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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8 and 11-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 4, 5, 8, 12-14, 19 and 20, “wherein splitting” should be changed to “wherein the splitting”, the “wherein receiving” in line 1 of claim 14 should be changed to “wherein the receiving”, “wherein unsuccessful decoding” should be changed to “wherein the unsuccessful decoding”, and “wherein successful decoding” should be changed to “wherein the successful decoding” for clarity.
Also, claims 12 and 13 should depend from claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 11 and 16-18 recite the limitations "the encoded first part”, “the encoded second part”, “the first part” and/or “the second part" numerous times. It is unclear whether they are referring to the same or different parts and how they are related to each other and the other claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 fails to further limit the parent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R2-1905651 “Fallback Procedure from 2-step RACH to 4-step RACH (hereinafter Vivo) in view of US 2021/0014900 (hereinafter Lei).
Regarding claim 1, Vivo teaches a method of implementing a random access (RA) procedure, the method comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UE) device, an msgB transmission from a base station during the RA procedure (Section 2, