Detailed Action
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/14/2026 has been entered.
In this Office Action, claims 1, 2, 36-39, 41, 43-49, 51-54, 57-59 and 63 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
2. In Remarks, applicant’s arguments are mainly base on the amended claim limitations. However, the amended claim limitations are considered obvious by the rationales found in the newly cited prior art. See greater details in the claim rejection section set forth below.
PNG
media_image1.png
400
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1, 2, 36-39, 43-49, 52-54 and 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0279375 A1 in view of Jeon et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0051736 A1, hereinafter, Jeon 2 and Xu et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0201770 A1.
Claim 1
Jeon discloses a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 15-27), comprising:
transmitting a first random access message to a base station (BS in fig. 26) during a random access procedure (see step 2603 in fig. 26 for sending RA preamble, see fig. 15);
PNG
media_image2.png
470
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
selecting a selected monitoring timer from at least a first random access response (2604 in fig. 26) monitoring window comprising a first duration of time to monitor for a second random access message (RAR response timer trigger in step 2603 in fig. 26); and
monitoring for the second random access message (random access response from BS in fig. 26 or see RA response message in fig. 15) from the base station within the selected monitoring window (2604 in fig. 26 and see fig. 15).
Although Jeon does not disclose “selecting a selected monitoring window from at least a first random access response monitoring window; a second random access message comprising a random access response and a second random access response monitoring window comprising a second duration of time to monitor for the same second random access message comprising the random access response, wherein the first duration of time is different than the second duration of time”, claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
PNG
media_image3.png
468
874
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “selecting a selected monitoring window from at least a first monitoring window; and a second random access message comprising a random access response and a second random access response monitoring window comprising a second duration of time to monitor for the same second random access message comprising the random access response”, initially, it’s to note that claim limitations are reasonably interpreted in light of fig. 6 of this instant application in accordance with MPEP 2111. It means that the second monitoring window includes time to monitor for receiving msg2-4. Recall that Jeon discloses RAR response timer, as to a first monitoring window, and Contention Resolution Timer, as to a second random access response monitoring window (see fig. 26 of Jeon). To advance the prosecution, evidence for a timer of Jeon to be seen as a monitoring window is provided herein. In particular, Jeon 2 teaches one MsgB RAR monitoring window for receiving RA message from the end of MsgA to MsgB1-MsgB2 (fig. 28) and two MsgB RAR monitoring windows from the end of MsgA to MsgB2 and from MsgB1 to MsgB2 (fig. 30).
PNG
media_image4.png
470
892
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon by providing reception of split random access response as taught in Jeon 2. Such a modification would have included a user equipment UE to perform a random access procedure with a time window for monitoring a random access response RAR so that the UE could have decoded RAR successfully as suggested in par. 0388 of Jeon 2.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “wherein the first duration of time is different than the second duration of time”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved to be different and what the benefits bring to the claimed invention being different. In fact, as explained above, Jeon 2 teaches the first duration of time different from the second duration of time (fig. 28 & 30). Further evidence for two different times could be seen in Xu. In particular, Xu teaches determining based on the offset to select the target time for a RAR window and another target time for monitoring a contention resolution message (fig. 8, see par. 0175 for determining a target time for a RAR window and see par. 0188-0197 for determining target time for contention resolution timer or message in various ways and embodiments; hence, the target time for RAR window and contention resolution will be different as depicted in fig. 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon in view of Jeon 2 by providing random access for a terminal device with offset and a target time as taught in Xu to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have included a random access procedure to use either in terrestrial cellular network and non terrestrial network NTN so that the communication with satellite would not only be lost but also could have provided long communication distance and high stability between a transmitting and receiving terminals as suggested in par. 0003 of Xu.
Claim 2
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
initializing a timer with the first duration of time or the second duration of time based on the selected monitoring window (Jeon, par. 0109 and initializing timers in fig. 22 & 25-26; Jeon 2, timer in par. 0328-0329; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 36
Jeon discloses a user equipment (UE) (wireless device 406 in fig. 4), comprising:
one or more transceivers (407 in fig. 4);
one or more memory (409 in fig. 4); and
one or more processors (408 in fig. 4) coupled to the one or more transceivers and the one or more memories (as depicted in fig. 4, 407-408-409 are coupled), the processor being configured to cause the UE to:
transmit a first random access message (2603 in fig. 26) to a network element (BS in fig. 26) during a random access procedure (transmitting RA preamble in 2603 in fig. 6);
selecting a selected monitoring timer from at least a first random access response (2604 in fig. 26) monitoring window comprising a first duration of time to monitor for a second random access message (RAR response timer trigger in step 2603 in fig. 26); and
monitor for the second random access message (random access response from BS in fig. 26 or see RA response message in fig. 15) from the network element within the selected monitoring window (2604 in fig. 26).
Although Jeon does not disclose “selecting a selected monitoring window from at least a first random access response monitoring window; a second random access message comprising a random access response and a second random access response monitoring window comprising a second duration of time to monitor for the same second random access message comprising the random access response, wherein the first duration of time is different than the second duration of time”, claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “selecting a selected monitoring window from at least a first monitoring window; and a second random access message comprising a random access response and a second random access response monitoring window comprising a second duration of time to monitor for the same second random access message comprising the random access response”, initially, it’s to note that claim limitations are reasonably interpreted in light of fig. 6 of this instant application in accordance with MPEP 2111. It means that the second monitoring window includes time to monitor for receiving msg2-4. Recall that Jeon discloses RAR response timer, as to a first monitoring window, and Contention Resolution Timer, as to a second random access response monitoring window (see fig. 26 of Jeon). To advance the prosecution, evidence for a timer of Jeon to be seen as a monitoring window is provided herein. In particular, Jeon 2 teaches one MsgB RAR monitoring window for receiving RA message from the end of MsgA to MsgB1-MsgB2 (fig. 28) and two MsgB RAR monitoring windows from the end of MsgA to MsgB2 and from MsgB1 to MsgB2 (fig. 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon by providing reception of split random access response as taught in Jeon 2. Such a modification would have included a user equipment UE to perform a random access procedure with a time window for monitoring a random access response RAR so that the UE could have decoded RAR successfully as suggested in par. 0388 of Jeon 2.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “wherein the first duration of time is different than the second duration of time”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved to be different and what the benefits bring to the claimed invention being different. In fact, as explained above, Jeon 2 teaches the first duration of time different from the second duration of time (fig. 28 & 30). Further evidence for two different times could be seen in Xu. In particular, Xu teaches determining based on the offset to select the target time for a RAR window and another target time for monitoring a contention resolution message (fig. 8, see par. 0175 for determining a target time for a RAR window and see par. 0188-0197 for determining target time for contention resolution timer or message in various ways and embodiments; hence, the target time for RAR window and contention resolution will be different as depicted in fig. 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon in view of Jeon 2 by providing random access for a terminal device with offset and a target time as taught in Xu to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have included a random access procedure to use either in terrestrial cellular network and non terrestrial network NTN so that the communication with satellite would not only be lost but also could have provided long communication distance and high stability between a transmitting and receiving terminals as suggested in par. 0003 of Xu.
Claim 37
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 36, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE:
initialize a timer with the first duration of time or the second duration of time based on the selected monitoring window (Jeon, par. 0109 and initializing timers in fig. 22 & 25-26; Jeon 2, timer in par. 0328-0329; fig. 8 of Xu; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 38
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 37, wherein the first duration of time is less than the second duration of time and the selected monitoring window comprises the first monitoring window (Jeon, par. 0109 describes maximum and minimum values for window; Jeon 2, Msg RAR window in fig. 24-30; the maximum waiting time set for the second timer in fig. 30-32 could be longer than the maximum waiting time set in the first timer in fig. 24 A-B; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 39
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 38, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
initialize the timer at a start time from a transmission time of the first random access message by an offset amount of time (Jeon, par. 0109 describes maximum and minimum values for window; Jeon 2, see timeoffset in fig. 17C in view of how to initiate timer in par. 0328-0329; the offset in fig. 8 of Xu; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claim).
Claim 43
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 37, wherein the one or more processor are further configured to cause the UE to:
initialize the timer upon transmission of the first random access message (Jeon, RAR response timer in fig. 15 & 22; Jeon 2, timer in par. 0328-0329 and MsgB RAR window in fig. 24-32), wherein each of the first duration of time and the second duration of time is associated with a different respective random access channel (RACH) type of a plurality of RACH types (Jeon, see fig. 15, 20 & 22 for 2step RACH, 4 steps RACH with or without contention base, RAP response timer for RACH and RACH with contention resolution timer in fig. 25-26; Jeon 2, two-step RACH type in fig. 24-32; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 44
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 43, wherein the plurality of RACH types are each associated with a different respective data transmission type of a plurality of data transmission types (Jeon, fig. 15 depicts different types for RACH with different data transmission types; Jeon 2, small data transmission of TB during the two step RA procedure in par. 0242 & 0263; and hence, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 45
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 44, wherein the first duration of time is less than the second duration of time (Jeon, different timers in fig. 21-22 & 25-26; Jeon 2, various MsgB RAR windows in fig. 24-32, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
select the first monitoring window as the selected monitoring window when a current data transmission type of the plurality of data transmission types utilized by the UE comprises a small data transmission type (Jeon, par. 0109 for maximum and minimum values for monitoring window and RA preamble transmission in fig. 20-22 & 25-27; Jeon 2, small data transmission in par. 0242 & 0263; therefore, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 46
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 44, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
select a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble for the first random access message based on a current RACH type of the plurality of RACH types associated with a current data transmission type of the plurality of data transmission types utilized by the UE (Jeon, see fig. 15 and par. 0116-0117 for selecting PRACH based on RA-RNTI and see fig. 18-20 and par. 127-0128; Jeon 2, a PRACH preamble in MsgA in par. 0238, 0255, 0256 & 0259; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed invention to perform equally well with the combined prior art).
Claim 47
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 44, wherein the random access procedure comprises a two-step random access procedure and the first random access message comprises a msgA in the two-step random access procedure (Jeon, 2003 step 1 in fig. 20; MsgA 1331 in par. 0246 of Jeon 2), and wherein the processor is further configured to:
select at least one of a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble or resources for a physical uplink shared channel of the first random access message based on a current RACH type of the plurality of RACH types associated with a current data transmission type of the plurality of data transmission types utilized by the UE (Jeon, two step RACH type and RA preamble transmission in fig. 20, see fig. 15 and par. 0116-0117 for selecting PRACH based on RA-RNTI and see fig. 18-20 and par. 0127-0128; Jeon 2, see PRACH resource in fig.17 and see PRACH resources in par. 0238, 0255, 0256 & 0259; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claimed invention).
Claim 48
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 63, wherein the first random access message comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble (Jeon, RA preamble and UL message in 2003 in fig. 20 and see PRACH in par. 0127-0128) and the second random access message comprises a contention resolution message (Jeon, step 2 RA response and contention resolution in 2004 in fig. 20), and wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a third random access message comprising a random access response in response to the first random access message (Jeon, contention free 2 step or 4 step procedure in fig. 15 b & d and see fig. 22 & 27; Jeon 2, see MsgB 1-3 in RAR response in fig. 24-32);
transmit a fourth random access message comprising an uplink message for contention resolution in response to the random access response (Jeon, step 4 in fig. 15a; Jeon 2, see contention resolution in fig. 21-22); and
select the offset amount of time (offset in fig. 8-11 of Xu) based on a payload size of the uplink message (Jeon, payload size in par. 0084, a size of data in par. 0131 and see fig. 16 and timer in fig. 21-22 & 25-27; Jeon 2, RAR response window in fig. 24-32; for these reasons, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 49
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the UE of claim 63, wherein the random access procedure comprises a two-step random access procedure (Jeon, two step RA procedure in fig. 20) and the first random access message comprises a msgA of the two-step random access procedure (Jeon, step 1 RA preamble and UL message transmission in 2003 in fig. 20), and wherein the processor is further configured to:
select the offset amount of time (offset in fig. 8-11 of Xu) based on a payload size of the msgA (Jeon, selecting RA response timer or contention timer in fig. 21-22 & 25-26 and see selecting maximum and minimum values for window in par. 0109; Jeon 2, timer in par. 0237; and thus, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 52
Jeon teaches a network element (BS 401 in fig. 4 & 20), comprising:
one or more memories (404 in fig. 4); and
one or more processors (processor 403 in fig. 4) coupled to the one or more memories (403 & 404 are coupled as depicted in fig. 4), the one or more processors being configured to cause the network element to:
receive a first random access message (RA preamble transmission in fig. 20) from a user equipment (UE) (UE in fig. 4 & 20) during a random access procedure (2-step random access procedure in fig. 20 for transmitting step 1 2003);
selecting a selected monitoring timer from at least a first random access response (2604 in fig. 26) monitoring window comprising a first duration of time to monitor for a second random access message (RAR response timer trigger in step 2603 in fig. 26); and
transmit a second random access message (step 2 message in fig. 20) to the UE within the selected monitoring window (2004 in fig. 4 for transmitting RA response).
