Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in a response to a communication received on September 22, 2025.
This Application has been reassigned to a new examiner, the examiner’s contact information can be found at the end of the application.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 15-30, 32, and 34 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 31, and 33 are pending in this application.
Specification
The amendments to the specification received September 22, 2025 have been received and are entered.
Response to Arguments
The 35 USC §112(b) rejection is hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered. The amendments have incorporated the allowable material indicated in the previous office action. However, that position has been reconsidered and the allowable material is hereby withdrawn for the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(I) recites:
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Claims 1 and 31 recite “wherein the historical random access record is used at least for the base station to determine a random access configuration of one or more terminals”, however claim 1 is directed towards a method, “performed by the terminal”. The determination of the random access configuration is the intended use of the historical random access record, once it is received by a base station. However claim 1 is directed towards the terminal and the processes that the terminal might perform. As result, the determination of the random access configuration is an intended use of the process and not an actual process step of the method of claim 1. Process steps of the base station are outside the scope of the claim and are being given no patentable weight. As result, for claim 1 the following limitations are being given no patentable weight: “wherein the historical random access record is used at least for the base station to determine a random access configuration of one or more terminals; wherein the random access configuration comprises at least one of: a configuration of a random access type selected by the terminal; or a configuration of a reference signal receiving power (RSRP) threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with random access; and wherein the historical random access record is at least configured to determine a configuration of an RSRP threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with at least one random access type for the one or more terminals based on at least one of: information about a number of times of random access performed by the terminal under different random access types, or information about random access results of the random access performed by the terminal under different random access types.”
Applicant is encouraged to focus the scope of claims 1 and 31 to the steps performed by the terminal as claimed. Claim 8 is directed towards a process performed by a base station, so the limitations at issue will be given patentable weight, since they are process steps to be performed by the claimed base station.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “wherein the historical random access record is at least configured to determine a configuration of an RSRP threshold of a downlink loss reference”. Claim 1 further recites “wherein the historical random access record is used at least for the base station to determine a random access configuration of one or more terminals wherein the random access configuration comprises at least one of … a configuration of a reference signal receiving power (RSRP) threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with random access”. The claim seems to require either the record itself or the base station to determine a configuration for the claimed RSRP threshold. Additionally, the claim seems to require two separate configurations of the RSRP threshold for DL loss references, which is also unclear if they are actually the same configuration. For the purpose of further prosecution the examiner will assume the base station uses the historical RAR to determine a random access configuration including a RSRP threshold as claimed.
Claim 1 further recites “the one or more terminals” in line 15. Claim 1 only includes “the terminal”, there is no indication there are additional terminals, so the scope of that limitation is unclear.
Claim 31 contains the same limitations as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites “determining a random access configuration of one or more terminals according to the historical random access record; wherein the random access configuration comprises at least one of: … or a configuration of a reference signal receiving power (RSRP) threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with random access;” and “wherein determining the random access configuration of the one or more terminals according to the historical random access record comprises: determining a configuration of an RSRP threshold of a downlink loss reference”. Similar to claim 1, it is unclear whether there are two separate RSRP thresholds, or whether they are both referring to a single RSRP threshold only further defining it. As result, the scope of claim 8 is unclear.
Claim 8 further recites “the one or more terminals” in lines 8, 15-16, and 18-19. Claim 8 only previously includes “the terminal”, there is no indication there are additional terminals, so the scope of that limitation is unclear.
Claims 3-4, 7, 10-11, 14, and 33 are dependent claims are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 8, and 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14, 31, and 33 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al (US 2023/0029520, hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding claims 1 and 31, Lin teaches a method for determining a random access configuration of a terminal, performed by the terminal and comprising:
receiving an obtaining request, sent by a base station, for a historical random access record (¶47, base station A sends the information request to the terminal); and
sending the historical random access record associated with the obtaining request to the base station (¶47, terminal can transmit to the base station a history report include random access report, see also ¶¶48-49 and ¶¶65-68);
wherein the historical random access record is used at least for the base station to determine a random access configuration of one or more terminals; wherein the random access configuration comprises at least one of: a configuration of a random access type selected by the terminal; or a configuration of a reference signal receiving power (RSRP) threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with random access; (PLEASE NOTE: the operations of the base station are outside the scope of claim 1, the claim recites the intended use of the base station upon receiving the historical random access record, but does not positively require the operations of the base station, so they are given no patentable weight. For the purposes of prosecution, please see ¶¶55-60, ¶¶155-160, ¶¶166-171, and ¶179 to show how the base station can use the records to adjust the configuration of the random access procedure, including adjust access types selected by the terminal and the RSRP threshold for DL pathless reference and the switching indication (see ¶179) and
wherein the historical random access record is at least configured to determine a configuration of an RSRP threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with at least one random access type for the one or more terminals based on at least one of: information about a number of times of random access performed by the terminal under different random access types, or information about random access results of the random access performed by the terminal under different random access types (PLEASE NOTE: the operations of the base station are outside the scope of claim 1,, this limitation is indefinite, but is being interpreted as a determination made by the base station (see 112(b) rejection to claim 1 above, however for the purpose of further prosecution see ¶179 to show network optimization performed by the base station, which is made after the reporting of historical random access procedures, includes RSRP for downlink pathless reference).
Regarding claim 8, Lin teaches a method for determining a random access configuration of a terminal, performed by a base station and comprising:
sending an obtaining request for a historical random access record to the terminal (¶47, base station A sends the information request to the terminal); and
receiving the historical random access record associated with the obtaining request from the terminal (¶47, terminal can transmit to the base station a history report include random access report, see also ¶¶48-49 and ¶¶65-68);
wherein the method further comprises: determining a random access configuration of one or more terminals according to the historical random access record (¶¶178-180, wherein the reported historical random access records are used to help optimize the random access configuration by the base station);
wherein the random access configuration comprises at least one of:
a configuration of a random access type selected by the terminal; or
a configuration of a reference signal receiving power (RSRP) threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with random access (see ¶179, wherein the network optimizes the RSRP threshold for DL pathloss reference to be associated with the selected access type (include two-step random access); and
wherein determining the random access configuration of the one or more terminals according to the historical random access record (¶¶178-179, wherein the reported historical random access records are used to help optimize the random access configuration by the base station) comprises:
determining a configuration of an RSRP threshold of a downlink loss reference associated with at least one random access type for the one or more terminals (see ¶179, wherein the network optimizes the RSRP threshold for DL pathloss reference to be associated with the selected access type (include two-step random access) based on at least one of:
information about a number of times of random access performed by the terminal under different random access types, or
information about random access results of the random access performed by the terminal under different random access types (see ¶179, wherein information about past access results and selections are used to help determine the RSRP pathless reference threshold including switching access type such as two and four-step access types).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 33, Lin teaches the method according to claims 1, 8, and 31, further comprising: receiving measurement configuration information sent by the base station (¶47, the base station can transmit a logMeasReportReq to a terminal); and measuring information associated with the historical random access record in a random access process according to the measurement configuration information (¶47, the terminal can respond to the LogMeasReportReq as part of the historical access record transmission).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Lin teaches the method according to claims 3 and 12, wherein information contained in the historical random access record comprises at least one of:
record information that the terminal selects a four-step random access type in a historical random access process (see ¶84);
record information that the terminal selects a two-step random access type in the historical random access process (see ¶84);
information about (RSRP) of a downlink loss reference during historical random access (see ¶¶179-180);
information about an RSRP threshold of the downlink loss reference of a random access type selected during the historical random access;
the information about the number of times of the random access performed by the terminal under different random access types (¶¶178-180;
the information about the random access results of the random access performed by the terminal under different random access types (¶178);
information about random access preambles selected by the terminal for random access under different random access types (¶¶65-68);
information about random access resources selected by the terminal for the random access under different random access types; or
information about identity documents (IDs) of base stations selected and accessed by the terminal for the random access under different random access types.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Han et al (US 2022/0078849, hereinafter Han).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Lin teaches the method according to claims 1 and 8, Lin teaches the base station requesting the historical access record and the Terminal obtaining the record, and sending the historical access record, however Lin doesn’t explicitly indicate:
wherein receiving the obtaining request, sent by the base station, for the historical random access record comprises: receiving the obtaining request sent by means of a radio resource control (RRC) signaling by the base station; and sending the historical random access record associated with the obtaining request to the base station comprises: sending the historical random access record to the base station by the RRC signaling.
Han teaches a method of recording statistical information regarding random access records (¶¶43-45 and ¶47-49), Han further teaches that the communication between the terminal and base station regarding the records are via RRC signaling (see ¶75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the application to use Han’s suggestion of using RRC signaling to obtain the random access procedure records for a device to improve Lin’s system, the combination would modify the record request and response taught in Lin to make use of existing RRC signaling. The combination would allow a high layer of signaling to happen between the device and base station to ensure reliable method to send all the required information as suggested in Lin.
Additional Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/028219 because it teaches a base station configuration an random access procedural based upon record past successful events.
WO 2021/129568 because it disclosures a UE’s past random access procedure reporting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN T BATES whose telephone number is (571)272-3980. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights