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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/14/2026 regarding "in the contention-based random access procedure, the interruption transmission indication for uplink is applicable to the Msg3 PUSCH transmission, but not applicable to a message 1 (Msg1) physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission,” have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleged that:
PNG
media_image1.png
834
1060
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
120
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1126
1562
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
636
1564
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
658
1570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Applicant’s argument filed July 14, 2026, pages 5-7)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments (a)-(c). Proposal 3 of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, R1-1909774, Prague, CZ, August 26th – 30th, 2019. “Summary#2 of UL inter UE Tx prioritization/multiplexing” (hereinafter “3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98”) explicitly discloses that “Proposal 3: … PRACH (preamble and/or MSG 3 PUSCH) cannot be cancelled by UL cancelation indication.) (see page 8 of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98).
Furthermore, there was no opposition from any member companies regarding the cancellation of Msg3 (PUSCH). Moreover, as the Applicant already admitted on page 6 of the Applicant’s Argument dated Jan 16, 2026, a majority of member companies opposed the cancellation of Msg1(PRACH). In other words, a majority of the 3GPP member companies (ZTE, NEC, MTK, CATT, Intel, OPPO, SONY, Panasonic, Nokia, DCM) were already proposing that Msg1 (PRACH) cannot be canceled. The discussed portion of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 is reproduced herein below.
Which UL channel/signal can potentially be cancelled?
• PUSCH (including DG-, CG- and SP-PUSCH) can be cancelled, no question from companies.
…
• PRACH
Yes: LG, IDC
No: ZTE, NEC, MTK, CATT, Intel, OPPO, SONY, Panasonic, Nokia, DCM
FFS: vivo, CT, Motorola, QC
(pages 6-7 of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98)
Therefore, the 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 explicitly discloses that at least a majority of the 3GPP member companies were already aware of the claimed feature “in the contention-based random access procedure, the interruption transmission indication for uplink is applicable to the Msg3 PUSCH transmission, but not applicable to a message 1 (Msg1) physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission” as recited in claim 1, actively proposed this specific configuration during the 3GPP discussion, and publicly disclosed these proposed contents.
Consequently, the claimed features do not represent a non-obvious resolution to a profound technical dilemma (as argued in Applicant’s section ‘a’), nor do they stem from the Applicant’s unique technical insight into the disadvantage-to-advantage ratio (as argued in Applicant’s section ‘b’). Instead, this specific configuration was already explicitly proposed and supported by the majority of the industry in the prior art.
Furthermore, because the majority favored protecting Msg1 (PRACH) and there was no opposition to canceling Msg 3 (PUSCH), there is no lack of reasonable expectation of success or conflicting teachings that would teach away from the claimed feature (as argued in Applicant’s section ‘c’). Rather, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had a strong motivation and a reasonable expectation of success in adopting the very configuration explicitly supported by the majority.
Applicant further alleged that:
PNG
media_image6.png
964
1048
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
618
1052
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Applicant’s argument filed July 14, 2026, pages 7-8)
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument that the literal “and/or” in the 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 does not suggest the claimed asymmetrical rule. As explicitly disclosed on pages 6-7 of the 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, 3GPP member companies were already actively discussing the cancellation of Msg1 (PRACH) and Msg 3 (PUSCH) individually and respectively in the context of a contention-based random access (CBRA) procedure. Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had clear technical motivation and a reasonable expectation of success to selectively apply the “or” option-that is, protecting only Msg1 while leaving Msg3 unprotected-specifically within a CBRA procedure.
Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments overall are deemed unpersuasive, and the previous rejections are hereby maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200344747; hereinafter “Park”) in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, R1-1909774, Prague, CZ, August 26th – 30th, 2019. “Summary#2 of UL inter UE Tx prioritization/multiplexing” (hereinafter “3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98”), and further in view of Islam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200112984, hereinafter “Islam984”).
Examiner’s note: In what follows, references are drawn to Park unless otherwise mentioned.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches A user equipment (UE) (Fig. 17, a UE 1700) comprising:
receiving circuitry configured to receive a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising information used for configuring the UE to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for a downlink control information (DCI) format (para [0194]: The transmitter 1620 (included in the base station 1600, see Fig. 16) may transmit the monitoring configuration information to a UE that is currently transmitting UL data. In case the UE-specific DCI format is defined for the UL cancellation indication, the transmitter 1620 may transmit the monitoring configuration information for the UL cancellation indication through UE-specific higher layer signaling for the UE.) (para [0210]: The receiver 1710 (included in a UE 1700, see Fig. 17) receives DL control information (“DCI”, see para [0097]), data, and messages (interpreted as “RRC message”) through a corresponding channel from the base station. The receiver 1710 may receive monitoring configuration information (interpreted as “information used for configuring the UE to monitor a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for a downlink control information (DCI) format”) on UL cancellation indication information from the base station. The monitoring configuration information may be received while the UE performs PUSCH transmission, or received irrespective of PUSCH transmission.), the DCI format comprising an interruption transmission indication for uplink (para [0215]: … in case a UE-group common DCI format is defined for an UL cancellation indication, the controller 1720 may monitor a UE-group common PDCCH transmitted through a UE-group common CORESET or a UE-group common search space in order to receive UL cancellation indication information (interpreted as “an interruption transmission indication for uplink”)); and
processing circuitry configured to cancel, in a contention-based random access procedure, an Msg3 physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission in one or more symbols that are indicated by the interruption transmission indication for uplink (para [0075]: In general, a contention-based random access procedure is performed when the UE makes initial access to a cell, …) (Para [0119]; A UE that has received the UL cancellation indication information described above may not perform PUSCH transmission in one or more remaining OFDM symbol(s) of resources allocated for on-going PUSCH transmission, that is, to suspend the PUSCH transmission.)(Fig. 13 and para [0129]; as illustrated in FIG. 13, a UE that has received an UL cancellation indication may suspend PUSCH transmission corresponding to a time duration, M, of PUSCH transmission after a pre-configured timing gap, K, from a time at which corresponding UL cancellation indication information transmission has been performed),
wherein
in the contention-based random access procedure (para [0075]: In general, a contention-based random access procedure is performed when the UE makes initial access to a cell, …), the interruption transmission indication for uplink is applicable to the Msg3 PUSCH transmission (Para [0119]; A UE that has received the UL cancellation indication information described above may not perform PUSCH transmission in one or more remaining OFDM symbol(s) of resources allocated for on-going PUSCH transmission, that is, to suspend the PUSCH transmission.), (i) but not applicable to an Msg1 physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission, (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98.)
the Msg3 PUSCH transmission is canceled in the one or more symbols regardless of whether the Msg3 PUSCH transmission is an initial transmission of an Msg3 or a retransmission of the Msg3 (Para [0119]; A UE that has received the UL cancellation indication information described above may not perform PUSCH transmission in one or more remaining OFDM symbol(s) of resources allocated for on-going PUSCH transmission, that is, to suspend the PUSCH transmission.)(para [0144]: The UE may receive the monitoring configuration information on the UL cancellation indication information from the base station. The monitoring configuration information may be received while the UE performs PUSCH transmission or received irrespective of PUSCH transmission (interpreted as “regardless of whether the Msg3 PUSCH transmission is an initial transmission of an Msg3 or a retransmission of the Msg3”)),
the initial transmission of the Msg3 is scheduled by a random access response grant (para [0035-0037]: In this specification, … An uplink (UL) refers to data transmission and reception from a UE to a base station, … The uplink and downlink transmit and receive data over a data channel such as a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH). Hereinafter, the transmission and reception of a signal over a channel, such as PUCCH, PUSCH, PDCCH, PDSCH, or the like, may be expressed as “PUCCH, PUSCH, PDCCH, PDSCH, or the like is transmitted and received”.)(Para [0076]; The UE receives a random access response to the transmitted random access preamble. The random access response may include a random access preamble identifier (ID), UL Grant (uplink radio resource), a temporary C-RNTI (temporary cell-radio network temporary identifier), and a TAC (time alignment command).) (para [0077]: Upon receiving a valid random access response, the UE processes information included in the random access response and performs scheduled transmission to the base station) (Examiner’s note: The scheduled transmission discussed in para [0077] is interpreted as “the initial transmission of the Msg3 is scheduled by a random access response grant” in view of para [0035-0037 and 0076]), and
(ii) the retransmission of the Msg3 is scheduled by a PDCCH with a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) scrambled by a first Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) which is a temporary Cell RNTI (C-RNTI). (The missing/crossed out limitations will be discussed in view of Islam984.)
(i) As noted above, Park does not specifically teach about the above missing limitation “…but not applicable to an Msg1 physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission”. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 as follows, in pages 6-8 of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 (‘FFS PRACH … cannot be cancelled by UL cancelation indication’ in page 8 is interpreted as “the interruption transmission indication for uplink is applicable to the Msg3 PUSCH transmission but not applicable to an Msg1 physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission”); The asserted portion of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 is reproduced hereinbelow.
PNG
media_image8.png
294
797
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Asserted portion of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, page 8)
Which UL channel/signal can potentially be cancelled?
• PUSCH (including DG-, CG- and SP-PUSCH) can be cancelled, no question from companies.
…
• PRACH
Yes: LG, IDC
No: ZTE, NEC, MTK, CATT, Intel, OPPO, SONY, Panasonic, Nokia, DCM
FFS: vivo, CT, Motorola, QC
(Asserted portion of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, pages 6-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify Park's and 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98’s method by using the features of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 in order to have more effective method such that "FFS PRACH (preamble and/or MSG 3 PUSCH) cannot be cancelled by UL cancelation indication" as discussed in [3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98; see lines 1-9 in page 8].
