DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 07/24/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, and 13-16 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, and 11-12 have been cancelled to date.
NEW claim 16 has been added.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the previous Office Action as failing to comply with both the written description and enablement requirements. These rejections are withdrawn herewith in view of Applicant’s corresponding claim amendments.
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 07/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 1, 8, 14, and 15, Applicant argues that various limitations recited in its amended independent claims are neither taught, suggested, or rendered obvious by the prior art combination cited in the previous Office Action, i.e., Chen in view of Bao, under §103. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. However, the Examiner notes that in the instant Office Action, a new grounds of rejection is applied to reject each of independent claims 1, 8, 14, and 15 under §103, i.e., Chen in view of Jeon and Bao, the combination of which is warranted by the amendments Applicant made to its independent claims.
As an initial matter, Applicant states that “Claim 1 is directed to MsgA transmission during ongoing RA procedure and it is unrelated to fallback operation transitioning from 2-step RA to 4-step RA,” and that thus, “it is unreasonable to allege that the RRC message is included in MsgB before fallback.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 9. However, claim 1 recites receiving configuration of parameters for both 2-step and 4-step RA procedures, and then communicating both a first MsgA and a first MsgB (RAR) with a BI, as well as a second MsgA and a second MsgB. Applicant’s disclosure in fact describes configuration of both 2-step RA to 4-step RA, which can be for the explicit purpose of performing fallback, as is depicted in Applicant’s Figs. 1E Applicant’s Figs. 1F-P include MAC PDU Subheader – Fallback and MAC MsgB — Fallback components, described in paras. [0124]-[0126]. Therefore, claim 1 can fairly be reasonably interpreted to be “related to” various fallback procedure embodiments, and claim 1 does not exclude this interpretation considering the teaching of Applicant’s supporting disclosure.
Applicant also asserts “that [the] RSRP in Chen is different from the claimed transmission power of a second MsgA, which is an uplink signal, comparing para. [0079] of Chen to that which is claimed. Applicant further states that “a power ramping value included in 2-step random access prioritization information is a factor that increases transmission power of a MsgA, rendering the power ramping value as a different parameter than the RSRP threshold of Chen.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11.
However, Chen also describes a preamble power ramping counter at paras. [0093]-[0094], and power ramping step and power ramping factor parameters at paras. [0109] and [0111], which directly relates to the claimed power ramping/transmission power of claim 1, i.e., for MsgA preamble retransmissions, as would be readily understood by one or ordinary skill in the art. Notably, in the instant Office Action, Jeon is further relied upon to teach/suggest an RA configuration including a RAP power ramping factor/step for retransmitting a second MsgA at a higher RSRP value (paras. [0307] and [0311]).
Applicant also argues against Chen teaching/suggesting the amended claim feature of “selecting a random backoff time between 0 and a result of the scaling value multiplied with a value corresponding to the BI.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 11. However, in the present Office Action, Jeon, as opposed to Chen, is relied upon to substantially teach/suggest this claim limitation. As such, Applicant is respectfully referred to the corresponding rejection of claim 1 below, which describes the application of Jeon in this context and provides proper citation and motivation under §103.
Applicant further asserts that none of the references (namely Chen) teach/suggest the claim feature of receiving, from a base station, a second MsgB including a MAC PDU. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 11-12. However, Chen does in fact describe that a BS can transmit a second Msg B, i.e., described as “another MsgB” at para. [0100], to the UE for 2-step RA when the RAR includes the RA ACK and that a Msg B can include a MAC PDU with a subPDU including an SRB SDU, etc. (paras. [0052] and [0098]-[0102]; and blocks 355/325 of Fig. 3). Moreover, a fallback BS RA Msg. 2/4 can also be interpreted to be a second MsgB, based on Applicant’s own definition of such in its corresponding disclosure, i.e., at paras. [0111]-[0116].
Applicant then argues that Bao fails to teach or suggest “wherein the second MAC SubPDU for the MAC SDU is placed before a MAC SubPDU for padding, and wherein the MAC subPDU for padding includes a MAC subheader and the padding, the MACK SubPDU for the padding being a last MAC SubPDU for the MAC PDU.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 12.
However, Bao describes that a success RAR SubPDU, i.e., a first MAC subPUD, can include an indicator/subheader P that points to a following, second MAC SubPDU for MAC SDU, and a next MAC SubPDU can be a second MAC subPDU with an E field having a value of 1, making it effectively a SubPDU for padding, where the 1 value indicates padding bits follow (paras. [0098]-[0099], [0109]-[0113] and [0125]-[0129]). In this context, Bao’s MAC SubPDU for padding would be placed last, as is the common position for padding bits. The Examiner notes that the feature of padding effectively being positioned at the end of a MAC PDU, regardless of SubPDU ordering, is extremely well-known.
Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Chen and Jeon’s MsgB PDU to comprise subPDUs indicating RAR success and MAC SDU for a SRB, with the MAC subheader PDU P and E field indications indicating subsequent subPDUs with SDU data and/or padding bits in the case of the last sub PDU, as taught by Bao, to explicitly point-to the content of subsequent subPDUs for a RAR MAC PDU that is received in Msg B.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of independent claim 1, 8, 14, and 15, are either determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection 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 p. 13. 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, 3, 7, 8, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable based on US PG Pub. 2020/0146069 A1, Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”) in view of US PG Pub. 2020/0229241 A1, Jeon et. al. (hereinafter “Jeon”), in further view of US PG Pub 2022/0104275 A1, Bao et al. (hereinafter “Bao”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Chen teaches:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (para. [0047]; UE depicted in any of Figs, 1 and 4-8 and wireless device of Fig. 13), the method comprising:
receiving a radio resource control (RRC) message including configuration information related to a beam failure recovery (BFR) or a handover, the configuration information including prioritization information for the BFR or handover of a 2-step RA procedure and prioritization information for the BFR or handover of a 4-step RA procedure access procedure (paras. [0006], [0055]-[0056], [0059]-[0061], [0064], and [0076]; blocks 530 and 535 of Fig. 5 —a UE can receive RA configuration information for both 2-step and 4-step RA together with an RSRP thresholds, preambleTransMax, RA-ResponseWindow parameters, etc., which can be considered to be prioritization information —the RA configuration thresholds can be used to trigger an associated handover procedure, para. [0064], or a communication failure declaration, para. [0069] —a network base station (BS) can transmit the configuration(s) via dedicated signaling, such as RRC messaging in connection with an RRCestablishment, an RRCrestablishment, or an RRCrelease procedure, para. [0088]);
wherein the 2-step RA prioritization information includes a power ramping value and a scaling value (paras. [0094]-[0097], [0108]-[0109], and [0111] —configured parameters for a 2-step RA prioritization, i.e., prioritization over fallback to 4-step RA, can include a preamble power ramping step value for an initial RA preamble of a Msg. A, and a scalingFactorBI for scaling down, i.e., shortening, a backoff interval (BI)); and
performing a 2-step RA procedure for BFR or handover, comprising:
transmitting, to a base station, a first message A (Msg A) (paras. [0096]-[0097]; and block 320 of Fig. 3 —UE can transmit a Msg A to a base station after a 2-step RA is triggered);
receiving, from a base station, a first message B (Msg B) (paras. [0049], [0061]-[0062], [0098]-[0100]; and blocks 325 and 330 of Fig. 3 —a BS can transmit a RAR Msg B to a UE, in response to receiving the Msg. A of a 2-step RA procedure.
determining a value associated with a transmission power of a MsgA preamble retransmission, i.e., a second MsgA, based on the power ramping value (paras. [0094]-[0097], [0108]-[0109], and [0111] —a preamble power ramping step value can be applied for retransmission of a preamble, i.e., for a second MsgA, as well as a scalingFactorBI); and
receiving, from the base station, a second Msg B including a media access control (MAC) protocol data unit (PDU) (paras. [0052] and [0094]-[0102]; and blocks 355/325 of Fig. 3 —the BS can transmit a second Msg B to the UE for 2-step RA when the RAR includes the RA ACK —a Msg B can include a MAC PDU with a subPDU including an SRB SDU, etc.),
wherein the MAC PDU includes a first MAC subPDU including a response to a successful reception of the Msg A and a second MAC subPDU for a MAC service data unit (SDU) associated with a signaling radio bearer (SRB, and wherein the first MAC subPDU includes a MAC subheader (paras. [0052] and [0098]-[0099] —the BS transmits a Msg B that can include a MAC PDU with a subPDU including an SRB SDU —the Msg B can further include a success RAR, where a subheader in a corresponding MAC subPDU indicates success)
Chen does not explicitly teach:
the first MsgB includes a backoff indicator (BI);
selecting a random backoff time between 0 and a result of the scaling value multiplied by a value corresponding to the BI; and
transmitting, to the base station, the second Msg. A, based on the value associated with the transmission power and the random backoff time.
Jeon does teach:
a MsgB that includes a backoff indicator (BI); and
selecting a random backoff time between 0 and a result of the scaling value multiplied by a value corresponding to the BI; (paras. [0433] and [0435]; and Figs. 19 and 27B —a base station can transmit a MsgB with a BI to a UE for preamble retransmission via one or more subsequent MsgA transmissions —the UE can then select/determine a random backoff time, that is less than the BI, for retransmitting a preamble of the second MsgA, by applying a SCALING_FACTOR_BI multiplier to the BI);
determining a value associated with a transmission power of a second MsgA, based on the power ramping value (paras. [0307] and [0311] —the RA configuration can include a RAP power ramping factor/step for retransmitting a second MsgA at a higher RSRP value);
transmitting, to the base station, the second Msg. A, based on the value associated with the transmission power value and the random backoff time (paras. [0307], [0311], [0433], and [0435] —a UE can retransmit a preamble in a second MsgA to the BS using at least the determined random backoff time, i.e., the scaled-down BI, and the transmission power value with applied power ramping).
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 Chen’s 2-step RA procedure describing UE MsgA preamble retransmission configuration parameters: power ramping step and scalingFactorBI, to include a UE performing a MsgA preamble retransmission to BS based on determined values for a scaled BI and a ramped transmission power, as taught by Jeon.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a UE utilize well-known RA configuration parameters for power-ramping and BI scaling (also discussed in Chen), for retransmitting a MsgA preamble within a 2-step RA procedure, as recognized by Jeon (paras. [0307], [0311], [0433], and [0435]).
Chen and Jeon do not teach:
wherein the second MAC subPDU includes a MAC subheader indicating that the second MAC subPDU follows the first MAC subPDU, wherein the second MAC subPDU for the MAC SDU is placed before a MAC subPDU for padding, and
wherein the MAC subPDU for the padding includes a MAC subheader and the padding, the MAC SubPDU for the padding being a last MAC subPUD for the MAC PDU.
Bao does teach:
wherein a MAC subPDU can include a MAC subheader indicating that a second MAC subPDU follows the first MAC subPDU (paras. [0098]-[0099], [0109]-[0113] and [0125]-[0129]; and Figs 3A-B —Figs. 3A-B depicts a MAC RAR subheader format that can include various subheader fields: E, T, R, BI fields (3B including RAPID), etc. —a success RAR SubPDU, i.e., a first MAC subPUD can include an indicator/subheader P that points to a following, second MAC SubPDU for MAC SDU), and
wherein the second MAC subPDU for the MAC SDU is placed before a MAC subPDU for padding and wherein the MAC subPDU for the padding includes a MAC subheader and the padding, the MAC SubPDU for the padding being a last MAC subPUD for the MAC PDU (paras. [0098]-[0099], [0109]-[0113] and [0125]-[0129] —when the next MAC SubPDU can be a second MAC subPDU can include the E field with a value of 1, making it effectively a SubPDU for padding, where the 1 value indicates padding bits follow).
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 Chen and Jeon’s MsgB PDU to comprise subPDUs indicating RAR success and MAC SDU for a SRB, with the MAC subheader PDU P and E field indications indicating subsequent subPDUs with SDU data and/or padding bits in the case of the last sub PDU, as taught by Bao.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly point-to/indicate the content of subsequent subPDUs for a RAR MAC PDU that is received in a 2-step RA Msg B, as recognized by Bao (paras. [0098]-[0099], [0109]-[0113] and [0125]-[0129]).
With respect to Claim 3, Chen in view of Jeon and Bao teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the MAC PDU further includes at least one of:
a MAC subPDU including a backoff indicator (BI), and
a MAC subPDU including a fallback random access response (RAR) (Jeon: paras. [0415] and [0417]; and Figs. 27-A-B; Bao: paras. [0090]-[0091] and [0099]-[0103]; —a SubPDU BI field can indicate BI for fallback and T field can indicate type as BI or MAC RAR information —the term “at least one of” only requires examination on the merits of a single alternative, for the reasons explained in the Claim Interpretation - Alternative Claim Language section, above).
With respect to Claim 7, Chen in view of Jeon and Bao teaches:
the method of claim 1, wherein a second MAC subPDU is located in concatenation with a first MAC subPDU (Bao: paras. [0109]-[0113] and [0149] —MAC subPDUs w/success RAR and SDU depicted in Figs. 4C and 6D are interpreted to be “in concatenation with” each other, as they are both located within a connected series subPDUs, 4 and 5 of Fig. 4C and/or 3 and 4 of Fig. 6D).
With respect to Claim 8, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 8 is directed to a method taking place from the perspective of a base station (Chen: para. [0050]; base station 120 of Fig. 1), as opposed to a UE. As such, claim 8 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chen in view of Jeon and Bao, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to Claim 10, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chen in view of Jeon and Bao, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to Claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chen in view of Jeon and Bao, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to Claim 14, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 14 is directed to a UE comprising a transceiver and a processor (Chen: paras. [0047] and [0146]-[0151]; UE depicted in any of Figs. 1 and 4-8; and wireless device 1300 w/processor 1326 and transceiver 1320 of Fig. 13). As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chen in view of Jeon and Bao, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to Claim 15, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 8, except claim 14 is directed to a base station comprising a transceiver and a processor (Chen: paras. [0047] and [0146]-[0151]; BS depicted in any of Figs. 1 and 4-8; and wireless node 1300 w/processor 1326 and transceiver 1320 of Fig. 13). As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Chen in view of Jeon and Bao, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 8.
With respect to Claim 16, Chen in view of Jeon and Bao teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the 4-step random access prioritization information includes another power ramping value and another scalar value (Chen: paras. [0094], [0111], and [0114]; and Jeon: paras. [0307], [0311], [0433], and [0435] —configured parameters for 4-step RA can include a preamble power ramping step value for an initial RA preamble of a Msg. 1 and a scalingFactorBI —the Examiner requests Applicant provide specific support for this new claim within its originally filed disclosure —a general discussion of a base station providing separate parameters for 2-step and 4-step RA, i.e., at paras. [0185]-[0190] of Applicant’s disclosure, does not adequately support provisioning of second power-ramping and second scalar value parameters within the same configuration it provides first power-ramping and first scalar value parameters).
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
/HUY D VU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2461