown in Figure 8, a total of 8 HARQ-ACK feedback bits are obtained, bits 0 and bit 1 correspond to the two TBs of the PDSCH scheduled by the PDCCH numbered 00, bits 2 and bit 3 correspond to the two TBs of the PDSCH scheduled by the PDCCH numbered 01, bits 4 and bit 5 are NACK/DTX, and bits 6 and bit 7 correspond to the two TBs of the PDSCH scheduled by the PDCCH numbered 11).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim and Haghighat’s method by incorporating the teachings of Gao, for the purpose of minimizing processing.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim and Haghighat as applied to claims 12 and 22 above, and further in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #96, R1-1901627 (hereinafter, 3GPP) (Reference submitted with IDS filed 4/1/25).
Regarding claims 34 and 35, Lim and Haghighat teach the terminal of claim 12, but fail to explicitly disclose the first information identifying the terminal included in the message B is different from a RA-RNTI.
However, 3GPP teaches the first information identifying the terminal included in the message B is different from a RA-RNTI (page 5, Section 3.2, first paragraph, “RA-RNTI or C-RNTI or other possible type of UE ID. Also see page 8, Section 3.5: UE Identifier Table).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lim and Haghighat’s method by incorporating the teachings of 3GPP, for the purpose of minimizing processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHONDA L MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-3185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/RHONDA L MURPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462