Although Jeon does not disclose “selecting a selected monitoring window from at least a first random access response monitoring window; a second random access message comprising a random access response and a second random access response monitoring window comprising a second duration of time to monitor for the same second random access message comprising the random access response, wherein the first duration of time is different than the second duration of time”, claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Firstly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitations “selecting a selected monitoring window from at least a first monitoring window; and a second random access message comprising a random access response and a second random access response monitoring window comprising a second duration of time to monitor for the same second random access message comprising the random access response”, initially, it’s to note that claim limitations are reasonably interpreted in light of fig. 6 of this instant application in accordance with MPEP 2111. It means that the second monitoring window includes time to monitor for receiving msg2-4. Recall that Jeon discloses RAR response timer, as to a first monitoring window, and Contention Resolution Timer, as to a second random access response monitoring window (see fig. 26 of Jeon). To advance the prosecution, evidence for a timer of Jeon to be seen as a monitoring window is provided herein. In particular, Jeon 2 teaches one MsgB RAR monitoring window for receiving RA message from the end of MsgA to MsgB1-MsgB2 (fig. 28) and two MsgB RAR monitoring windows from the end of MsgA to MsgB2 and from MsgB1 to MsgB2 (fig. 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon by providing reception of split random access response as taught in Jeon 2. Such a modification would have included a user equipment UE to perform a random access procedure with a time window for monitoring a random access response RAR so that the UE could have decoded RAR successfully as suggested in par. 0388 of Jeon 2.
Secondly, to address the obviousness of the claim limitation “wherein the first duration of time is different than the second duration of time”, initially, it’s to note that claim does not specifically define what are involved to be different and what the benefits bring to the claimed invention being different. In fact, as explained above, Jeon 2 teaches the first duration of time different from the second duration of time (fig. 28 & 30). Further evidence for two different times could be seen in Xu. In particular, Xu teaches determining based on the offset to select the target time for a RAR window and another target time for monitoring a contention resolution message (fig. 8, see par. 0175 for determining a target time for a RAR window and see par. 0188-0197 for determining target time for contention resolution timer or message in various ways and embodiments; hence, the target time for RAR window and contention resolution will be different as depicted in fig. 9-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon in view of Jeon 2 by providing random access for a terminal device with offset and a target time as taught in Xu to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have included a random access procedure to use either in terrestrial cellular network and non terrestrial network NTN so that the communication with satellite would not only be lost but also could have provided long communication distance and high stability between a transmitting and receiving terminals as suggested in par. 0003 of Xu.
Claim 53
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the network element of claim 52, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network element to:
initialize a timer with the first duration of time or the second duration of time based on the selected monitoring window (Jeon, par. 0109 and initializing timers in fig. 22 & 25-26; Jeon 2, timer in par. 0328-0329; and thus, the combined prior art reads on the claim).
Claim 54
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the network element of claim 53, wherein the first duration of time is less than the second duration of time and the selected monitoring window comprises the first monitoring window (Jeon, par. 0109 describes maximum and minimum values for window; Jeon 2, Msg RAR window in fig. 24-30; the maximum waiting time set for the second timer in fig. 30-32 could be longer than the maximum waiting time set in the first timer in fig. 24 A-B; accordingly, the combined prior art meets the claim condition).
Claim 57
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the network element of claim 52, wherein each of the first duration of time and the second duration of time is associated with a different respective random access channel (RACH) type of a plurality of RACH types (Jeon, fig. 15 depicts different types for RACH with different data transmission types; Jeon 2, small data transmission of TB during the two step RA procedure in par. 0242 & 0263) and the plurality of RACH types are each associated with a different respective data transmission type of a plurality of data transmission types (Jeon, see fig. 15, 20 & 22 for 2step RACH, 4 steps RACH with or without contention base, RAP response timer for RACH and RACH with contention resolution timer in fig. 25-26; Jeon 2, two-step RACH type in fig. 24-32; accordingly, the combined prior art renders the claim obvious).
Claim 58
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the network element of claim 57, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network element to:
select the selected monitoring window based on a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble of the first random access message, the PRACH preamble indicating a current RACH type of the plurality of RACH types associated with a current data transmission type of the plurality of data transmission types utilized by the UE (Jeon, see fig. 15 and par. 0116-0117 for selecting PRACH based on RA-RNTI and see fig. 18-20 and par. 127-0128; Jeon 2, see PRACH resource in fig.17 and see PRACH resources in par. 0238, 0255, 0256 & 0259; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the claimed invention to perform equally well with the combined prior art).
Claim 59
Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses the network element of claim 57, wherein the random access procedure comprises a two-step random access procedure and the first random access message comprises a msgA in the two-step random access procedure (Jeon, 2003 step 1 of two-step RA procedure in fig. 20), and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
select the selected monitoring window based on at least one of a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble or resources for a physical uplink shared channel of the first random access message, each indicating a current RACH type of the plurality of RACH types associated with a current data transmission type of the plurality of data transmission types utilized by the UE (Jeon, two step RACH type and RA preamble transmission in fig. 20, see fig. 15 and par. 0116-0117 for selecting PRACH based on RA-RNTI and see fig. 18-20 and par. 0127-0128; Jeon 2, see PRACH resource in fig.17 and see PRACH resources in par. 0238, 0255, 0256 & 0259; accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the combined prior art to perform equally well to the claimed invention).
6. Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Jeon 2, Xu and Rastegardoost et al. Pub. No.: US 2020/0267764 A1.
Claim 51
Although Jeon, in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, does not disclose: “the UE of claim 36, wherein the selected monitoring window is within a channel occupancy time of an unlicensed channel”, claim 51 is considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, Jeon in view of Jeon 2 and Xu, discloses selecting the monitoring timers for RA procedures (Jeon, par. 0109 & timers in fig. 20-22 & 25-27) and EDT transmission (Jeon 2, small data transmission in par. 0242 & 0263). In particular, Rastegardoost teaches a time length of a channel occupancy time COT (par. 0338 & 0358, 0372) and a size of contention window (par. 0358).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon in view of Jeon 2 and Xu by providing dynamic PRACH scheduling using slot formats as taught in Rastegardoost to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have provided a user equipment dynamic PRACH scheduling to operate on an unlicensed band so that it would be flexible and efficient enough to make use of channel occupancy time COT as suggested in par. 00372 of Rastegardoost.
7. Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Xu.
Claim 63
Jeon discloses a user equipment (UE) (wireless device 406 in fig. 4), comprising:
one or more memories (409 in fig. 4); and
one or more processors (408 in fig. 4) coupled to the one or more memories (as depicted in fig. 4, 407-408-409 are coupled), the one or more processors being configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, to a network element (BS in fig. 4, 20-22 & 25-27), a first random access message associated with a random access procedure (2003 in fig. 20); and
monitor for a second random access message from the network element (step 2 2004 in fig. 20 and 2206 in fig. 22 and 2504 in fig. 25) within a monitoring window having a duration that starts a time of the transmission of the first random access message (RAR response timer in fig. 21-22 & 25-27) based on a payload size of the first random access message (payload size in par. 0084, a size of data in par. 0131 and see fig. 16 and timer in fig. 21-22 & 25-27).
Although Jeon does not explicitly show: “a duration that starts at an offset amount of time after a time of the transmission of the first random access message, wherein the offset amount of time is based on a payload size of the first random access message”, the claim limitations are considered obvious by the following rationales.
Initially, the use an offset value for synchronization for time or frequency is an intrinsic feature in pertinent prior art. Secondly, since claim does not specifically define what are involved in obtaining an offset, it’ll be a time period. The prior art explains setting a value for time. What’s more, it can be considered as finding an optimum value and finding an optimum value requires a routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Given the above facts, with the prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an offset value. To advance the prosecution, further evidence is provided herein. In particular, Xu teaches a duration for RAR window according to the offset (S801 in fig. 8), a duration for monitoring a contention resolution message based on the offset (S805 in fig. 8) and calculating the offsets based on propagation delay (fig. 9-11) and the offset including the number of time slots and number of symbols, the reference subcarrier interval, i.e., payload, (par. 0116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify random access procedure in new radio of Jeon in view of Jeon 2 by providing random access for a terminal device with offset and a target time as taught in Xu to obtain the claimed invention as specified in the claim. Such a modification would have included a random access procedure to use either in terrestrial cellular network and non terrestrial network NTN so that the communication with satellite would not only be lost but also could have provided long communication distance and high stability between a transmitting and receiving terminals as suggested in par. 0003 of Xu.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 51 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN HTUN whose telephone number is (571)270-3190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7 AM - 5 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. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 5712723965. 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.
/SAN HTUN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights