DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 6, 2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0413451) in view of Qiu et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0217790).
Regarding claim 1, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method, comprising: transmitting a preamble on a random access channel (RACH) resource from an uplink time slot, which is a first time advance before a corresponding downlink time slot (see at least paragraphs 119-120 and fig. 8 discloses WTRU transmitting PRACH preamble); and monitoring a control signal from a first time offset after an end of the transmitting of the preamble (see at least paragraphs 119-120; monitors PDCCH).
Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble. However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiu et al discloses wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble (see at least paragraph 64 discloses transmission of preamble which included in Msg1 to indicate the UE estimated time advance (TA); further paragraph 43 suggest the timing is included in the preamble in step 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Qiu et al into the system of Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al, for purpose of utilization of the estimated TA by the UE in the RACH procedure.
Regarding claim 3, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses the first time advance is determined by at least one of a round trip delay, a time advance offset, a distance between the UE and a base station (BS), a propagation delay, or a processing delay (see at least paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 4, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses the first time offset is determined by at least one of the first time advance, a round trip delay, a time advance offset, a distance between the UE and a base station (BS), a propagation delay, or a processing delay (see at least paragraphs 119-120).
Regarding claim 5, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses the RACH resource includes at least one of a preamble sequence index, a random access occasion index, a subcarrier index in a RACH carrier, a RACH carrier type, or a RACH carrier index (see at least paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 6, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses the RACH resource is determined by one of the first time advance, a round trip delay, a distance between the UE and a base station (BS), or a propagation delay (see at least paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 7, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses the one or more of a first time advance threshold, a round trip delay threshold, a distance threshold, or a propagation delay threshold are determined by at least one of a RACH occasion (RO) period, or a minimal first time advance (see at least paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 8, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses one or more of a first time advance threshold, a round trip delay threshold, a distance threshold, or a propagation delay threshold are configured by higher layer signaling (see at least paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 9, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses transmitting a second time advance in an uplink signal, the second time advance derived from at least one of the first time advance, one or more thresholds for the first time advance, or a corrected time advance (see at least paragraph 74).
Regarding claim 10, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses the RACH resource is associated with a coverage level, the coverage level determined at least based on one of the first time advance, a round trip delay, a distance between a user equipment (UE) and a base unit, a propagation delay, a first time advance threshold, a round trip delay threshold, a distance threshold, or a propagation delay threshold (see at least paragraphs 3 and 74).
Regarding claim 11, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: transmit a preamble on a random access channel (RACH) resource from an uplink time slot, which is a first time advance before a corresponding downlink time slot (see at least paragraphs 119-120 and fig. 8 discloses WTRU transmitting PRACH preamble); and monitor a control signal from a first time offset after an end of the preamble transmit (see at least paragraphs 119-120; monitors PDCCH).
Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble. However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiu et al discloses wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble (see at least paragraph 64 discloses transmission of preamble which included in Msg1 to indicate the UE estimated time advance (TA); further paragraph 43 suggest the timing is included in the preamble in step 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Qiu et al into the system of Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al, for purpose of utilization of the estimated TA by the UE in the RACH procedure.
Regarding claims 13-20, see above rejection claims 3-10.
Regarding claim 21, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses a method performed by a base station (BS), the method comprising: receiving a preamble on a random access channel (RACH) resource from an uplink time slot (see at least paragraphs 119-120 and fig. 8 discloses WTRU transmitting PRACH preamble); and transmitting a control signal in response to the preamble (see at least paragraphs 119-120).
Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble. However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiu et al discloses wherein a first time advance associated with transmitting of the preamble is carried in the preamble (see at least paragraph 64 discloses transmission of preamble which included in Msg1 to indicate the UE estimated time advance (TA); further paragraph 43 suggest the timing is included in the preamble in step 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Qiu et al into the system of Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al, for purpose of utilization of the estimated TA by the UE in the RACH procedure.
Regarding claim 22, Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al discloses a base station (BS) for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the BS to: receive a preamble on a random access channel (RACH) resource from an uplink time slot (see at least paragraphs 119-120 and fig. 8 discloses WTRU transmitting PRACH preamble); and transmit a control signal in response to the preamble (see at least paragraphs 119-120).
Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble. However, in the same field of endeavor, Qiu et al discloses wherein a first time advance associated with transmitting of the preamble is carried in the preamble (see at least paragraph 64 discloses transmission of preamble which included in Msg1 to indicate the UE estimated time advance (TA); further paragraph 43 suggest the timing is included in the preamble in step 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Qiu et al into the system of Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al, for purpose of utilization of the estimated TA by the UE in the RACH procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 6, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejections as the claim is currently written. Arguments and corresponding examiner’s responses are shown below for Claim 1. The same arguments are valid for the Claim 1 and the similar features of other independent claims.
Argument: The Applicant argues on pages 6-8 that the combination of Taherzadeh Boroujeni and Qiu do not disclose “wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble” of independent claim 1 and similar feature in independent claims 11, 21 and 22. Response: As stated in the previous office action, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the combination of Taherzadeh Boroujeni and Qiu teaches “wherein the first time advance is carried in the preamble”, when considered as a whole. As stated in the previous office action, paragraph 54 of Qiu discloses that transmission of preamble with estimated time advance (TA) to the base station (BS). Further on paragraph 64 discloses that the estimated TA value is included in Msg1; wherein the preamble included in the payload of Msg1 to indicate the estimated TA. Further, paragraph 43 suggest the timing is included in the preamble in step 1. Additionally, paragraphs 112-113 suggest that preamble can utilize RACH with the UE estimated TA. Therefore, the combination of Taherzadeh Boroujeni and Qiu teaches the above limitation, when considered as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LITON MIAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642