DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-15 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Regarding independent claims 1 and 9 along with their respective depending claims, the amended claims failed the written description requirement. The amended portion contradicts what has been established within the specifications specifically paragraphs [0019] [0022].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, amended claims 1 and 9 recites: ‘wherein the preamble signal is distinct from a Random Access Channel (RACH) preamble.’ However, the original specification does not provide support for this limitation. Rather, the specification explicitly teaches the opposite, stating that the preamble signal may include a contention based random access (CBRA) preamble (see paragraph [0019]) or a contention free random access (CFRA) preamble (see paragraph [0022]). Therefore, claiming that the preamble signal is distinct from a RACH preamble constitutes new matter.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 and 21-25 are rejected as being dependent on the rejected independent claims 1 and 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Islam et al (US 20200344724 A1, hereinafter Islam) – Discloses CBRA CFRA preamble and the serving cell change process for a UE, serving base station and target base station. Paragraph [0125], “The RACH procedure may be contention-based or contention-free. The UE may receive this configuration, select at least one RACH preamble based and perform a RACH procedure with a target BS…”
SINGH et al (US 20170026792 A1, hereinafter Singh) – While CBRA and CFRA are types of RACH preamble Singh explicitly discloses RACH preamble communication between base stations. Paragraph [0068], “The resources allocated, preamble sequence, and frame reference timings may be communicated to neighboring cells via X2 interfaces.”
Bostrom et al. (US 20140198729 A1, hereinafter Bostrom) – Discloses a preventative measure stopping the UE from infinitely retrying a non-successful uplink sync by allowing an x number of tries before preventing retransmission. Paragraph [0045], “For contention free random access this is the maximum number of retransmissions using the assigned preamble. For contention based random access this is the maximum number of retransmissions where for each retransmission a preamble is selected…”
Jeon et al. (US 20200053779 A1, hereinafter Jeon) – discloses a fall back mechanism where if CFRA fails to complete the UE will initiate CBRA. Paragraph [0294], “a wireless device may initiate a contention based random access procedure, for example, if a contention free random access is unsuccessfully completed…”
Zhou et al. (US 20240098613 A1, hereinafter Zhou) – discloses transmission of information through MAC CE for cell change. Paragraph [0455], “A base station 4602 may send and a wireless device 4604 may receive, at T2, DCI and/or MAC CE…”
Babaei et al. (US 20200252926 A1, hereinafter Babaei) – discloses the timing advance of the UE based on the preamble signal. Paragraph [0166], “The MAC entity may, when a Timing Advance Command MAC control element is received; apply the Timing Advance Command…”
Guo et al. (US 20230388871 A1, hereinafter Guo)- discloses 1 CU for multiple DU as well as L1/L2 mobility measurements. Paragraph [0081], “Additionally or alternatively, one gNB-CU-UP 5732u can be connected to multiple DUs…” and paragraph [0056], “dynamic switch mechanism among candidate serving cells (including SpCell and SCell) for the potential applicable scenarios based on L1/L2 signaling; L1 enhancements for inter-cell beam management, including L1 measurement and reporting…”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights