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
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 01/07/2026 for response of the office action mailed on 10/16/2025. Claims 1 and 3 have been amended. Claims 1-3 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully 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.
Argument: According to the above descriptions, it is clear that, in Guo, the term "a number of transmission of the RACH procedure," as described in the cited paragraph [0033], means a number of RACH attempts in a total RACH procedure (i.e., a repetition number of RACH attempts or a number of RACH retransmission), and does NOT mean a number of PRACH transmissions per RACH attempt … Therefore, Guo fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, at least, "physical layer control circuitry configured to ... send to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed," as recited in amended claim 1.
Response: Examiner has considered the applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Due to the amendment(s) made on the independent claims, the Office introduces Xing and Su in combination with Wei, to address the amendment(s). Xing’s invention provides a random access resource determining method, where the method includes determining a PRACH transmission frequency in the current random access attempt and a reference signal, determining a random access resource of the current random access attempt on the basis of the PRACH transmission frequency in the current random access attempt and the reference signal, and sending a PRACH of the current random access attempt on the random access resource (Abstract), and Su’s invention involves a communication device determining a random access channel (RACH) resource for multiple physical RACH (PRACH) transmissions (Abstract). Su’s invention describes how if a UE does not receive a RAR with its Random Access Preamble identifiers (RAPID) after the maximum number of unsuccessful attempts with the current repetition level (number of PRACH transmissions), it changes to a higher level for the following reattempt. No power ramping is allowed when the repetition level changes (¶0187), as well as teaches power ramping and counters.
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.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 20230247682), Wei hereinafter, and Xing (US 2026/0020074), Xing hereinafter, and further in view of Su et al. (WO 2024/150195 A1), Su hereinafter.
Re. Claim 1, Wei teaches a user equipment (UE) comprising: control circuitry configured to determine to perform a retransmission for a plurality of physical random access channel (PRACH) transmissions for a message 1 (Msg1) procedure in a second PRACH attempt in a case that a random access procedure is not completed after the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in a first PRACH attempt; (Fig. 1 & ¶0079 - If the contention resolution is not successful after one or more MSG3 (re)transmissions, the CBRA procedure may go back to action 102 in which the UE may perform the MSG1 transmission again. Fig. 3 & ¶0087 - As illustrated in FIG. 3, in action 302, MP transmissions are performed (in a single round of the RA preamble transmission step/stage). The MP transmissions may include a UE transmitting a MSG1 (which includes an RA preamble) multiple times on a PRACH resource to a BS. Fig. 9 & ¶0120 - if the PRACH transmission from the UE cannot be received by the BS, causing the UE to fail to receive an RAR corresponding to the PRACH transmission within a configured time window several times, the UE may apply a different set of an NP_value and its corresponding MP-specific PRACH resource for the subsequent PRACH transmission(s) during the ongoing RA procedure. Please also see ¶0124);
and to determine a transmission power for the retransmission based on the power ramping counter; (Fig. 8, 12 & ¶0088 - … the UE may adjust at least one of the following factors to perform the PRACH transmission: the transmission power level … ¶0141 - The UE may use the counter to determine whether to switch or change the selected MP-specific PRACH resource to use according to the value of the counter and the counter threshold. Please also see ¶0152-¶0154);
and transmission circuitry configured to perform the retransmission using the transmission power, (Fig. 12 & ¶0088 - In some implementations, in a new round of the RA preamble transmission step/stage, the UE may adjust at least one of the following factors to perform the PRACH transmission: the transmission power level … ¶0152 - In an RA procedure, the UE may ramp up its transmission power for the PRACH retransmission(s) after a random backoff. For example, the UE may transmit a first RA preamble with a first transmission power, but not receive an RAR corresponding to the first preamble within a configured time window. Afterwards, the UE may perform a random backoff and then transmit a second RA preamble (or a PRACH retransmission) with a second transmission power, where the second transmission power may be higher than the first transmission power);
wherein the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in the first PRACH attempt is performed before a random access response (RAR) window, (Fig. 3 & ¶0087 - Action 302 may be considered as being performed in (a round of) an RA preamble transmission step/stage of an RA procedure and before the UE begins monitoring for an RAR corresponding to the transmitted MSG1/RA preamble within a configured time window) and the retransmission is performed after the RAR window (¶0152 - For example, the UE may transmit a first RA preamble with a first transmission power, but not receive an RAR corresponding to the first preamble within a configured time window. Afterwards, the UE may perform a random backoff and then transmit a second RA preamble (or a PRACH retransmission)).
Yet, Wei does not explicitly teach physical layer control circuitry configured to, prior to the retransmission, determine whether to change a number of PRACH transmissions in the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in the second PRACH attempt from the number of PRACH transmissions in the first PRACH attempt, and to send to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed; higher layer control circuitry configured to determine whether to increment the power ramping counter based on whether the notification is sent or not,
However, in the analogous art, Xing explicitly teaches physical layer control circuitry configured to, prior to the retransmission, determine whether to change a number of PRACH transmissions in the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in the second PRACH attempt from the number of PRACH transmissions in the first PRACH attempt (¶0127 - The first value may be used to indicate a quantity of random access attempts when the quantity of PRACH transmissions is determined during the random access procedure. For example, the network side may configure the UE to re-determine the quantity of PRACH transmissions before A1-st, A2-nd, and A3-rd random access attempts. ¶0128 - For the quantity of PRACH transmissions determined before the first random access attempt, the terminal attempts at most B1 times. If the RAR is not successfully received, or the conflict resolution is unsuccessful and B1 is reached, the quantity of PRACH transmissions is re-determined and the quantity of attempts is at most B2 times, and so on. Please also see ¶0009-¶0011);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xing to the teaching of Wei. The motivation would be because the invention tackles problems related to how after NR supports multiple PRACH transmissions, determination of the quantity of PRACH transmissions and a random access resource cannot directly follow the relevant solutions in the LTE (¶0005, Xing).
Yet, Wei and Xing do not explicitly teach and to send to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed; higher layer control circuitry configured to determine whether to increment the power ramping counter based on whether the notification is sent or not,
However, in the analogous art, Su explicitly teaches and to send to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed; (Fig. 18 & ¶0181 - In some examples, for multiple PRACH transmissions with same Tx beam, at least SSB-RSRP threshold(s) are used to determine-the number of PRACH transmissions at least for the first RACH attempt ... An example of SSB-RSRP thresholds mentioned in the agreement is illustrated in FIG. 18, where the candidate numbers of PRACH transmissions configured by gNB are 1, 2, 4 and 8. ¶0187 - if a UE does not receive a RAR with its Random Access Preamble identifiers (RAPID) after the maximum number of unsuccessful attempts with the current repetition level (number of PRACH transmissions), it changes to a higher level for the following reattempt. No power ramping is allowed when the repetition level changes. Please also see ¶0006-¶0007);
higher layer control circuitry configured to determine whether to increment the power ramping counter based on whether the notification is sent or not, (¶0094 - The MAC entity shall, for each Random Access Preamble: 1> if PREAMBLE_TRANSMISSION_COUNTER is greater than one; and 1> if the notification of suspending power ramping counter has not been received from lower layers; and 1> if SSB or CSI-RS selected is not changed from the selection in the last Random Access Preamble transmission: 2> increment PREAMBLE_POWER_RAMPING_COUNTER by 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Su to the teachings of Wei and Xing. The motivation would be because the invention relates to wireless communication systems and more particularly to a communication device determining a random access channel (“RACH”) resource for multiple physical RACH (“PRACH”) transmissions (¶0001, Su).
Re. Claim 2, Wei and Xing and Su teach Claim 1.
Yet, Wei and Xing do not explicitly teach the physical layer control circuitry is further configured to, prior to the retransmission, determine whether to change a spatial domain transmission filter for the retransmission, and, in a case that the spatial domain transmission filter is determined to be changed, to send to the higher layers the notification to suspend the power ramping counter.
However, in the analogous art, Su explicitly teaches the physical layer control circuitry is further configured to, prior to the retransmission, determine whether to change a spatial domain transmission filter for the retransmission, and, in a case that the spatial domain transmission filter is determined to be changed, to send to the higher layers the notification to suspend the power ramping counter (¶0093 - If prior to a PRACH retransmission, a UE changes the spatial domain transmission filter, Layer 1 notifies higher layers to suspend the power ramping counter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Su to the teachings of Wei and Xing. The motivation would be because the invention relates to wireless communication systems and more particularly to a communication device determining a random access channel (“RACH”) resource for multiple physical RACH (“PRACH”) transmissions (¶0001, Su).
Re. Claim 3, Wei teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: determining to perform a retransmission for a plurality of physical random access channel (PRACH) transmissions for a message 1 (Msg1) procedure in a second PRACH attempt in a case that a random access procedure is not completed after the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in a first PRACH attempt; (Fig. 1 & ¶0079 - If the contention resolution is not successful after one or more MSG3 (re)transmissions, the CBRA procedure may go back to action 102 in which the UE may perform the MSG1 transmission again. Fig. 3 & ¶0087 - As illustrated in FIG. 3, in action 302, MP transmissions are performed (in a single round of the RA preamble transmission step/stage). The MP transmissions may include a UE transmitting a MSG1 (which includes an RA preamble) multiple times on a PRACH resource to a BS. Fig. 9 & ¶0120 - if the PRACH transmission from the UE cannot be received by the BS, causing the UE to fail to receive an RAR corresponding to the PRACH transmission within a configured time window several times, the UE may apply a different set of an NP_value and its corresponding MP-specific PRACH resource for the subsequent PRACH transmission(s) during the ongoing RA procedure. Please also see ¶0124);
and determining a transmission power for the retransmission based on the power ramping counter; (Fig. 8, 12 & ¶0088 - … the UE may adjust at least one of the following factors to perform the PRACH transmission: the transmission power level … ¶0141 - The UE may use the counter to determine whether to switch or change the selected MP-specific PRACH resource to use according to the value of the counter and the counter threshold. Please also see ¶0152-¶0154);
and performing the retransmission using the transmission power, (Fig. 12 & ¶0088 - In some implementations, in a new round of the RA preamble transmission step/stage, the UE may adjust at least one of the following factors to perform the PRACH transmission: the transmission power level … ¶0152 - In an RA procedure, the UE may ramp up its transmission power for the PRACH retransmission(s) after a random backoff. For example, the UE may transmit a first RA preamble with a first transmission power, but not receive an RAR corresponding to the first preamble within a configured time window. Afterwards, the UE may perform a random backoff and then transmit a second RA preamble (or a PRACH retransmission) with a second transmission power, where the second transmission power may be higher than the first transmission power);
wherein the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in the first PRACH attempt is performed before a random access response (RAR) window, (Fig. 3 & ¶0087 - Action 302 may be considered as being performed in (a round of) an RA preamble transmission step/stage of an RA procedure and before the UE begins monitoring for an RAR corresponding to the transmitted MSG1/RA preamble within a configured time window) and the retransmission is performed after the RAR window (¶0152 - For example, the UE may transmit a first RA preamble with a first transmission power, but not receive an RAR corresponding to the first preamble within a configured time window. Afterwards, the UE may perform a random backoff and then transmit a second RA preamble (or a PRACH retransmission)).
Yet, Wei does not explicitly teach prior to the retransmission, determining whether to change a number of PRACH transmissions in the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in the second PRACH attempt from the number of PRACH transmissions in the first PRACH attempt, and sending to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed; determining whether to increment the power ramping counter based on whether the notification is sent or not,
However, in the analogous art, Xing explicitly teaches prior to the retransmission, determining whether to change a number of PRACH transmissions in the plurality of PRACH transmissions for the Msg1 procedure in the second PRACH attempt from the number of PRACH transmissions in the first PRACH attempt, (¶0127 - The first value may be used to indicate a quantity of random access attempts when the quantity of PRACH transmissions is determined during the random access procedure. For example, the network side may configure the UE to re-determine the quantity of PRACH transmissions before A1-st, A2-nd, and A3-rd random access attempts. ¶0128 - For the quantity of PRACH transmissions determined before the first random access attempt, the terminal attempts at most B1 times. If the RAR is not successfully received, or the conflict resolution is unsuccessful and B1 is reached, the quantity of PRACH transmissions is re-determined and the quantity of attempts is at most B2 times, and so on. Please also see ¶0009-¶0011);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Xing to the teaching of Wei. The motivation would be because the invention tackles problems related to how after NR supports multiple PRACH transmissions, determination of the quantity of PRACH transmissions and a random access resource cannot directly follow the relevant solutions in the LTE (¶0005, Xing).
Yet, Wei and Xing do not explicitly teach and sending to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed; determining whether to increment the power ramping counter based on whether the notification is sent or not,
However, in the analogous art, Su explicitly teaches and sending to higher layers a notification to suspend a power ramping counter in a case that the number of PRACH transmissions in the second PRACH attempt is determined to be changed; (Fig. 18 & ¶0181 - In some examples, for multiple PRACH transmissions with same Tx beam, at least SSB-RSRP threshold(s) are used to determine-the number of PRACH transmissions at least for the first RACH attempt ... An example of SSB-RSRP thresholds mentioned in the agreement is illustrated in FIG. 18, where the candidate numbers of PRACH transmissions configured by gNB are 1, 2, 4 and 8. ¶0187 - if a UE does not receive a RAR with its Random Access Preamble identifiers (RAPID) after the maximum number of unsuccessful attempts with the current repetition level (number of PRACH transmissions), it changes to a higher level for the following reattempt. No power ramping is allowed when the repetition level changes. Please also see ¶0006-¶0007);
determining whether to increment the power ramping counter based on whether the notification is sent or not, (¶0094 - The MAC entity shall, for each Random Access Preamble: 1> if PREAMBLE_TRANSMISSION_COUNTER is greater than one; and 1> if the notification of suspending power ramping counter has not been received from lower layers; and 1> if SSB or CSI-RS selected is not changed from the selection in the last Random Access Preamble transmission: 2> increment PREAMBLE_POWER_RAMPING_COUNTER by 1.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Su to the teachings of Wei and Xing. The motivation would be because the invention relates to wireless communication systems and more particularly to a communication device determining a random access channel (“RACH”) resource for multiple physical RACH (“PRACH”) transmissions (¶0001, Su).
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 ALYSSA WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7673. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571) 270-0422. 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.
/ALYSSA WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465