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
Applicant’s submission dated 9 Dec. 2025—in which claim 13 is canceled, and claims 1, 8, 14, and 17 are amended—has been entered into the record and is considered herein. Claims 1-12 and 14-17 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments—set forth at pp. 6-10 in the Remarks section of the submission with respect to independent claims 1, 14, and 17—have been considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection rely on one or more reference not applied in the prior rejection of record for some teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 9, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/0015796 (hereinafter “FEHRENBACH”) in view of US 2023/0188261 (hereinafter, “AWADIN”).
Regarding claim 1, FEHRENBACH discloses:
A method for transmitting and receiving a messageB (MSgB) in a wireless communication system (terrestrial wireless network 100), the method performed by a UE (UE 400) comprising:
transmitting an MsgA-preamble to a base station; (¶ 0083: [W]ith reference to FIG. 2, during the RACH procedure, the UE 400 sends messages to the gNB or base station 404 and . . . during the RACH procedure 402, the UE 400 also signals its category or type to the gNB 404, as is indicated at 406)
transmitting an MsgA-PUSCH to the base station; and (¶ 0032: The 2-step RACH procedure may be employed, and the UE combines Msg1 and Msg3 of the 4-step RACH procedure into one message, like message MsgA, and transmits MsgA to the base station; FIG. 2(b): (1) MsgA: PRACH preamble + data)
receiving an MsgB from the base station, on the basis of the MsgA-preamble and the MsgA-PUSCH, (¶ 0032: The base station, as is illustrated in FIG. 2(b) combines Msg3 and Msg4 of the 4-step RACH procedure and sends MsgB as a response to the UE)
wherein the MsgA-preamble or the MsgA-PUSCH indicates that the UE is a reduced capability (RedCap) UE, (¶ 0095: [T]he two-step RACH procedure may be adapted for RedCap devices [which] benefit from the reduced signaling procedure used in the two-step RACH procedure by informing the bases station MsgA about its type)
FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the receiving the MsgB comprises monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for downlink control information (DCI) with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by an MsgB-R (reduced)-RNTI (radio network temporary identifier),
wherein the MsgB-R-RNTI is different from an MsgB-RNTI used for a normal UE to distinguish an MsgB scheduling DCI for the RedCap UE from an MsgB scheduling DCI for the normal UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, AWADIN teaches:
wherein the receiving the MsgB comprises monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for downlink control information (DCI) with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by an MsgB-R (reduced)-RNTI (radio network temporary identifier), (¶ 0206: [C]onfigure multiple CORESET-0s 201, 202 with different bandwidths for the reception of PDCCH scheduling with CRC scrambled by system information-radio-network temporary identifier (SI-RNTI), for example; ¶ 0385: A new RNTI different than the random access radio-network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) may be used by legacy to scramble DCI format 1_0)
wherein the MsgB-R-RNTI is different from an MsgB-RNTI used for a normal UE to distinguish an MsgB scheduling DCI for the RedCap UE from an MsgB scheduling DCI for the normal UE. (¶ 0196: [R]educed capability NR devices to receive a dedicated MsgB by configuring a dedicated search space, apply different RNTI; ¶ 0385: PDCCH scheduling RAR-PDSCH for reduced capability NR devices is proposed to be different than the PDCCH scheduling RAR-PDSCH for legacy UEs. The equation used to calculate RA-RNTI may be revised such that if legacy UE and reduced capability NR device picked the same RO, they can obtain different RA-RNTIs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s two-step RACH procedure adapted for RedCap devices to provide a new RNTI as taught by AWADIN to receive a dedicated MsgB by applying the different RNTI so as to beneficially prevent legacy UEs from reading the DCI scheduling RAR-PDSCH directed to reduced capability NR devices. See AWADIN, at ¶ 0385.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of FEHRENBACH and AWADIN, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1. FEHRENBACH further discloses:
wherein resources of the MsgA-PUSCH are determined based on the MsgA-preamble. (¶ 0087: [W]hen performing the RACH procedure, the UE 400, may derive from the system information, like the MIB or the SIB, one or more RACH resource sets to be used for a transmission of the RACH message, like the RACH preamble)
Regarding claim 14, FEHRENBACH discloses:
A UE (UE 400) configured to receive a messageB (MsgB) in a wireless communication system (terrestrial wireless network 100), the UE comprising:
at least one transceiver (transceiver 302b);
at least one processor (processor 602); and
at least one memory (main memory 606) operably connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform operations, the operations including:
transmitting an MsgA-preamble to a base station; (¶ 0083: [W]ith reference to FIG. 2, during the RACH procedure, the UE 400 sends messages to the gNB or base station 404 and . . . during the RACH procedure 402, the UE 400 also signals its category or type to the gNB 404, as is indicated at 406)
transmitting an MsgA-physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) to the base station; and (¶ 0032: The 2-step RACH procedure may be employed, and the UE combines Msg1 and Msg3 of the 4-step RACH procedure into one message, like message MsgA, and transmits MsgA to the base station; FIG. 2(b): (1) MsgA: PRACH preamble + data)
receiving the MsgB from the base station based on the MsgA-preamble and the MsgA-PUSCH, (¶ 0032: The base station, as is illustrated in FIG. 2(b) combines Msg3 and Msg4 of the 4-step RACH procedure and sends MsgB as a response to the UE)
wherein the MsgA-preamble or the MsgA-PUSCH indicates that the UE is a reduced capability (RedCap) UE, (¶ 0095: [T]he two-step RACH procedure may be adapted for RedCap devices [which] benefit from the reduced signaling procedure used in the two-step RACH procedure by informing the bases station MsgA about its type)
FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the receiving the MsgB comprises monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for downlink control information (DCI) with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by an MsgB-R (reduced)-RNTI (radio network temporary identifier),
wherein the MsgB-R-RNTI is different from an MsgB-RNTI used for a normal UE to distinguish an MsgB scheduling DCI for the RedCap UE from an MsgB scheduling DCI for the normal UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, AWADIN teaches:
wherein the receiving the MsgB comprises monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for downlink control information (DCI) with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by an MsgB-R (reduced)-RNTI (radio network temporary identifier), (¶ 0206: [C]onfigure multiple CORESET-0s 201, 202 with different bandwidths for the reception of PDCCH scheduling with CRC scrambled by system information-radio-network temporary identifier (SI-RNTI), for example; ¶ 0385: A new RNTI different than the random access radio-network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) may be used by legacy to scramble DCI format 1_0)
wherein the MsgB-R-RNTI is different from an MsgB-RNTI used for a normal UE to distinguish an MsgB scheduling DCI for the RedCap UE from an MsgB scheduling DCI for the normal UE. (¶ 0196: [R]educed capability NR devices to receive a dedicated MsgB by configuring a dedicated search space, apply different RNTI; ¶ 0385: PDCCH scheduling RAR-PDSCH for reduced capability NR devices is proposed to be different than the PDCCH scheduling RAR-PDSCH for legacy UEs. The equation used to calculate RA-RNTI may be revised such that if legacy UE and reduced capability NR device picked the same RO, they can obtain different RA-RNTIs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s two-step RACH procedure adapted for RedCap devices to provide a new RNTI as taught by AWADIN to receive a dedicated MsgB by applying the different RNTI so as to beneficially prevent legacy UEs from reading the DCI scheduling RAR-PDSCH directed to reduced capability NR devices. See AWADIN, at ¶ 0385.
