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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 1-32, 35, and 38 are pending.
Lack of Unity of Invention
The requirement was made FINAL. Upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180368181 (Lee) in view of 11382142 US 11382142 (Dong) further in view of 2 Step RACH: RNTI for Receiving Network Response, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 107, R2-1908813 (Samsung) and US 11785648 (Xiong).
Regarding claims 1 and 35, Lee teaches or suggests a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (¶ 135), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more memories; the processors configured to (¶¶ 123-125):
transmit a random access channel (RACH) preamble in a RACH occasion during a RACH procedure (¶ 92);
determine a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI), associated with the RACH procedure (¶¶ 121-125) and for reception of a random access response (RAR) (¶ 92), based at least in part on:
a radio frame index associated with the RACH occasion (¶ 84); and
receive the RAR based at least in part on the RA-RNTI (¶¶ 99, 132) and in a RAR window following transmission of the RACH preamble (¶ 92).
Lee does not expressly disclose determining a RA-RNTI, associated with a RACH procedure, based at least in part on: one or more parameters of a physical RACH (PRACH) occasion in a system frame, and a type of the RACH procedure
Dong teaches or suggests a UE for wireless communication (9:32-36), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more memories; the processors configured to (2:49-54) determine a RA-RNTI, associated with the RACH procedure, based at least in part on: one or more parameters of a PRACH occasion in a system frame, and a type of the RACH procedure (9:32-46) and receive a random access message based at least in part on the RA-RNTI (8:62-9:15) and in a RAR window following transmission of the RACH preamble (5:36-37, 7:39-40).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee’s system and Dong’s bases so a base station directs a response specifically to the UE that initiated a random-access request. Furthermore, combining Lee’s system and Dong’s bases would ensure that messages are correctly received.
Lee does not expressly disclose but Samsung teaches or suggests the type of the RACH procedure is a two- step RACH procedure or a four-step RACH procedure (Option 2) and cumulatively teaches transmit a random access channel (RACH) preamble in a RACH occasion during a RACH procedure (Option 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee’s system, Dong’s bases, and Samsung’s types to use the optimum type of RACH procedure.
Lee does not expressly disclose but Xiong teaches or suggests the RAR window is longer than one radio frame (5:36-42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee’s system, Dong’s bases, Samsung’s types, and Xiong’s length to take into account this a delay in RAR transmission.
Regarding claim 5, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests teaches or suggests the RA-RNTI is determined based at least in part on a radio frame indicator value equal to a remainder of dividing a radio frame index by 2 (Xiong 7:53-64). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee’s system, Dong’s bases, Samsung’s types, and Xiong’s basis to enhance the RA-RNTI.
Regarding claim 7, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the RA-RNTI is determined further based at least in part on a type indicator value corresponding to the type of the RACH procedure (Dong 9:32-46). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Lee does not expressly disclose but Samsung teaches or suggests the type indicator value is 1 when the type of the RACH procedure is a two-step RACH procedure (Option 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee’s system, Dong’s bases, Samsung’s value, and Xiong’s basis to distinguish the type of RACH procedures.
Regarding claim 9, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the type indicator value is 1 when the type of the RACH procedure is a four-step RACH procedure (Samsung Option 2). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 8.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180368181 (Lee) in view of in view of 11382142 US 11382142 (Dong) further in view of 2 Step RACH: RNTI for Receiving Network Response, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 107, R2-1908813 (Samsung), US 11785648 (Xiong), WO 2014000221 (Zhu).
Lee does not expressly disclose but Zhu teaches or suggests the radio frame indicator value is either 0 or 1 (¶ 57 1 bit = 0 or 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Lee’s system, Dong’s bases, Samsung’s types, Xiong’s basis, and Zhu’s values because 0 and 1 are well known remainders amounting to predictable results.
Claims 18, 22, 24-26, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200275491 (Ren) in view of US 20180368181 (Lee) further in view of US 11382142 (Dong), 2 Step RACH: RNTI for Receiving Network Response, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 107, R2-1908813 (Samsung), and US 11785648 (Xiong).
Ren teaches or suggests a base station for wireless communication (abs.), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more memories; the processors configured to (¶¶ 240-241):
receive a random access channel (RACH) preamble in a RACH occasion during a RACH procedure (¶ 135);
determine a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI), associated with the RACH procedure (abs.) and for transmission of a random access response (RAR) (¶ 135); and
transmit the RAR based at least in part on the RA-RNTI (¶ 138).
Ren does not expressly disclose but Lee teaches or suggests determine a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI), associated with the RACH procedure and for transmission of a random access response (RAR) (¶ 92), based at least in part on: a radio frame index associated with a RACH occasion in which a RACH preamble is transmitted during the RACH procedure (¶ 84). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ren’s system and Lee’s RA-RNTI to uniquely identify entities and allocate initial resources.
Ren does not expressly disclose but Dong teaches or suggests a UE for wireless communication (9:32-36), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more memories; the processors configured to (2:49-54) determine a RA-RNTI, associated with a RACH procedure, based at least in part on: one or more parameters of a PRACH occasion in a system frame, and a type of the RACH procedure (9:32-46) and receive a random access message based at least in part on the RA-RNTI (8:62-9:15) and in a RAR window following transmission of the RACH preamble (5:36-37, 7:39-40). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ren’s system, Lee’s RA-RNTI, and Dong’s bases to employ well known bases to achieve predictable results.
Ren does not expressly disclose but Samsung teaches or suggests the type of the RACH procedure is a two- step RACH procedure or a four-step RACH procedure (Option 2) and cumulatively teaches receive a random access channel (RACH) preamble in a RACH occasion during a RACH procedure (Option 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ren’s system, Lee’s RA-RNTI, Dong’s bases, and Samsung’s types to use the optimum type of RACH procedure.
Lee does not expressly disclose but Xiong teaches or suggests the RAR window is longer than one radio frame (5:36-42). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ren’s system, Lee’s RA-RNTI, Dong’s bases, Samsung’s types, and Xiong’s length to take into account a delay in RAR transmission.
Regarding claim 22, Ren does not expressly disclose but Xiong teaches or suggests the RA-RNTI is determined based at least in part on a [sic] radio frame indicator value equal to a remainder of dividing a radio frame index by 2 (7:53-64). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ren’s system, Lee’s RA-RNTI, Dong’s bases, and Samsung’s types, and Xiong’s basis to enhance the RA-RNTI.
Regarding claim 24, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the RA-RNTI is determined further based at least in part on a type indicator value corresponding to the type of the RACH procedure (Dong 9:32-46). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 18.
Regarding claim 25, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the type indicator value is 1 when the type of the RACH procedure is a four-step RACH procedure (Samsung Option 2). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 24.
Regarding claim 26, the aforementioned combination teaches or suggests the type indicator value is 1 when the type of the RACH procedure is a four-step RACH procedure (Samsung Option 2). A rationale to combine teachings and suggestions of the references would have been for the same reason as for claim 18.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200275491 (Ren) in view of US 20180368181 (Lee) further in view of US 11382142 (Dong), 2 Step RACH: RNTI for Receiving Network Response, 3GPP TSG-RAN2 107, R2-1908813 (Samsung), US 11785648 (Xiong), and WO 2014000221 (Zhu).
Ren does not expressly disclose but Zhu teaches or suggests the radio frame indicator value is either 0 or 1 (¶ 57 1 bit = 0 or 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ren’s system, Lee’s RA-RNTI, Dong’s bases, Samsung’s types, Xiong’s basis, and Zhu’s values because 0 and 1 are well known remainders amounting to predictable results.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered. The applicant argues “the cited sections of the applied references, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, do not disclose at least “receiving the RAR based at least in part on the RA-RNTI and in a RAR window following transmission of the RACH preamble, wherein the RAR window is longer than one radio frame," as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added).” (Resp. 13.) Xiong, however, teaches or suggests the argued limitations.
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, US 20210120581 controls the access of a terminal in a communication system (abs.).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571)272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 700-430 ET 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights