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
This is in response to an amendment/response filed 1/26/2026.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-15 are now pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5-9 of the remarks, in regard to the independent claims, the Applicant disagrees with the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien US 20230146487 (hereinafter “Chien”) in view of Loehr et al. US 20200053793 (hereinafter “Loehr”)
Specifically, the Applicant remarks:
Loehr only contemplates skipping transmission for a partial duration of the RA procedure. Loehr fails to disclose or suggest a protocol where the UE does not perform such transmissions for the entirety of the RA procedure period as claimed
Loehr merely describes a UE sharing a Base Station (BS)-initiated COT. Loehr describes that the UE uses what the network provides. Loehr provides no basis for a UE to forgo a UE-initiated COT in favor of the claimed RA procedure constraints.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding (1), the claim does not say all UL transmissions are not allowed during the RA procedure (or for the entirety of the RA procedure period). It simply says "during the contention-based random access procedure, the UE does not perform an uplink (UL) transmission that is associated with a channel occupancy initiated by the UE for the period" which can be interpreted as not allowing a subset of UL transmissions during the RA procedure.
Regarding (2), in [0038], Loehr teaches "the remote unit 105 later determines to initiate a RACH procedure….to the base unit 110"; the Examiner interpreted this as the UE initiating channel occupancy since it transmits a preamble to request network access. The amended claim now says "the UE does not perform an uplink (UL) transmission that is associated with a channel occupancy initiated by the UE for the period". Loehr teaches not performing an UL transmission associated with a channel occupancy initiated by the UE for the period because the UE decides to "skip" UL transmission for the remaining period of the channel occupancy initiated by the UE based on the configuration sent by the base station. The claim does not explicitly specify that the UE is not allowed to transmit for the entire period. It simply says that "an uplink (UL) transmission that is associated with a channel occupancy initiated by the UE for the period" is not performed and this happens "during the contention-based random access procedure".
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, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien US 20230146487 (hereinafter “Chien”) in view of Loehr et al. US 20200053793 (hereinafter “Loehr”)
As to claim 1, 11, and 12 (claim 1 is the method claim for the UE and device in claim 11 and 12 respectively):
Chien discloses:
A method performed by a user equipment (UE) (“The UE 10a may include a processor 11a, a memory 12a, and a transceiver”, Chien [0043]), the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, configuration information for channel access including information regarding a period related to channel occupancy initiation of the UE; (“The UE 10 determines whether to initiate a channel occupancy time (COT) in an FFP according to a set of FFP parameters associated with the UE 10 based on at least one condition in the configuration information”, Chien [0048]) (“In a first aspect, an embodiment of the invention provides a channel access method executable in a user equipment (UE), comprising: [0008] receiving configuration information and scheduling information from a base station; [0009] detecting transmission of downlink (DL) information in a fixed frame period (FFP) according to a set of FFP parameters associated with the base station; [0010] determining whether to initiate a channel occupancy time (COT) in an FFP according to a set of FFP parameters associated with the UE based on at least one condition in the configuration information, at least one condition in the scheduling information, and a detection result of detecting the transmission the DL information;”, Chien [0007])
Chien as described above does not explicitly teach:
and performing a contention-based random access procedure, wherein, during the contention-based random access procedure, the UE does not perform an uplink (UL) transmission that is associated with a channel occupancy initiated by the UE for the period
However, Loehr further teaches skipping uplink transmission during contention based random access procedure which includes:
and performing a contention-based random access procedure, (FIG. 2 shows UE performing CBRA procedure which is initiated by the UE, Loehr) (“Although various embodiments described herein are described with reference to the CBRA procedure, certain embodiments are not limited to the CBRA.”, Loehr [0043]) wherein, during the contention-based random access procedure, the UE skips an uplink (UL) transmission that is associated with a channel occupancy initiated by the UE for the period (“The remote unit 105 later determines to initiate a RACH procedure and sends a RACH Msg1 115 (e.g., PRACH preamble) to the base unit 110.”, Loehr [0038]) (FIG. 3 shows the UE skipping transmission of PUSCH during the CBRA procedure, Loehr) (“For example, if the RAN node 210 obtained channel access using Type I, it may share the channel occupancy with the UE 205.”, Loehr [0067]) (“Moreover, according to a second embodiment, the Random Access Response message 230 sent from the network entity (e.g., RAN node 210) to the UE 205 in response to the reception of a RACH preamble indicates to the UE 205 to skip the subsequent uplink transmission”, Loehr [0054])
Chien and Loehr are analogous because they pertain to contention-based random access procedure.
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 skipping uplink transmission during contention based random access procedure as described in Loehr into Chien. By modifying the method to include skipping uplink transmission during contention based random access procedure as taught by Loehr, the benefits of minimized power consumption (Loehr [0047]) with improved uplink reliability (Chien [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 3:
Chien discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein, the UE transmits an UL signal in a second period starting with base station-initiated (BS-initiated) channel occupancy based on channel occupancy time (COT) sharing.(“ Even though a UE, such as the UE 10, can transmit UL data or signals anywhere within a remaining portion of the COT by sharing the gNB-initiated COT, the example poses restrictions to the UE that all the UL transmissions depend on the LBT results of the gNB and detection of possible DL transmissions at the beginning of an FFP.”, Chien [0063])
As to claim 4:
Chien discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state with respect to the base station, (“For UE-initiated COT, the gNB 20 provides at least one set of FFP parameters via SIB1 (broadcast) or dedicated RRC configuration to a UE (e.g., the UE 10) or a group of UEs. The at least one set of FFP parameters associated with the UE is included in the configuration information for the UE 10 to perform COT initiation. The configuration information may be transmitted in an SIB 1 or dedicated RRC signaling from the gNB 20 to one or more UE (e.g., the UE 10).”, Chien [0075]) (“The UE 10 can determine to apply which set of FFP configurations based on an RRC state and/or a UL traffic type of the UE 10. The RRC state of the UE 10 may comprise RRC_IDLE state, RRC_inactive state, or in an RRC_CONNECTED state.”, Chien [0105])
Chien as described above does not explicitly teach:
and wherein the UL transmission associated with the channel occupancy initiated by the UE is not performed to the base station, during the contention-based random access procedure.
However, Loehr further teaches skipping uplink transmission during contention based random access procedure which includes:
and wherein the UL transmission associated with the channel occupancy initiated by the UE is not performed to the base station, during the contention-based random access procedure. (“The remote unit 105 later determines to initiate a RACH procedure and sends a RACH Msg1 115 (e.g., PRACH preamble) to the base unit 110.”, Loehr [0038]) (FIG. 3 shows the UE skipping transmission of PUSCH during the CBRA procedure, Loehr) (“For example, if the RAN node 210 obtained channel access using Type I, it may share the channel occupancy with the UE 205.”, Loehr [0067]) (“Moreover, according to a second embodiment, the Random Access Response message 230 sent from the network entity (e.g., RAN node 210) to the UE 205 in response to the reception of a RACH preamble indicates to the UE 205 to skip the subsequent uplink transmission”, Loehr [0054])
Chien and Loehr are analogous because they pertain to contention-based random access procedure.
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 skipping uplink transmission during contention based random access procedure as described in Loehr into Chien. By modifying the method to include skipping uplink transmission during contention based random access procedure as taught by Loehr, the benefits of minimized power consumption (Loehr [0047]) with improved uplink reliability (Chien [0024]) are achieved.
As to claim 10:
Chien discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program for executing the method of claim 1. (“computer executable instructions stored in non-transitory computer readable medium”, Chien [0020])
As to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 1 from the perspective of the network node.
As to claim 14:
Chien discloses:
The method of claim 13, wherein based on the determination that the UL transmission associated with the UE-initiated channel occupancy is not allowed in the first period (“The UE 10 may restrict UL transmission over shared COT from one of the other UEs (i.e., the gNB 20 shares COT with one of the other UEs). The shared COT may comprise a UE-initiated COT of the one of the other UEs”, Chien [0114]), the UL signal is received in a second period starting with BS-initiated channel occupancy based on channel occupancy time (COT) sharing. (“If the UE 10 has detected DL channels/signals at the front portion of the gNB’s FFP and/or the gNB 20 has indicated UE-initiated COT is not allowed, gNB-initiated COT is assumed for UL transmission.”, Chien [0174])
As to claim 15:
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 11 from the perspective of the network node.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien in view of Loehr, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Maattanen et al. US 20220141730 (hereinafter “Maattanen”)
As to claim 8:
The combination of Chien and Loehr as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the contention-based random access procedure comprises at least one transmission of a physical random access channel (PRACH) resource, transmission of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource for message 3 (Msg3), transmission of a message A (MsgA) resource including a PRACH preamble in 2-step random access, or transmission of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) for message B (MsgB) that is a response to MsgA
However, Maattanen further teaches contention-based random access procedure in which the UE determines that it cannot transmit until the contention-based random access procedure completes which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the contention-based random access procedure (“ In case contention based random access (CBRA) is used in the target cell the UE needs to send Msg3 and then wait for a time period related to the RTT (or T) in the target cell before it receives confirmation from the target node (Msg4) that completes the contention resolution. No transmission/reception can therefore typically be performed in the target cell until Msg4 has been received.”, Maattanen [0102]) comprises at least one transmission of a physical random access channel (PRACH) resource, transmission of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource for message 3 (Msg3), transmission of a message A (MsgA) resource including a PRACH preamble in 2-step random access, or transmission of a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) resource carrying a hybrid automatic repeat request-acknowledgement (HARQ-ACK) for message B (MsgB) that is a response to MsgA (“The left-hand side of FIG. 4 shows signaling during handover in Long Term Evolution. The UE initially receives data from the source network node before then receiving a handover command or trigger from the source network node (alternatively the UE may request handover). At that point, data transmissions between the source network node and the UE are halted. The UE transmits a random access message (e.g., a random access preamble) to the target network node, which responds with a Random Access Response message. In the illustrated example, access to the target network node is via contention-based random access, and thus a further message (Msg3) is transmitted to the target network node to resolve any contention with other UEs seeking to access the target network node. In the illustration, any contention is resolved in the UE's favour, and the target network node transmits a further message (Msg4) to the UE to complete the establishment of a connection between the UE and the target network node. Data can thereafter be transmitted between the UE and the target network node (with DL data shown in the Figure). As can be seen, this results in a significant interruption to services during the handover.”, Maattanen [0092]) (“it continues UL and DL communication (e.g., on the Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) and the Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH), respectively) by indicating uplink grants or downlink assignments on the PDCCH.”, Maattanen [0098])
Chien, Loehr, and Maattanen are analogous because they pertain to contention-based random access procedure.
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 contention-based random access procedure in which the UE determines that it cannot transmit until the contention-based random access procedure completes as described in Maattanen into Chien as modified by Loehr. By modifying the method to include contention-based random access procedure in which the UE determines that it cannot transmit until the contention-based random access procedure completes as taught by Maattanen, the benefits of improved user experience (Maattanen [0073]), minimized power consumption (Loehr [0047]), and improved uplink reliability (Chien [0024]) are achieved.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien in view of Loehr, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Rastegardoost et al. US 20210105812 (hereinafter “Rastegardoost”)
As to claim 9:
The combination of Chien and Loehr as described above does not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the random access procedure is performed for a timing advance (TA) adjustment, a scheduling request (SR), or a beam failure report (BFR) in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state.
However, Rastegardoost further teaches random access procedure, TA, SR, BRF, and RRC state which includes:
The method of claim 1, wherein the random access procedure (“random access procedure”, Rastegardoost [0168]) is performed for a timing advance (TA) adjustment (“timing advance MAC CEs”, Rastegardoost [0075]), a scheduling request (SR) (“scheduling requests (SR)”, Rastegardoost [0095]), or a beam failure report (BFR) (“A UE may initiate a beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure”, Rastegardoost [0166]) in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state (“RRC_CONNECTED state”, Rastegardoost [0168]).
Chien, Loehr, and Rastegardoost are analogous because they pertain to random access procedure.
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 random access procedure, TA, SR, BRF, and RRC state as described in Rastegardoost into Chien as modified by Loehr. By modifying the method to include random access procedure, TA, SR, BRF, and RRC state as taught by Rastegardoost, the benefits of improved coexistence (Rastegardoost [0227]), minimized power consumption (Loehr [0047]), and improved uplink reliability (Chien [0024]) are achieved.
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 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
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471