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 Amendment (17860879)
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 1/5/2026.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 12, and 25 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11, 13-22, and 25-30 are now pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/5/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims (pages 11-14) in a reply filed 1/5/26 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
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) 1,3,4-6,8,9,11,13,16,18, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEDEIROS DE AMORIM et al. US 20230107781 (hereinafter “Amorim”) in view of Kronander et al. US 20220046711 (hereinafter “Kronander”)
As to claim 1 and 29 (claim 29 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 1):
Amorim discloses:
An apparatus configured for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer- executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: (“the means comprise: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the performance of the apparatus.”, Amorim [0029])
determine a first timing advance (TA) for transmitting a random access channel (RACH) preamble; (“At step 1 the UE calculates the time advance pre compensation (TAest) at a refined level by estimating the RTT (using ephemeris, broadcast, GNSS, etc).”, Amorim [0084]);
determine a second TA, having an offset from the first TA, for transmitting the RACH preamble; transmit the RACH preamble using the second TA; (“At step 4 the UE sends a preamble, associated with a RAPID (random access preamble ID), but instead of using the full compensated TAest, the UE uses the offset value TAest+κ as the timing advance.”, Amorim [0089])
in response to the determination that the RAR is not intended for the apparatus: refrain from transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission (FIG. 3 shows that the UE does not send MSG3/PUSCH if the condition shown in step 7 is not met and proceeds to step 9 in which the UE repeats the flowchart shown in FIG. 3, Amorim)
and adjust the threshold difference based on a number of random access attempts (“The “failing” UEs will only discover the RACH attempt failed after 4 messages, before a new attempt is made. In the case of a GEO scenario, this may add up to more than 2 seconds.”, Amorim [0080])(”If the UE detects this message is not within the expected timing range, the UE proceeds to step 9 and stops the procedure and goes directly for a new RA attempts (2 message exchanges are saved on top of further interference caused in Message 3 transmission)”, Amorim [0094]) (FIG. 3, Amorim) (Examiner’s Note: the specification of the instant application mentions in [0116] that “if the UE 904 or the UE 906 performs MSG1 transmission for a threshold (e.g., a configured or preconfigured threshold) number of times and the corresponding MSG2 transmissions are determined as not intended for the UE, then the UE may adjust the threshold. The adjusted threshold may be a larger threshold. In some examples, the UE adjusts the threshold by a configured, or preconfigured, offset from the current threshold” so this can be interpreted as the UE adjusting the threshold by some number when “MSG2” is determined as not intended for the UE. [0080] of Amorim mentions that a new attempt is made after 4 messages or 4 tries which maps to “based on a number of random access attempts” and FIG. 3 shows that if the RAR is not intended for the UE then it “tries a new attempt” and repeats the flow chart shown in FIG. 3 which means the threshold is adjusted since the variables used for the threshold are re-estimated and re-selected i.e. the variables are not fixed for every attempt)
and in response to the determination that the second RAR is intended for the apparatus, transmit the PUSCH transmission. (FIG. 3 shows that the UE sends MSG3/PUSCH if the condition shown in step 7 is met – this can be done after multiple attempts since the UE repeats this cycle whenever the condition is not met as mentioned in step 9, Amorim)
Amorim as described above does not explicitly teach:
receive a random access response (RAR) message including a timing advance command (TAC) that indicates a third TA; determine whether the RAR is not intended for the apparatus based on a difference between the third TA and the offset is equal to or greater than a threshold difference;
receive a second RAR including a second TAC that indicates a fourth TA; determine the second RAR is intended for the apparatus based on a difference between the fourth TA and the offset being less than the adjusted threshold difference;
However, Kronander further teaches determining whether the RAR is intended for the UE which includes:
receive a random access response (RAR) message including a timing advance command (TAC) that indicates a third TA; determine whether the RAR is not intended for the apparatus based on a difference between the third TA and the offset is equal to or greater than a threshold difference; (“The UE receives the RAR; [0038] 5. The UE determines the time between transmission of the RA preamble and the reception of the RAR to determine a reference time, T.sub.R; [0039] 6. The UE compares the received T.sub.A+T.sub.F with the determined reference time, T.sub.R; [0040] 7. The UE, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by more than a threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|>T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for another UE or invalid; and [0041] 8. The UE alternatively/additionally, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by less than or equal to the threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|<=T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for itself or valid.”, Kronander [0033])
receive a second RAR including a second TAC that indicates a fourth TA; determine the second RAR is intended for the apparatus based on a difference between the fourth TA and the offset being less than the adjusted threshold difference; (“The UE alternatively/additionally, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by less than or equal to the threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|<=T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for itself or valid.”, Kronander [0033]) (“Depending on whether the UE determines that RAR is intended for the UE or not, the UE proceeds accordingly (e.g., continues the RA procedure if the RAR is intended for the UE or, e.g., continues to monitor for a RAR if the RAR is not intended for the UE).”, Kronander [0099])
Amorim and Kronander are analogous because they pertain to using timing advance for UE time synchronization.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether the RAR is intended for the UE as described in Kronander into Amorim. By modifying the method to include determining whether the RAR is intended for the UE as taught by Kronander, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) are achieved.
As to claim 3:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the second TA comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: receive a configuration or preconfiguration for determining the second TA; and determine the second TA based on the configuration or preconfiguration. (“the offset that is applied may be selected from a plurality of predetermined offsets perhaps stored on the UE, while in others it may be a value generated by a random number generator that is configured to generate values within a predefined range. Where a set of UEs each select a different particular offset perhaps from a set of offset values, then this may allow an individual UE to more accurately differentiate between the responses using the indicated timing advances.”, Amorim [0077])
As to claim 4:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein: the configuration or preconfiguration for determining the second TA comprises a range of offsets; and the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the second TA based on the configuration comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: select an offset from the range of offsets, and apply the offset to the first TA to determine the second TA. (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087])
As to claim 5:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to select the offset from the range of offsets comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to randomly select the offset from the range of offsets. (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087])
As to claim 6:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the second TA is equal to or smaller than the first TA. (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087]) (“Note: The value of κ may be negative and the principle of the idea is still maintained Note: The value of κ is better chosen to ensure the delay does not exceed the cyclic prefix in the gNB, that is the time delay is within a time period during which the request can be correctly received at said destination. In some embodiments, the network, in some cases the RAN, may specify a range of values or a set of predefined values for k that the UE can choose from.”, Amorim [0088])
As to claim 8:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and further cause the apparatus to receive signaling configuring the threshold difference at the apparatus. (“In some embodiments the network (RAN) may specify a minimum value for this difference ϵ.”, Amorim [0086]) (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087])
As to claim 9:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and further cause the apparatus to determine the threshold difference based on a character associated to the first TA. (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087])
As to claim 11:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to adjust the threshold difference based on the number of random access attempts comprises the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to adjust the threshold difference in response to determine a configured threshold number of RARs are not intended for the apparatus. (“The “failing” UEs will only discover the RACH attempt failed after 4 messages, before a new attempt is made. In the case of a GEO scenario, this may add up to more than 2 seconds.”, Amorim [0080])(”If the UE detects this message is not within the expected timing range, the UE proceeds to step 9 and stops the procedure and goes directly for a new RA attempts (2 message exchanges are saved on top of further interference caused in Message 3 transmission)”, Amorim [0094]) (FIG. 3, Amorim) (Examiner’s Note: the specification of the instant application mentions in [0116] that “if the UE 904 or the UE 906 performs MSG1 transmission for a threshold (e.g., a configured or preconfigured threshold) number of times and the corresponding MSG2 transmissions are determined as not intended for the UE, then the UE may adjust the threshold. The adjusted threshold may be a larger threshold. In some examples, the UE adjusts the threshold by a configured, or preconfigured, offset from the current threshold” so this can be interpreted as the UE adjusting the threshold by some number when “MSG2” is determined as not intended for the UE. [0080] of Amorim mentions that a new attempt is made after 4 messages or 4 tries which maps to “based on a number of random access attempts” and FIG. 3 shows that if the RAR is not intended for the UE then it “tries a new attempt” and repeats the flow chart shown in FIG. 3 which means the threshold is adjusted since the variables used for the threshold are re-estimated and re-selected i.e. the variables are not fixed for every attempt)
As to claim 13:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the RAR comprises a access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI), a random access preamble identifier (RAPID), or both; and the second RAR comprises the same RA-RNTI, the same RAPID, or both. (“The RAR contains the synchronization and identity information of the UE to be used towards the eNb, It also contains the scheduling information for the subsequent transmission of message 3, as depicted in FIG. 2. The RAPID (RA preamble ID) in the header indicates this response is addressed to the UE that used the same RAPID in Msg 1. In case two or more UEs utilize the same RAPID during the same RA (random access) occasion, all these users will read this message and follow up with the transmission of Msg 3.”, Amorim [0079])
As to claim 16:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the first TA comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to determine the first TA based on a location of the apparatus, ephemeris information, one or more configured common TA parameters, or a combination thereof. (“based on one or more of these elements together with additional information (e.g., serving satellite ephemeris or timestamp) signalled by the network, can compute timing and frequency, and apply timing advance and frequency adjustment at least for UE in RRC idle/inactive mode.”, Amorim [0069])
As to claim 18:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus performs a RACH procedure with a non-terrestrial network (NTN). (“Examples include industrial settings where the network node is an access point or in the field of Non-Terrestrial Networks (NTN), more specifically, the field of using satellite links to provide cellular communication to UEs in remote areas, in disaster zones or over the sea.”, Amorim [0054])
Claim(s) 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorim in view of Kronander, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. US 20250142629 (hereinafter “Rastegardoost”)
As to claim 14:
The combination of Amorim and Kronander as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit the RACH preamble comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit a RACH message further comprising a PUSCH; and the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to receive the RAR comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to receive a fallback RAR in a RACH message.
However, Rastegardoost further teaches fallback RAR in RACH which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit the RACH preamble comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit a RACH message further comprising a PUSCH; and the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to receive the RAR comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to receive a fallback RAR in a RACH message. (“The PUSCH transmission in MsgA may fail. Therefore, the wireless device may retransmit the PUSCH. The wireless device may fall back to a 4-step RACH, and may retransmit the PUSCH via an UL grant comprised in a received RAR message.”, Rastegardoost [0438])
Amorim, Kronander, and Rastegardoost are analogous because they pertain to random access techniques.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include fallback RAR in RACH as described in Rastegardoost into Amorim as modified by Kronander. By modifying the method to include fallback RAR in RACH as taught by Rastegardoost, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) and improved random access procedure (Rastegardoost [0438]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorim in view of Kronander, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cozzo et al. US 20230171814 (hereinafter “Cozzo”)
The combination of Amorim and Kronander as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and further cause the apparatus to monitor a remainder of an entire configured RAR window after receiving the RAR
However, Cozzo further teaches monitoring for multiple RARs in a RAR window which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and further cause the apparatus to monitor a remainder of an entire configured RAR window after receiving the RAR (“In a first example, when a UE (such as the UE 116) monitors a PDCCH for RARs corresponding to a first PRACH transmission and a second PRACH transmission during one RAR window, after receiving a first UL grant corresponding to the first PRACH transmission, the UE continues to monitor for an RAR corresponding to the second PRACH transmission until the UE receives a second UL grant corresponding to the second PRACH transmission or the RAR window expires. As illustrated in FIG. 11, the RAR window starts at time t.sub.0 where the UE starts attempting to detect a first RAR reception corresponding to the first PRACH transmission with the first spatial setting.”, Cozzo2 [0109])
Amorim, Kronander, and Cozzo are analogous because they pertain to random access techniques.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include monitoring for multiple RARs in a RAR window as described in Cozzo into Amorim as modified by Kronander. By modifying the method to include monitoring for multiple RARs in a RAR window as taught by Cozzo, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) and improved random access procedure (Cozzo [0018]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorim in view of Kronander, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pratas et al. US 20240163914 (hereinafter “Pratas”)
As to claim 17:
The combination of Amorim and Kronander as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH preamble transmission and the PUSCH transmission comprises a narrowband Internet-of-Thing (NB-IoT) early data transmission (EDT) or small data transmission (SDT).
However, Pratas further teaches RACH SDT which includes:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the RACH preamble transmission and the PUSCH transmission comprises a narrowband Internet-of-Thing (NB-IoT) early data transmission (EDT) or small data transmission (SDT). (“for a SDT using the 2-step RACH (i.e. 2-step RA SDT), MsgA PUSCH may be used to transmit the SDT payload. For a SDT using the 4-step RACH (i.e. 4-step RA SDT), Msg3 (PUSCH) may be used to transmit the SDT payload. On the other hand, for SDT using UL data transmission on pre-configured PUSCH resources (i.e. CG-SDT), Configured Grant-based resources of type 1 can be used by the UE to transmit the SDT payload when it has a valid TA.”, Pratas [0093])
Amorim, Kronander, and Pratas are analogous because they pertain to random access techniques.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RACH SDT as described in Pratas into Amorim as modified by Kronander. By modifying the method to include RACH SDT as taught by Pratas, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) and improved random access procedure (Pratas [0093]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 19, 21, 22, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MEDEIROS DE AMORIM et al. US 20230107781 (hereinafter “Amorim”) in view of Kronander et al. US 20220046711 (hereinafter “Kronander”) and in further view of Chai et al. US 20210045163 (hereinafter “Chai”)
As to claim 19 and 30 (claim 30 is the method claim for the apparatus in claim 19):
Amorim discloses:
An apparatus configured for wireless communications, the apparatus comprising: memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer- executable instructions and cause the apparatus to: (“the means comprise: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory and computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the performance of the apparatus.”, Amorim [0029])
output a timing advance (TA) configuration for a first user equipment (UE) and a second UE, wherein the TA configuration includes one or more TA offsets; (“There is also selecting circuitry 20 for selecting one of a plurality of timing offsets that are stored in data store 30. These timing offsets may have been received from the network.”, Amorim [0103])
output a threshold difference to the first UE and second UE, wherein the threshold difference comprises a threshold difference between the third TA (FIG. 3 shows another or different threshold with offset K for comparing TAc, Amorim) and the one or more offsets for each of the first UE and the second UE (“Where a set of UEs each select a different particular offset perhaps from a set of offset values, then this may allow an individual UE to more accurately differentiate between the responses using the indicated timing advances.”, Amorim [0077]) to determine whether the RAR message is intended for that UE; (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087]) (“At step 6 the UE reads the TA command (TAc) in the RAR associated with the same RAPID. That is the timing advance indicated by the network node.”, Amorim [0091]) (“At step 7 it is determined if the TAc in the RAR is reasonable as a response for its initial transmission. In the example, if the TA command magnitude satisfies: κ−ϵ≤TAc≤κα+ϵ.”, Amorim [0092]) (“If the condition is satisfied then the method proceeds to step 8 and the UE completes the RA procedure and sends Message 3. Potential contention is further resolved in Message 4, as per legacy procedure.”, Amorim [0093]) (“If the UE detects this message is not within the expected timing range, the UE proceeds to step 9 and stops the procedure and goes directly for a new RA attempts (2 message exchanges are saved on top of further interference caused in Message 3 transmission)”, Amorim [0094]) (“Where a set of UEs each select a different particular offset perhaps from a set of offset values, then this may allow an individual UE to more accurately differentiate between the responses using the indicated timing advances.”, Amorim [0077])
not receive a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) from at least one of: the first UE or the second UE in response to the RAR; (FIG. 3 shows that the UE does not send MSG3/PUSCH if the condition shown in step 7 is not met and proceeds to step 9 in which the UE repeats the flowchart shown in FIG. 3, Amorim)
and obtain the PUSCH transmission from the at least one of: the first UE or the second UE in response to the second RAR. (FIG. 3 shows that the UE sends MSG3/PUSCH if the condition shown in step 7 is met – this can be done after multiple attempts since the UE repeats this cycle whenever the condition is not met as mentioned in step 9, Amorim)
Amorim as described above does not explicitly teach:
obtain a first random access channel (RACH) preamble from the first UE using a first TA and a second RACH preamble from the second UE using a second TA, wherein the first RACH preamble and the second RACH preamble comprise an identical RACH sequence;
output a random access response (RAR) message including a timing advance command (TAC) that indicates a third TA, wherein a difference between the third TA is equal or greater than at least one of the one or more TA offsets;
output a second RAR including a second TAC that indicates a fourth TA, wherein a difference between the fourth TA is equal or greater than at least one of the one or more TA offsets;
However, Kronander further teaches determining whether the RAR is intended for the UE which includes:
output a random access response (RAR) message including a timing advance command (TAC) that indicates a third TA, wherein a difference between the third TA is equal or greater than at least one of the one or more TA offsets; (“The UE receives the RAR; [0038] 5. The UE determines the time between transmission of the RA preamble and the reception of the RAR to determine a reference time, T.sub.R; [0039] 6. The UE compares the received T.sub.A+T.sub.F with the determined reference time, T.sub.R; [0040] 7. The UE, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by more than a threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|>T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for another UE or invalid; and [0041] 8. The UE alternatively/additionally, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by less than or equal to the threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|<=T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for itself or valid.”, Kronander [0033])
output a second RAR including a second TAC that indicates a fourth TA, wherein a difference between the fourth TA is equal or greater than at least one of the one or more TA offsets; (“Depending on whether the UE determines that RAR is intended for the UE or not, the UE proceeds accordingly (e.g., continues the RA procedure if the RAR is intended for the UE or, e.g., continues to monitor for a RAR if the RAR is not intended for the UE).”, Kronander [0099]) (“The UE receives the RAR; [0038] 5. The UE determines the time between transmission of the RA preamble and the reception of the RAR to determine a reference time, T.sub.R; [0039] 6. The UE compares the received T.sub.A+T.sub.F with the determined reference time, T.sub.R; [0040] 7. The UE, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by more than a threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|>T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for another UE or invalid; and [0041] 8. The UE alternatively/additionally, if T.sub.A+T.sub.F differs from T.sub.R by less than or equal to the threshold amount (e.g., T.sub.ERR=|T.sub.R−(T.sub.A+T.sub.F)|<=T.sub.threshold), considers the response to be intended for itself or valid.”, Kronander [0033])
Amorim and Kronander are analogous because they pertain to using timing advance for UE time synchronization.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining whether the RAR is intended for the UE as described in Kronander into Amorim. By modifying the method to include determining whether the RAR is intended for the UE as taught by Kronander, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) are achieved.
The combination of Amorim and Kronander as described above does not explicitly teach:
obtain a first random access channel (RACH) preamble from the first UE using a first TA and a second RACH preamble from the second UE using a second TA, wherein the first RACH preamble and the second RACH preamble comprise an identical RACH sequence;
However, Chai further teaches outputting TA configuration and obtaining identical RAPID from multiple UEs which includes:
obtain a first random access channel (RACH) preamble from the first UE using a first TA and a second RACH preamble from the second UE using a second TA, wherein the first RACH preamble and the second RACH preamble comprise an identical RACH sequence; (FIG. 6 shows S201 in which the network device sends TA information used to configure TA, Chai) (“How the UE obtains a largest TA value and a smallest TA value that can enable the UE to correctly perform uplink transmission is obtained in this solution. For example, in a four-step random access process, when the UE 1 and the UE 2 send a same random access preamble preamble on a same resource, the base station cannot distinguish preambles of the two UEs, that is, the base station considers that received preambles are from one UE. The base station delivers one TA value in Msg2. Because the UE 1 and the UE 2 send the same preamble on the same resource, random access-radio network temporary identifiers (random access-radio network temporary identity, RA-RNTI) of the UE 1 and the UE 2 are the same, and random access preamble identifiers (Random Access Preamble Identity, RAPID) of the UE 1 and the UE 2 are also the same. In other words, the UE 1 considers that the TA is sent to the UE 1, and the UE 2 considers that the TA is sent to the UE 2. Both the UE 1 and the UE 2 send Msg3 to the base station, and the base station sends Msg4. Msg4 carries an identifier used to indicate UE that successfully accesses a network.”, Chai [0120])
Amorim, Kronander, and Chai are analogous because they pertain to determining time advance for UEs.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include outputting TA configuration and obtaining identical RAPID from multiple UEs as described in Chai into Amorim. By modifying the method to include outputting TA configuration and obtaining identical RAPID from multiple UEs as taught by Chai, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003]) and improved random access procedure (Chai [0120]) are achieved.
As to claim 21:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the one or more offsets comprises a range of offsets or a range of TA values. (“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087])
As to claim 22:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 21, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and further cause the apparatus to determine the range of offsets or the range of TA values based on a capability of the apparatus to decode a RACH preamble. (“After the UE sends the message 1, it will wait for the message 2 (Random Access Response). The RAR contains the synchronization and identity information of the UE to be used towards the eNb, It also contains the scheduling information for the subsequent transmission of message 3, as depicted in FIG. 2. The RAPID (RA preamble ID) in the header indicates this response is addressed to the UE that used the same RAPID in Msg 1. In case two or more UEs utilize the same RAPID during the same RA (random access) occasion, all these users will read this message and follow up with the transmission of Msg 3.”, Amorim [0079])(“At step 3 the UE chooses an offset delay, κ, to be added to the timing advance information. This offset is better chosen if it falls in a range where the later residual TA provided in the TA command cannot be entirely attributed to the inaccuracy of the initial estimation, therefore the suggested (optional) rule: κ−ϵ≤TAest+κ−TAreal≤: κ+ϵ. The offset delay may be a random value or it may be selected from a set of values that are supplied to the UE by the network.”, Amorim [0087])
As to claim 26:
Amorim discloses:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the RAR comprises a access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI), a random access preamble identifier (RAPID), or both; and the second RAR comprises the same RA-RNTI, the same RAPID, or both. ) (“At step 6 the UE reads the TA command (TAc) in the RAR associated with the same RAPID. That is the timing advance indicated by the network node.”, Amorim [0091])
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorim in view of Kronander and Chai, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hosseinian et al. US 20220030638 (hereinafter “Hosseinian”)
As to claim 20:
The combination of Amorim, Kronander, and Chai as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the first RACH preamble and the second RACH preamble are obtained at different times.
However, Hosseinian further teaches obtaining RACH signatures at different times which includes:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the first RACH preamble and the second RACH preamble are obtained at different times. (“FIG. 2B shows an example in which two UEs transmit the same signature using two different intentional random delay values.”, Hosseinian [0067])
Amorim, Chai, Kronander, and Hosseinian are analogous because they pertain to random access techniques.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RACH SDT as described in Hosseinian into Amorim as modified by Chai and Kronander. By modifying the method to include RACH SDT as taught by Hosseinian, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) and improved random access procedure (Hosseinian [0093] and Chai [0120]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorim in view of Kronander and Chai, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. US 20250142629 (hereinafter “Rastegardoost”)
As to claim 27:
The combination of Amorim, Kronander, and Chai as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein: the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain the RACH preamble comprises the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain a RACH message further comprising a PUSCH; and the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to output the RAR comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively, execute the computer- executable instructions and cause the apparatus to output a fallback RAR in a RACH message.
However, Rastegardoost further teaches fallback RAR in RACH which includes:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein: the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain the RACH preamble comprises the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to obtain a RACH message further comprising a PUSCH; and the one or more processors being configured to, individually or collectively, execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to output the RAR comprises the one or more processors being configured to individually or collectively, execute the computer- executable instructions and cause the apparatus to output a fallback RAR in a RACH message. (“The PUSCH transmission in MsgA may fail. Therefore, the wireless device may retransmit the PUSCH. The wireless device may fall back to a 4-step RACH, and may retransmit the PUSCH via an UL grant comprised in a received RAR message.”, Rastegardoost [0438])
Amorim, Kronander, Chai, and Rastegardoost are analogous because they pertain to random access techniques.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include fallback RAR in RACH as described in Rastegardoost into Amorim as modified by Chai and Kronander. By modifying the method to include fallback RAR in RACH as taught by Rastegardoost, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) and improved random access procedure (Rastegardoost [0438] and Chai [0120]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amorim in view of Kronander and Chai, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Pratas et al. US 20240163914 (hereinafter “Pratas”)
As to claim 28:
The combination of Amorim, Kronander, and Chai as described above does not explicitly teach:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the RACH preamble transmission and the PUSCH transmission comprises a narrowband Internet-of-Thing (NB-IoT) early data transmission (EDT) or small data transmission (SDT).
However, Pratas further teaches RACH SDT which includes:
The apparatus of claim 19, wherein the RACH preamble transmission and the PUSCH transmission comprises a narrowband Internet-of-Thing (NB-IoT) early data transmission (EDT) or small data transmission (SDT). (“for a SDT using the 2-step RACH (i.e. 2-step RA SDT), MsgA PUSCH may be used to transmit the SDT payload. For a SDT using the 4-step RACH (i.e. 4-step RA SDT), Msg3 (PUSCH) may be used to transmit the SDT payload. On the other hand, for SDT using UL data transmission on pre-configured PUSCH resources (i.e. CG-SDT), Configured Grant-based resources of type 1 can be used by the UE to transmit the SDT payload when it has a valid TA.”, Pratas [0093])
Amorim, Chai, Kronander, and Pratas are analogous because they pertain to random access techniques.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include RACH SDT as described in Pratas into Amorim as modified by Chai and Kronander. By modifying the method to include RACH SDT as taught by Pratas, the benefits of improved identification of the target of a response signal (Amorim [0003] and Kronander [0033]) and improved random access procedure (Pratas [0093] and Chai [0120]) are achieved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW C KIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM (PST).
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/A.C.K./
Examiner
Art Unit 2471
/MOHAMMAD S ADHAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471