Regarding claim 17, FEHRENBACH discloses:
A method for transmitting a messageB (MsgB) in a wireless communication system (terrestrial wireless network 100), the method performed by a base station (gNB / base station 404) comprising:
receiving an MsgA-preamble from a UE; (¶ 0083: [W]ith reference to FIG. 2, during the RACH procedure, the UE 400 sends messages to the gNB or base station 404 and . . . during the RACH procedure 402, the UE 400 also signals its category or type to the gNB 404, as is indicated at 406)
receiving an MsgA-physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) from the UE; and (¶ 0032: The 2-step RACH procedure may be employed, and the UE combines Msg1 and Msg3 of the 4-step RACH procedure into one message, like message MsgA, and transmits MsgA to the base station; FIG. 2(b): (1) MsgA: PRACH preamble + data)
transmitting the MsgB to the UE based on the MsgA-preamble and the MsgA- PUSCH, (¶ 0032: The base station, as is illustrated in FIG. 2(b) combines Msg3 and Msg4 of the 4-step RACH procedure and sends MsgB as a response to the UE)
wherein the MsgA-preamble or the MsgA-PUSCH indicates that the UE is a reduced capability (RedCap) UE, (¶ 0095: [T]he two-step RACH procedure may be adapted for RedCap devices [which] benefit from the reduced signaling procedure used in the two-step RACH procedure by informing the bases station MsgA about its type)
FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the transmitting the MsgB comprises transmitting a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for downlink control information (DCI) with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by an MsgB-R (reduced)-RNTI (radio network temporary identifier),
wherein the MsgB-R-RNTI is different from an MsgB-RNTI used for a normal UE to distinguish an MsgB scheduling DCI for the RedCap UE from an MsgB scheduling DCI for the normal UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, AWADIN teaches:
wherein the transmitting the MsgB comprises transmitting a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) for downlink control information (DCI) with a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) scrambled by an MsgB-R (reduced)-RNTI (radio network temporary identifier), (¶ 0206: [C]onfigure multiple CORESET-0s 201, 202 with different bandwidths for the reception of PDCCH scheduling with CRC scrambled by system information-radio-network temporary identifier (SI-RNTI), for example; ¶ 0385: A new RNTI different than the random access radio-network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) may be used by legacy to scramble DCI format 1_0)
wherein the MsgB-R-RNTI is different from an MsgB-RNTI used for a normal UE to distinguish an MsgB scheduling DCI for the RedCap UE from an MsgB scheduling DCI for the normal UE. (¶ 0196: [R]educed capability NR devices to receive a dedicated MsgB by configuring a dedicated search space, apply different RNTI; ¶ 0385: PDCCH scheduling RAR-PDSCH for reduced capability NR devices is proposed to be different than the PDCCH scheduling RAR-PDSCH for legacy UEs. The equation used to calculate RA-RNTI may be revised such that if legacy UE and reduced capability NR device picked the same RO, they can obtain different RA-RNTIs)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s two-step RACH procedure adapted for RedCap devices to provide a new RNTI as taught by AWADIN to receive a dedicated MsgB by applying the different RNTI so as to beneficially prevent legacy UEs from reading the DCI scheduling RAR-PDSCH directed to reduced capability NR devices. See AWADIN, at ¶ 0385.
Claims 2-4, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FEHRENBACH in view of AWADIN, and further in view of US 2022/0394781 (hereinafter, “LU”) and US 2022/0346140 (hereinafter, “AGIWAL”).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 15, the combination of FEHRENBACH and AWADIN, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1 and the UE of claim 14, respectively. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein N preambles among contention free random access (CFRA) preambles of normal UE, which are contiguous to a contention based random access (CBRA) preamble of the normal UE, are allocated for the RedCap UE, based on there being no random access channel occasion (RO) configured for the RedCap UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, LU teaches:
N preambles among contention free random access (CFRA) preambles of normal UE, which are contiguous to a contention based random access (CBRA) preamble of the normal UE, (¶ 0105: [I]n FIG. 5B, the number (N) of the SSBs associated with the RO is greater than 1, for example, N=2. A total number of preambles for the second type of CBRA and the second type of CFRA in an RO is msgA-TotalNumberOf Preambles, then R″=msgA-TotalNumberOf Preambles/N-R′. Preambles mapped to SSB #n (0≤n<N−1) are consecutive preambles of R preambles starting from an index n*msgA-TotalNumberOf Preambles/N and used for the first type of CBRA preambles, R′ consecutive preambles after the preambles of the first type of CBRA are used for the second type of CBRA of SSB #n, R″ consecutive preambles after the preambles of the second type of CBRA are used for the second type of CFRA, and TotalNumberOfRA-Preambles-preamble-msgA-TotalNumberOf_Preambles-N*R preambles remained in the RO may be used for the first type of CFRA)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s random access procedure to provide CFRA and CBRA preambles as taught by LU to provide a random access (RA) procedure in which a UE receives configuration of second type CFRA, such that the UE may perform second type CFRA with smaller transmission delay of a PUSCH. See LU, at the Abstract, Background, and Summary, e.g., ¶ 0008.
Also, In the same field of endeavor, however, AGIWAL teaches:
wherein N preambles among CFRA preambles of normal UE . . . are allocated for the RedCap UE, based on there being no random access channel occasion (RO) configured for the RedCap UE. (¶ 0049: Contention free random access (CFRA) . . . is used for scenarios [in which] Evolved node B (or gNB) assigns to UE dedicated Random access preamble [The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would construe the disclosed UE of AGIWAL to correspond to a non-RedCap (“normal”) UE as well as a RedCap UE]; ¶ 0055: [C]riteria for releasing the PUSCH resource(s) dedicatedly assigned to UE for 2 step CFRA is not defined. As a result, once the resource(s) are assigned, network cannot reuse these unless explicitly released by network; ¶ 0102: UE releases the 2 step CFRA resources (random access preamble(s), RACH occasions, PUSCH resources) configured (if any) for this random access procedure. Release here means that UE will not use these resources for subsequent random access procedure; [The Examiner further finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would construe these sections of AGIWAL to imply that released normal UE dedicated RA preambles may be re-used, i.e., re-assigned (“allocated”), as RedCap UE dedicated RA preambles for subsequent RA procedures, particularly for a RedCap UE not already configured with a random access channel occasion (RO)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s random access procedure to provide releasing physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resources assigned for random access procedure, as taught by AGIWAL to provide for converging a 5th generation (5G) communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 6th generation (6G). See AGIWAL, at the Abstract, Background, and Summary, e.g., ¶ 0008.
Regarding claim 3 and claim 16, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, LU, and AGIWAL, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 2 and the UE of claims 15, respectively. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the MsgA-preamble is one of the N preambles.
In the same field of endeavor, however, LU teaches:
wherein the MsgA-preamble is one of the N preambles. (¶ 0075: [T]he MsgA-based contention-free random access (CFRA) procedure may include the following operations: operation 205: configuring dedicated MsgA random access preambles by the network device for the terminal equipment)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, LU, and AGIWAL, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 2. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein information on the N is configured based on higher layer signaling or system information.
In the same field of endeavor, however, LU teaches:
wherein information on the N is configured based on higher layer signaling or system information. (¶ 0075: [O]peration 205: configuring dedicated MsgA random access preambles by the network device for the terminal equipment via a radio resource control (RRC) message)
Claims 5-7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FEHRENBACH in view of AWADIN, and further in view of Summary on [102-e-NR-RedCap-05], R1-2007283, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #102-E, 28 Aug. 2020 (hereinafter, “MODERATOR”) (copy provided in IDS dated 12 Apr. 2023).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of FEHRENBACH and AWADIN, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein preambles corresponding to an RO for a 2-step random access (RA) of the normal UE are used for the RedCap UE, based on there being no random access channel occasion (RO) configured for the RedCap UE and there being the RO configured for the 2-step random access (RA) of the normal UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MODERATOR teaches:
wherein preambles corresponding to an RO for a 2-step random access (RA) of the normal UE are used for the RedCap UE, based on there being no random access channel occasion (RO) configured for the RedCap UE and there being the RO configured for the 2-step random access (RA) of the normal UE. (p. 14, e.g., comment by Nokia: How we split/share RACH resources between these REDCAP/non-REDCAP types; p. 22, e.g., R1-2006310:
PNG
media_image1.png
167
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
p. 23, e.g., R1-2006411: Proposal 4: NR RedCap UEs are identified via the RACH procedure)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s random access procedure to provide split/share RACH resources between these REDCAP/non-REDCAP types as taught by MODERATOR due to supported UE bandwidth or load control, such that RedCap UEs can identify whether a cell supports RedCap in cell access as early on as possible. See MODERATOR, at p. 22.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, and MODERATOR, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 5. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the MsgA-preamble is one of the preambles corresponding to the RO for the 2-step RA of the normal UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MODERATOR teaches:
wherein the MsgA-preamble is one of the preambles corresponding to the RO for the 2-step RA of the normal UE. (p. 22, e.g., R1-2006310:
PNG
media_image1.png
167
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, and MODERATOR, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the preambles corresponding to the RO of the normal UE are used for the RedCap UE, based on there being a random access channel occasion (RO) configured for a 4-step random access (RA) of the RedCap UE and there being no RO configured for the 2-step RA of the RedCap UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MODERATOR teaches:
wherein the preambles corresponding to the RO of the normal UE are used for the RedCap UE, based on there being a random access channel occasion (RO) configured for a 4-step random access (RA) of the RedCap UE and there being no RO configured for the 2-step RA of the RedCap UE. (p. 14, e.g., comment by Nokia: How we split/share RACH resources between these REDCAP/non-REDCAP types; p. 22, e.g., R1-2006310:
PNG
media_image1.png
167
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
p. 23, e.g., R1-2006411: Proposal 4: NR RedCap UEs are identified via the RACH procedure)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, and MODERATOR, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the MsgA-PUSCH includes information indicating that the UE is the RedCap UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MODERATOR teaches:
wherein the MsgA-PUSCH includes information indicating that the UE is the RedCap UE. (p. 16, comment by Convida: [T]he indication of reduced capability UEs can be realized by MsgA-pre-amble or MsgA-PUSCH)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, and MODERATOR, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the UE is indicated to be the RedCap UE by the MsgA-preamble, based on there being MsgA-preambles configured for the RedCap UE or based on there being the MsgA-preambles configured for the RedCap UE and MsgA-PUSCH resources configured for the RedCap UE, and
the UE is indicated to be the RedCap UE by the MsgA-PUSCH, based on there being no MsgA-preambles configured for the RedCap UE and there being the MsgA-PUSCH resources configured for the RedCap UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, MODERATOR teaches:
wherein the UE is indicated to be the RedCap UE by the MsgA-preamble, based on there being MsgA-preambles configured for the RedCap UE or based on there being the MsgA-preambles configured for the RedCap UE and MsgA-PUSCH resources configured for the RedCap UE, and (p. 2: Soft access barring: . . . [I]dentification of RedCap UEs based on PRACH transmissions; p. 11, comment by OPPO: [T]he PRACH resource and/or transmission configurations specific to RedCap UEs)
the UE is indicated to be the RedCap UE by the MsgA-PUSCH, based on there being no MsgA-preambles configured for the RedCap UE and there being the MsgA-PUSCH resources configured for the RedCap UE. (p. 16, comment by Convida: [T]he indication of reduced capability UEs can be realized by MsgA-pre-amble or MsgA-PUSCH)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FEHRENBACH in view of AWADIN and MODERATOR, as applied above, and further in view of LU.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of FEHRENBACH, AWADIN, and MODERATOR, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 7. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the MsgA-preamble is one of the preambles corresponding to the RO of the normal UE.
In the same field of endeavor, however, LU teaches:
wherein [t]he MsgA-preamble is one of the preambles corresponding to the RO of the normal UE. (¶ 0075: [T]he MsgA-based contention-free random access (CFRA) procedure may include the following operations: operation 205: configuring dedicated MsgA random access preambles by the network device for the terminal equipment)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FEHRENBACH in view of AWADIN, and further in view of US 2023/0072513 (hereinafter, “FANG”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of FEHRENBACH and AWADIN, as applied above, renders obvious the method of claim 1. FEHRENBACH does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the RedCap UE and the normal UE share some of MsgA-PUSCH resources, and unshared MsgA-PUSCH resources are determined based on a mask index.
In the same field of endeavor, however, FANG teaches:
wherein the RedCap UE and the normal UE share some of MsgA-PUSCH resources, and unshared MsgA-PUSCH resources are determined based on a mask index. (¶ 0060: [R]educed capability and normal NR wireless communication devices (or UEs) share the same paging occasion (PO) resources)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify FEHRENBACH’s random access procedure to provide sharing of MsgA-PUSCH resources as taught by FANG to provide an indication in downlink control information (DCI) of whether the scheduled physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is for reduced capability UEs to avoid unnecessary PDSCH decoding. See FANG, at the Abstract, Background, and Summary, e.g., ¶ 0019.
Conclusion
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 Garth D Richmond whose telephone number is (703)756-4559. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/GARTH D RICHMOND/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644