DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 10/01/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 12-14, 16-17, and 27-29 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 10, 12-14, 16-17, and 27-29 have been amended.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 11, 15, 18-26, and 30 have been cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 27, Applicant argues that: “[n]either Wei nor Huang teaches or suggests… that a UE is configured by the network with a dedicated PRACH preamble for use in direct UL transmission in inactive state that is transmitted on a supported preamble resource indication in a broadcast message.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 7. Applicant then asserts that the SD_Config of Wei provided in the RRC Release does not include a PRACH preamble, citing to Wei’s paras. [0214]-[0266].
The Examiner notes that in the instant Office Action, amended claims 1, 14, and 17 are each rejected under §103 based on the NEW prior art combination of Wei in view of Jeon. As such, the Examiner refers Applicant to this new grounds of rejection provided herein. With regards to Wei, this reference teaches RRCRelease and re/configuration for CFRA to facilitate small data transfer during an RA process, while in RRC_Inactive or RRC_Idle, which may be considered a suspended state, See e.g., blocks 1502 and 1504 of Fig. 15. As part of a CFRA procedure, a BS can assign/configure an RA preamble to a UE via a broadcast RRC message including RA-related configuration IEs, i.e., RACH-ConfigDedicated or RACH-ConfigCommon, to facilitate CFRA MsgA preamble transmission, at paras. [0171], [0178], and [0192]-[0193], and Fig. 3B. Thus, Wei does describe a UE being configured by the network with a PRACH preamble for use in direct UL transmission while in inactive state, i.e., an UL MsgA transmission in Inactive or Idle state, that is transmitted on a supported preamble resource, i.e., the configured PRACH occasion, indication in a broadcast message, i.e., the broadcast RRC message.
The Examiner notes that Jeon, as opposed to Wei, is further relied upon to fairly teach/suggest the amended claim feature of a BS receiving from a UE: “…a UE-dedicated PRACH preamble,” that “…uniquely identifies the UE based on network configuration.” For example, Jeon describes that a UE can transmit a dedicated RAP to a BS uniquely identifying the UE, based on corresponding network configuration, i.e., RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, which can be used for RA when a UE in RRC Inactive/Idle mode, i.e., a suspended state (paras. [0312], [0338]-[0339], [0377]-[0378], [0409], and [0666]; and Fig. 18D).
Moreover, it would be obvious to have modified Wei’s CFRA process including first message transmission of a preamble and small UL data, with the UE-dedicated PRACH preamble configuration, i.e., RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, taught by Jeon to require the configuration of a CFRA preamble and/or preamble resource(s) to be UE-specific, as opposed to UE-common.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments provided for amended independent claims 1, 14, and 27, are determined not to be persuasive, or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection (i.e., the combination with Jeon) applied in the instant Office Action.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 7-8. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 1, 14, 17, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2021/0274525 A1, Wei et al. (hereinafter “Wei”) in view of US PG Pub 2020/0314917 A1, Jeon et al. (hereinafter “Jeon”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Wei teaches:
A base station, comprising a memory and one or more processors (base station 1600 w/ memory 1634 and processor 1628 of Fig. 16) configured to, when executing instructions stored in the memory, cause the base station to:
broadcast a message that indicates that a cell associated with the base station supports direct uplink transmission from user equipments (UEs) in radio resource control (RRC) INACTIVE state (paras. [0227], [0237]-[0238], [0251]-[0255], and [0270]-[0273] —the serving BS can broadcast an indicator for support of preamble and SDT transmission, i.e., a dedicated PRACH and PUSCH resource to be utilized in UE Inactive state —this dedicated resource can signal if a SDT is allowed on serving gNB/cell(s) within a RAN notification area (RNA)),
wherein the message indicates a plurality of supported preamble resources that are supported by the cell for direct uplink transmission from UEs in a radio resource control INACTIVE state (paras. [0227], [0237]-[0238], [0252], [0254] and [0255]; and Fig. 1B —the serving network cell can broadcast a configuration of PRACH resources supported for Msg A SDT (for 2-step CFRA) preamble transmission occurring in RRC INACTIVE state —the configuration can indicate dedicated PRACH UL resources to be used for Msg A. preamble transmission during UE Inactive state);
receive, during a contention-free random access (CFRA) process with the cell, a PRACH preamble on one of the plurality of supported preamble resources from a UE, wherein the preamble uniquely identifies the UE based on a network configuration associated with an RRC suspend process (paras. [0171], [0214], [0251]-[0255], and [0354]; Fig. 1B; and Fig. 12 —in a CFRA process the network BS 120 can assign a UE 110 a RA preamble 140 —thereafter, within a RA procedure, a UE 1230 can send the BS 1220 the RA preamble via the PRACH 1204 as part of a MsgA 1222 —an RRC Release message can include a radio bearer (RB) suspend process, See paras. [0095], [0213], [0227]-[0228]; and blocks [1502] and [1504] of Fig.15 —RRC Release can be associated with network RA re/configuration, i.e., a RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, for a CFRA process where a Msg.A includes a PRACH preamble and a C-RNTI that identifies the UE, See paras. [0145], [0178], [0187], [0189], [0192], and [0228]); and
receive, during the CFRA process, uplink data from the UE while the UE is in a RRC INACTIVE state (para. [0354]; and Fig. 12 —within the RA procedure, a UE 1230 that is in RRC_INACTIVE state 1202 can send the BS 1220 the UL payload data on the PUSCH 1206 as part of the MSGA 1222), wherein the uplink data does not include a message related to a request for the UE to enter the RRC CONNECTED state (para. [0354]; and Fig. 12 —as depicted in Fig. 12 and described in para [0354], the UL payload data 1206 does not comprise a message corresponding to a RRC state-change request —the Examiner notes that under BRI, the UL payload data 1206 of Fig. 12 is interpreted to not include a message related to a request to enter into RRC CONNECTED state, and this is not described as an option of Fig. 12).
However, Wei does not explicitly teach:
its received preamble being a UE-dedicated PRACH preamble, wherein the UE-dedicated PRACH preamble uniquely identifies the UE based on network configuration.
Jeon does teach:
a UE transmitting to a BS a UE-dedicated PRACH preamble that uniquely identifies the UE based on network configuration (paras. [0312], [0338]-[0339], [0377]-[0378], [0409], and [0666]; and Fig. 18D —a UE can transmit a dedicated RAP to a BS uniquely identifying the UE, based on corresponding network configuration, i.e., RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, which can be used for RA when a UE in RRC Idle mode, i.e., a suspended state).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei’s CFRA process including first message transmission of a preamble and small UL data, with the UE-dedicated PRACH preamble configuration, i.e., RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, taught by Jeon.
The motivation for doing so would have been to require the configuration of a CFRA preamble and/or preamble resource(s) to be UE-dedicated, i.e., UE-specific, as opposed to UE-common, as recognized by Jeon (paras. [0312], [0338]-[0339], [0377]-[0378], [0409], and [0666]; and Fig. 18D).
With respect to Claim 14, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 14 is directed to a baseband processor for a base station (Wei: processor 1638 of base station 1600 of Fig. 16). As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Wei in view of Jeon, for the same reasons explained above fore independent claim 1.
With respect to Claim 17, Wei in view of Jeon teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
receiving the UE-dedicated PRACH preamble and the uplink data in a Msg A (Wei: paras. [0210]-[0211], and [0216]; PRACH preamble 160 and PUSCH payload 162 in MsgA of Fig. 1D; and Jeon: paras. paras. [0312], [0338]-[0339], [0377]-[0378], [0409], and [0666]; and Fig. 18D —a BS can receive a dedicated PRACH preamble, i.e., as configured via RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, and UL data in a MsgA).
With respect to Claim 27, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 27 is directed to a baseband processor for a base station (Wei: processor 1638 of base station 1600 of Fig. 16). As such, claim 27 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Wei in view of Jeon, for the same reasons explained above fore independent claim 1.
With respect to Claim 29, Wei in view of Jeon teaches:
the baseband processor of claim 27, configured to perform operations comprising:
receiving the UE-dedicated PRACH preamble and the uplink data from the UE in a Msg A (Wei: paras. [0210]-[0211], and [0216]; PRACH preamble 160 and PUSCH payload 162 in MsgA of Fig. 1D; and Jeon: paras. paras. [0312], [0338]-[0339], [0377]-[0378], [0409], and [0666]; and Fig. 18D —a BS can receive a dedicated PRACH preamble, i.e., as configured via RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, and UL data in a MsgA).
Claim 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Jeon, in further view of US PG Pub 2023/0120407 A1, Huang et al. (hereinafter “Huang”).
With Respect to Claim 10, Wei in view of Jeon teaches the base station of claim 1.
However, Wei and Jeon do not explicitly teach:
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the base station to transmit a validity indicator in a Msg2 or MsgB that indicates whether the UE dedicated PRACH preamble is valid or invalid for use in transmitting subsequent uplink data.
Huang does teach:
a base station transmitting a validity indicator in a Msg2 or MsgB that indicates whether the UE dedicated PRACH preamble is valid or invalid for use in transmitting subsequent uplink data (paras. [0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0045], [0055] and [0172]; and blocks 312/418 and 316/422 of Figs. 3-4 —during a CFRA procedure a UE can transmit a MsgA with UL PDU data, and in response the network can send a message, i.e., an RRC message, with an indication to extend a time of an Inactive data transmission timer, where a period for use of a preamble/preamble resource is valid for the extended period, prior to preamble/resource release —during the extended Inactive data transmission time, prior to timer expiry, the UE can transmit further UL PDU data via the resource —the further/second UL PDU data transmission is considered a subsequent CFRA process, as the preamble resource remains valid during the RA timer period, prior to resource release).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei and Jeon’s CFRA procedure having a dedicated PRACH preamble configuration and small data transmission with a validity indicator to indicate if a preamble is to remain valid for subsequent small data transmission associated with an RA procedure, as taught by Huang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for subsequent small data transmission, i.e., to facilitate more small data transmissions during RA, using already-configured preamble resources, as recognized by Huang (paras. [0027], [0036]-[0037], [0042], [0045], [0055] and [0172]; and blocks 312/418 and 316/422 of Figs. 3-4).
With Respect to Claim 12, Wei in view of Jeon and Huang teaches the base station of claim 10, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
cause the base station to transmit the validity indicator in a L2 Control packet data unit (PDU) (Huang: para. [0042] —the BS can transmit the inactive/subsequent data transmission validity indication via various L2 MAC CEs, PDUs/subPDUs, etc.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Jeon and Huang, in further view of US PG Pub No. 2020/0015285 A1, Shin et al., (hereinafter “Shin”).
With respect to Claim 13, Wei in view of Jeon and Huang teaches the base station of claim 10.
Wei in view of Jeon and Huang does not explicitly teach:
when the validity indicator indicates that the PRACH preamble or preamble resource is invalid for use in transmitting subsequent uplink data, cause the base station to transmit a subsequent dedicated PRACH preamble or preamble resource to the UE for use in transmitting uplink data during a subsequent CFRA process.
Shin does teach:
when a validity indicator indicates that a first PRACH preamble is invalid for use in transmitting subsequent data, cause the base station to transmit a subsequent dedicated PRACH preamble to the UE for use in transmitting uplink data during a subsequent RA process (paras. [0186]-[0189], [0205]-[0208], and [0250]-[0258]; and Fig. 9 —an eNB can be configured to transmit a first, new NPRACH preamble, but when it is determined that the NPRACH preamble is not valid, i.e., when a maximum ReTx attempt number is reached, a second, legacy PRACH preamble can instead be transmitted to facilitate data transmission in a RA process).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei in view of Jeon and Huang’s CFRA process with the transmission of a second preamble resource when a first preamble resource is determined not to be valid, as taught by Shin.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve preamble transmission redundancy within a dedicated RACH process, as recognized by Shin. (paras. [0186]-[0189], [0205]-[0208], and [0250]-[0258]; and Fig. 9).
Claims 5, 16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei in view of Jeon, in further view of US Patent No. 11,452,141 B2, Lei et al. (hereinafter “Lei”).
With Respect to Claim 5, Wei in view of Jeon teaches the apparatus of claim 1, including a MsgA of a CFRA process with a UE-dedicated PRACH preamble.
However, Wei in view of Jeon does not teach:
determine that the uplink data transmitted by the UE in a MsgA of the CFRA process cannot be decoded; in response assign PUSCH resources to the UE;
cause the base station to transmit an indication of PUSCH resources in a MsgB; and
receive the uplink data on the PUSCH resources.
Lei does teach:
determine that uplink data transmitted by the UE in a MsgA of a RACH process cannot be decoded (col. 4, lines 21-32 and 51-55; col. 15, lines 6-13; Fig. 5, blocks 504, 520 and 522 —a MsgA of a RACH that includes a pre-amble and a payload, i.e., UL data, which may not be decoded by a receiving BS in accordance with various outcomes);
in response cause the base station to transmit an indication of the PUSCH resources in a MsgB of the RACH process (col. 17, lines 29-48; col. 21, line 65 through col. 22, line 5; and block 522 of Fig. 5 —the BS can then transmit a MsgB retransmission assignment, i.e., a PUSCH UL grant, to a UE, in an outcome where all or part of the MsgA uplink data cannot be successfully decoded); and
receive the uplink data on the PUSCH resources (col. 21, lines 26-28; col. 12, lines 57-67; and 418 of Fig. 4 —based on an UL grant assigned for retransmission the BS can received the retransmitted UL payload data from the UE —Note: the methods 400 of Fig. 4 and 500 of Fig. 5, can be performed in conjunction).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei in view of Jeon’s contention-free random access (CFRA) process with the UL data retransmission process for scenarios where UL data cannot be decoded on a first attempt, as taught by Lei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to add a level of retransmission redundancy to CFRA processes, as recognized by Lei (col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 4; and col. 21, lines 3-8).
With respect to Claim 16, Wei in view of Jeon teaches the method of claim 15, along with:
receiving a Msg1 from the UE which includes a UE-dedicated PRACH preamble (Wei: paras. [0173]-[0174], and [0178]; and Jeon: paras. [0312], [0308]-[0318], [0377]-[0378], [0409], and [0666]; and Figs. 12 and 18D —a BS can receive a dedicated PRACH preamble, i.e., as configured via RACH-ConfigDedicated IE, in a Msg1);
receiving UL data from the UE on a Msg3 on PUSCH resources (Wei: step 166 of Fig. 1D)
Wei in view of Jeon does not explicitly teach:
allocating physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resources to the UE in a Msg2.
Lei does teach:
allocating physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resources to the UE in a Msg2 (col. 15, lines 28-42; col. 16, line 56 through col. 17, line 5; blocks 404 and 414 of Fig. 4, and block 516 of Fig. 5 —in response to decoding the first message from the UE, the BS can transmit an UL grant to the UE with allocated PUSCH UL resources to enable the UE to transmit further UL data); and receiving the uplink data from the UE (col. 21, lines 26-28; col. 12, lines 57-67; and 418 of Fig. 4 —based on an UL grant the BS can receive further UL data from the UE).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wei in view of Jeon’s contention-free random access (CFRA) process with the UL data transmission process for scenarios where UL data cannot be decoded on a first attempt, as taught by Lei.
The motivation for doing so would have been to add a level of retransmission redundancy to CFRA processes, as recognized by Lei (col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 4; and col. 21, lines 3-8).
With respect to Claim 28, this claim recited similar subject matter to Claim 16. As such, Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 based on Wei in view of Jeon and Lei, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2461
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461