DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
In view of the Pre-Brief Appeal filed on 6/18/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-4 of the Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Request regarding Jeon [US 2019/0253986 A1], filed 6/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 19-21, 23-27, 29, 31-33, 35-39, 41, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0110300 A1).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 23-24, 27, 31-33, 35-36, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0314812 A1, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/824,135, filed 3/26/2019 and made of record in the OA of 2/2/2024) hereinafter Xu in view of Yerramalli et al. (US 2020/0120713 A, all citations are supported by US Provisional Application No. 62/744,043, filed 10/10/2018 and made of record in the OA of 2/2/2024) hereinafter Yerramalli, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0110300 A1) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 19, Xu teaches a terminal (wireless device (UE) 110; para. 44 and Figs. 1-4), comprising: control circuitry (processor 314; para. 66-69 and Fig. 3) that, in operation, selects one of a first method and a second method (UE performs contention free (2 step) random access (RACH) procedure based on condition; para. [138, 160], UE switches [selecting between at least two methods] to 2-step RACH; para. [231, 242], 4 step RACH; para. 160), the first method being for transmitting a random access signal including a preamble part and a data part that is different from the preamble part (2 step / contention free RACH [first method] performed with two messages; para. [135, 160], 2 step RACH includes first message including preamble (Msg1) and uplink transport block (Msg3); para. [228, 231], preamble on Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) [preamble part] and Msg3 on Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) [data part]; para. [100, 143]), the second method being for transmitting the random access signal including the preamble part but not including the data part (4 step / contention based RACH [second method] performed with four messages; para. [135, 160], first message being Msg1 [1220] including preamble while data in Msg3 [third message thus, not included in first message]; para. 137 and Fig. 12, data via PUSCH; para. 100); and transmission circuitry (communication interface 310 including transceiver; para. 71 and Figs. 3-4) that, in operation, transmits the random access signal using a resource based on the selected method (RACH configuration includes set of preambles [resources] for beam failure recover and set of preambles for other than beam failure recovery; para. 136, UE uses contention free / 2 step RACH and corresponding preamble for beam failure recovery request and 4 step RACH and corresponding preamble for other than beam failure recovery; para. 137-139), wherein: transmissions of the random access signal are performed by using power ramping that increases transmit power as compared to a previous transmission (transmissions of preamble by UE at initial preamble power and at power-ramping factor [power increased compared to previous transmission power]; para. [135-136, 140]), a step of the power ramping being indicated by a base station method (power-ramping factor in RACH configuration transmitted by base station; para. 136), for a transmission of the preamble part of the random access signal in the first method (2 step / contention free RACH for beam recovery [first method]; para. 138), the control circuitry selects the resource from among synchronization signal-physical broadcast channel (SS-PBCH) blocks associated with a synchronization signal-Reference Signal Received Power (SS-RSRP) which is greater than a first SS-RSRP threshold (preamble for contention free RACH selected based on synchronization signal (SS) with reference signal received power (RSRP) above threshold; para. 137-139, SS blocks include physical broadcast channel (PBCH); para. 103).
While Xu discloses contention free random access for beam failure and contention based random access [non-beam failure] and RSRP, and target reception power value for preamble, Xu does not explicitly disclose power ramping being different between the first method and the second method, a target receive power value for the preamble part included in the random access signal transmitted by the transmission circuitry is independently configured for the first method and the second method, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yerramalli teaches power ramping being different between the first method and the second method (power ramping size configured differently between 2-step and 4-step RACH procedures; para. 84), a target receive power value for the preamble part included in the random access signal transmitted by the transmission circuitry is independently configured for the first method and the second method, respectively (preambleReceivedTargetPower for 2-step and 4-step RACH configured differently / separately; para. 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yerramalli to the system of Xu, where Xu’s efficient power control (para. 41) along with Yerramalli’s selection of power levels (para. 83-86) improves efficiency during different RACH procedures having different power levels.
While the combination of Xu and Yerramalli discloses different RSRP thresholds for 2-step and 4-step RACH procedures and use of SS-PBCH, the combination of Xu and Yerramalli does not explicitly disclose for a transmission of the preamble part of the random access signal in the second method, the control circuitry selects the resource from among SS-PBCH blocks associated with a SS-RSRP which is greater than a second SS-RSRP threshold different from the first SS-RSRP threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches for a transmission of the preamble part of the random access signal in the second method (4 step / contention based RACH for transmitting random access preamble; para. [07, 139] and Fig. 24 step 2468), the control circuitry selects the resource from among SS-PBCH blocks associated with a SS-RSRP which is greater than a second SS-RSRP threshold (UE select resources associated with second SSB for RACH when SS-RSRP greater than second threshold; para. 138-139 and Fig. 24 steps [2466, 2468]) different from the first SS-RSRP threshold (first SS-RSRP uses first threshold [different from second] for contention-free random access; para. 136-139 and Fig. 24 steps [2460, 2462, 2466, 2468]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Chen to the modified system of Xu and Yerramalli, where Xu and Yerramalli’s modified system along with Chen’s RACH resource selection (para. 04-05) improves interoperability by standardizing RACH resource selection in multi-beam environment.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
While the combination of Xu and Yerramalli discloses selection of preamble based on SS/PBCH with RSRP above threshold and sets of preambles for beam failure recovery / 2-step RACH, the combination of Xu and Yerramalli does not explicitly disclose wherein the control circuitry selects the first method when a channel quality is greater than a first threshold, or selects the second method when the channel quality is equal to or less than the first threshold.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen further teaches wherein the control circuitry selects the first method when a channel quality is greater than a first threshold (contention-free RACH performed when channel state information-RSRP (CSI-RSRP) [channel quality] is greater than threshold; para. 142 and Fig. 24 steps [2472, 2474], examiner notes the use of alternative language here, thus, only one of the alternative features need to be shown by reference), or selects the second method when the channel quality is equal to or less than the first threshold (contention-based RACH performed in when CSI-RSRP is not greater than threshold; para. 142-144 and Fig. 24 steps [2474, 2476, 2478]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Chen to the modified system of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen, where Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen’s modified system along with Chen’s RACH resource selection (para. 04-05) improves interoperability by standardizing RACH resource selection in multi-beam environment.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 20.
The combination of Xu and Yerramalli does not explicitly disclose wherein the channel quality is received quality of a downlink signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen further teaches wherein the channel quality is received quality of a downlink signal (CSI-RSRP based on CSI-RS [downlink]; para. 140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Chen to the modified system of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen, where Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen’s modified system along with Chen’s RACH resource selection (para. 04-05) improves interoperability by standardizing RACH resource selection in multi-beam environment.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
Xu further teaches wherein the first method begins with a transmission of message A of the first method (2 step RACH includes first message [message A] including preamble (Msg1) and uplink transport block (Msg3); para. [228, 231]), wherein the message A is a message including a preamble (2 step RACH includes first message including preamble (Msg1) and uplink transport block (Msg3); para. [228, 231]).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
Xu further teaches reception circuitry that receives message B which is a response to a transmission of message A of the first method (UE receives Msg2 1230 being random access response [message B] for 2 step RACH procedure; para. 141-142 and Fig. 12, 2 step RACH [first method] includes first message [message A]; para. [228, 231]), wherein, the control circuitry considers a random access procedure of the first method is successfully completed (2 step / contention free random access procedure successful; para. 142) when a demodulation process of the message B including identification information of the terminal is successfully performed (2 step RACH procedure successfully completed upon reception of random access response [message B] including Cell-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI) of UE; para. 142, demodulation of downlink channels; para. [90, 104]).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
Xu further teaches wherein after transmitting message A of the first method, when message B which is a response to the message A is not received within a specified period (UE starts window based on timer to monitor for a response [message B] in 2 step / contention free RACH [first method] for beam recovery; para. [136, 141-142]), the transmission circuitry performs a retransmission of the message A of the first method (UE signals multiple preamble transmissions [message A including data for 2 step / contention free RACH] until successful random access response while a timer for random access response is running; para. 141-142).
Regarding claim 31, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 19.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 20.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 21.
Regarding claim 35, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 23.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 24.
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 31.
While Xu discloses target reception power value for preamble, Xu does not explicitly disclose the target receive power value for the preamble part is independently configured for the first method and the second method, respectively.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yerramalli teaches the target receive power value for the preamble part is independently configured for the first method and the second method, respectively (preambleReceivedTargetPower for 2-step and 4-step RACH configured differently / separately; para. 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Yerramalli to the modified system of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen, where Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen’s modified system along with Yerramalli’s selection of power levels (para. 83-86) improves efficiency during different RACH procedures having different power levels.
Claim(s) 25-26, 29, 37-39, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Yerramalli, further in view of Chen, and further in view of Freda et al. (US 2019/0320467 A1) hereinafter Freda.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
Xu further teaches reception circuitry (communication interface 310 including transceiver; para. 71 and Figs. 3-4) that receives message B which is a response to a transmission of message A of the first method (UE receives Msg2 1230 being random access response [message B] for 2 step RACH procedure; para. 141-142 and Fig. 12, 2 step RACH [first method random access] includes first message [message A]; para. [228, 231]).
While the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen discloses retransmission of data for negative acknowledgement (NACK), the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein, in response to receiving the message B including a request for retransmission, the transmission circuitry performs a retransmission of the data part without the preamble part.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Freda teaches wherein, in response to receiving the message B including a request for retransmission (eMSG2 [message B] includes hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for retransmission of data portion; para. [127, 129-130]), the transmission circuitry performs a retransmission of the data part without the preamble part (transceiver 120; para. 32 and Fig. 1B, eRACH procedure retransmits data portion only in response to eMSG2 including HARQ feedback for retransmission of data portion; para. [129-130, 132] and Fig. 5 steps 608-614).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Freda to the modified system of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen, where Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen’s modified system along with Freda’s enhanced random access response (RAR) (para. 302) to improve reliability of latency sensitive services such as ultra-reliable-low latency communications (URLLC) service.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, Chen, and Freda teaches the limitation of previous claim 25.
Xu further teaches wherein the message B includes uplink resource information (random access response (RAR) [message B] includes uplink resource information including uplink (UL) grant; para. 143).
The combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen does not explicitly disclose the transmission circuitry performs the retransmission of the data part by using the uplink resource information.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Freda teaches the transmission circuitry performs the retransmission of the data part by using the uplink resource information (transceiver 120; para. 32 and Fig. 1B, eRAR indicates use of UL grant for retransmission of data of eMSG1; para. 334, eRACH procedure retransmits data portion only in response to eMSG2 including HARQ feedback for retransmission of data portion; para. [129-130, 132] and Fig. 6 steps 608-614).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Freda to the modified system of Xu, Yerramalli, Chen, and Freda, where Xu, Yerramalli, Chen, and Freda’s modified system along with Freda’s enhanced random access response (RAR) (para. 302) to improve reliability of latency sensitive services such as ultra-reliable-low latency communications (URLLC) service.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen teaches the limitation of previous claim 19.
While the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen discloses a maximum number of preamble transmissions and switching to different RACH procedures, the combination of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein when a random access procedure is not completed after a defined number of message A transmissions of the first method, the control circuitry switches to the second method.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Freda teaches wherein when a random access procedure is not completed after a defined number of message A transmissions of the first method (fallback from eRACH procedure [first method] after allowable retransmission; para. 220, eRACH includes eMSG1 [message A]; para. 127), the control circuitry switches to the second method (UE performs fallback from eRACH procedure [2 step RACH] to legacy RACH procedure [4 step RACH] after allowable retries; para. 220).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Freda to the modified system of Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen, where Xu, Yerramalli, and Chen’s modified system along with Freda’s enhanced random access response (RAR) (para. 302) to improve reliability of latency sensitive services such as ultra-reliable-low latency communications (URLLC) service.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 25.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 26.
Regarding claim 39, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 27.
Regarding claim 41, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 29.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turtinen et al. (US 2022/0159727 A1) discloses increasing preamble transmission opportunities for random access in unlicensed band.
US Provisional Application Nos. 62/824,135 (Xu) and 62/744,043 (Yerramalli) made of record in the OA of 2/2/2024, are not included in the instant OA.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE L PEREZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7348. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11 am - 3 pm.
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/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/JOSE L PEREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights