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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 18 December 2025), Claims 1, 3, 6-11 are pending.
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 18 December 2025), Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 are amended and said amendments are narrowing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended feature of Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11, namely “the information elements including at least a set of values regarding repetition”, 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.
Applicant's arguments regarding a second newly amended feature of Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Axnas . . . fails to disclose or suggest that a DCI may include the indicator for frequency hopping” (Remarks, 18 December 2025, Pgs. 8-9, Rejections under AIA 35 U.S.C. §103”, Claims 1, 3, 6, and 9-11).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Axnas discloses that the downlink control information (DCI) is a random access response (RAR) carried on a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) (Axnas, ¶64). Axnas further discloses that the single indicator (Axnas, ¶236 & Fig. 16 (1620)) and the number of slots to be skipped (Axnas, ¶2599 & Fig. 16 (1640)) are control information received on a downlink channel from a network node. Here, Examiner has correlated the RAR to “the DCI”.
Examiner maintains the current art applied to this newly amended limitation.
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.
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, 3, 6-8, 9, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tirronen et al. (US 20200329508 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Tirronen”) in view of Axnas et al. (US 20230262753 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Axnas”) in further view of Zhao et al. (US 20200367295 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 3, Tirronen in view of Axnas in further view of Zhao discloses the terminal of claim 1.
Tirronen further discloses the transmitter performs the repetitive transmission of the third message based on the second message (¶48 & Fig. 4 (404) & ¶68-69 & ¶26, Tirronen discloses that the UE transmits additional random access responses based on uplink (UL) grant included in the random access response (RAR). Examiner correlates the UL grant to “the second message”. Examiner correlates the third message (or MSG3) to “the third message”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tirronen in view of Axnas in further view of Zhao discloses the terminal of claim 1.
Tirronen further discloses the transmitter performs the repetitive transmission of the third message based on the second message (¶48 & Fig. 4 (404) & ¶68-69 & ¶26, Tirronen discloses that the UE transmits additional random access responses based on uplink (UL) grant included in the random access response (RAR)).
Regarding Claim 7, Tirronen in view of Axnas in view of Zhao discloses the terminal of claim 3.
Zhao, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the transmitter performs the repetitive transmission of the third message (¶65 & Fig. 3 (302), Zhao discloses a terminal device performing a repetitive transmission of a third message (MSG 3)) based on announcement information containing information elements about the repetitive transmission (¶103 & ¶106 & ¶113-115 & ¶65 & Fig. 3 (302), Zhao discloses a terminal device performing a repetitive transmission of a third message (MSG 3) based upon radio resource control (RRC) signaling containing at least one information element indicating a maximum number of transmissions of the MSG 3) and the second message (¶63-65 & Fig. 3 (301->302), Zhao discloses that the transmission of Msg 3 is based upon a previously received downlink control information (DCI)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tirronen in view of Axnas in further view of Zhao by requiring that the transmitter performs the repetitive transmission of the third message based on announcement information containing information elements about the repetitive transmission and the second message as taught by Zhou because utilization of a transmission resource in a network is improved (Zhao, ¶7-8).
Regarding Claim 8, Tirronen in view of Axnas in further view of Zhao discloses the terminal of claim 1.
Axnas, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, further teaches the transmitter applies an inter-slots frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message (¶120-121 & Fig. 16 (1640->1650) & ¶70, Axnas discloses the UE applying inter-slot frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message (MSG 3) based upon previously received downlink control information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tirronen in view of Axnas in further view of Zhao by requiring that the transmitter applies an inter-slots frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message as taught by Axnas because overall New Radio (NR) coverage performance when Msg3 and MsgA coverage is improved using repetition and/or frequency hopping (Axnas, ¶13).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 10, Tirronen discloses a radio communication system comprising:
a terminal (¶47 & Fig. 4, Tirronen discloses a system comprising a terminal (UE)); and
a base station (¶47 & Fig. 4, Tirronen discloses the system further comprising a base station (BS));
wherein the terminal transmits a random access preamble as the first message (¶48 & Fig. 4 (401), Tirronen discloses that the UE transmits a random access preamble as a first message to the BS. Examiner correlates the random access preamble as the "first message"),
the base station transmits a response message to the first message as the second message (¶48 & Fig. 4 (402), Tirronen discloses that the BS transmits a random access response (Message 2 or MSG2) to the random access preamble as the second message. Examiner correlates the random access response as the "second message"),
the terminal transmits a third message via a physical uplink shared channel, after receiving the second message (¶48 & Fig. 4 (403), Tirronen discloses that the UE transmits a third message (Message 3 or Msg3) via a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) after receiving of the random access response. Examiner correlate the third message as the "third message").
However, Tirronen does not disclose the terminal performs a repetitive transmission of the third message based on downlink control information using TC-RNTI (Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier), and the terminal applies an inter-slots frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message based on information specifying the inter-slots frequency hopping notified by the downlink control information.
Axnas, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the terminal performs a repetitive transmission of the third message based on downlink control information using TC-RNTI (Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier) (¶115 & ¶121 & Fig. 16 (1620->1650) & ¶73, Axnas discloses the UE performing repetitive transmission of a third message (MSG 3) based upon a previously received random access response (RAR) comprising a downlink control information (DCI) scrambled by a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (TC-RNTI)), and
the terminal applies an inter-slots frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message based on information specifying the inter-slots frequency hopping notified by the downlink control information (¶120-121 & Fig. 16 (1640->1650) & ¶70, Axnas discloses the UE applying inter-slot frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message (MSG 3) based upon previously received downlink control information).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tirronen by requiring that the terminal performs a repetitive transmission of the third message based on downlink control information using TC-RNTI (Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier) and that the terminal applies an inter-slots frequency hopping during the repetitive transmission of the third message based on information specifying the inter-slots frequency hopping notified by the downlink control information as taught by Axnas because overall New Radio (NR) coverage performance when Msg3 and MsgA coverage is improved using repetition and/or frequency hopping (Axnas, ¶13).
However, Tirronen in view of Axnas does not disclose the terminal performs the repetitive transmission of the third message based on announcement information containing information elements about the repetitive transmission, the information elements including at least a set of values regarding repetition.
Zhou, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the terminal performs the repetitive transmission of the third message (¶65 & Fig. 3 (302), Zhao discloses a terminal device performing a repetitive transmission of a third message (MSG 3)) based on announcement information containing information elements about the repetitive transmission (¶103 & ¶106 & ¶113-115 & ¶65 & Fig. 3 (302), Zhao discloses a terminal device performing a repetitive transmission of a third message (MSG 3) based upon radio resource control (RRC) signaling containing at least one information element indicating a maximum number of transmissions of the MSG 3), the information elements including at least a set of values regarding repetition (¶103 & ¶106 & ¶113-115 & ¶65 & Fig. 3 (302), Zhao discloses that the at least one information element includes at least one set of values regarding the maximum number of transmissions of the MSG 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Tirronen in view of Axnas by requiring that the terminal performs the repetitive transmission of the third message based on announcement information containing information elements about the repetitive transmission and that the information elements including at least a set of values regarding repetition as taught by Zhou because utilization of a transmission resource in a network is improved (Zhou, ¶7-8).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 10.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474