(ii) Park and 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 do not specifically teach about “the retransmission of the Msg3 is scheduled by a PDCCH with a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) scrambled by a first Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) which is a temporary Cell RNTI (C-RNTI)”. It, however, had been known in the art before the effective date of the instant application as shown by Islam984.
Islam984 teaches the missing limitation “the retransmission of the Msg3 is scheduled by a PDCCH with a Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) scrambled by a first Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) which is a temporary Cell RNTI (C-RNTI)” (para [0124] of Islam984: the MSG 3 may be a PUSCH that is a scheduled random access response UL grant or a PDCCH whose cyclic redundancy check (CRC) bits are scrambled with the Cell Access Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI).)(Para [0127] of Islam984: a PDCCH of MSG 3 retransmission grant,).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify a combination of Park and 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98 by using the features of Islam in order to have scheduled the retransmission of the Msg3 PUSCH by a PDCCH whose CRC are scrambled with C-RNTI.
Regarding claim 3, it is a communication method claim performed by a user equipment corresponding to the claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, in view of Islam984, and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200259601; hereinafter “Zhou”)
Regarding claim 6, Park, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, and Islam984 teach The UE of claim 1, the combination of Park, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, and Islam984 fails to teach wherein perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission m one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure, regardless of whether a second interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the one or more symbols is received, and cancel a PUSCH transmission in at least one symbol which is associated with the contention-free random access procedure based on a determination that a third interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the at least one symbol is received.
In analogous art, Zhou discloses that
perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission in one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure (para [0279] of Zhou: A base station may send (e.g., transmit) DCI and/or control signaling via a PDCCH. … The DCI may be used by the base station to initiate a contention-free random access at the wireless device.) (para [0309] of Zhou: A contention free random access procedure may comprise one or more Msg 1 1220 transmissions (interpreted as “a second Msg1 PRACH transmission”) and one or more Msg2 1230 transmissions. One or more of Msg 1 1220, Msg 2 1230, Msg 3 1240, and/or contention resolution 1250 may be transmitted in the same step.), regardless of whether a second interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the one or more symbols is received (Examiner’s note: The phrase “regardless of whether a second interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the one or more symbols is received” does not impart patentable weight to the claim because the phrase “regardless of whether…” is a negative-like limitation that encompasses both the occurrence and non-occurrence of an event. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), this phrase indicates that the step of “perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission in one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure” is executed in all circumstances, making the receipt of an interruption irrelevant to the performance of the claimed function. Since Zhou disclose the ““perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission in one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure,” it effectively teaches the claimed feature because the transmission occurs regardless of any external signals not otherwise recited.
cancel a PUSCH transmission in at least one symbol which is associated with the contention-free random access procedure based on a determination that a third interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the at least one symbol is received (para [0316] of Zhou: The wireless device may determine that the contention free random access procedure is successfully completed, for example, if a reception of a random access response is successful.) (para [0317] of Zhou: The wireless device may perform one or more Msg 3 1240 transmissions, for example, after or in response to a successful reception of random access response (e.g., for a contention based random access procedure) (para [0439]: … The wireless device 2804 may receive an uplink pre-emption indication (interpreted as “a third interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the at least one symbol is received”) from the base station. The uplink pre-emption indication may comprise a cancellation indication, a stop indication, and/or a suspend indication. The uplink pre-emption indication may indicate that at least a part of the PUSCH resources is pre-empted, and/or the wireless device 2804 may stop uplink transmission on the at least part of the PUSCH resources.).
Examiner’s note: The claim recites “a second interruption transmission indication” and “a third interruption transmission indication.” However, the claim fails to define any functional or structural relationship between the “an interruption transmission indication” of the independent claim 1 and the “second” and “third interruption transmission indication” introduced in this dependent claim. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification, in the absence of any defined distinction or specific nexus between these terms, any generic “interruption transmission indication” can be construed as any one of the first(in claim 1), second, or third indication mentioned. Consequently, the mere recitation of additional indications without a defined interrelationship or specific limiting functional role does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art or provide a clear scope of the invention. Second, the phrase “regardless of whether a second interruption transmission indication for uplink that indicates the one or more symbols is received” does not impart patentable weight to the claim. Under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), this phrase indicates that the step of “perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission in one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure” is executed in all circumstances, making the receipt of an interruption irrelevant to the performance of the claimed function. Since Zhou disclose the “perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission in one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure,” it effectively teaches the claimed feature because the transmission occurs regardless of any external signals not otherwise recited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of instant application to modify the combination of Park, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #98, and Islam984 by using the features of Zhou to perform a second Msg1 PRACH transmission in one or more symbols in a contention-free random access procedure when the UE performs random access for beam failure recovery (see para [0075] of Park).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WON JUN CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1695. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 08:00 - 17:00.
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, Derrick W Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/WON JUN CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights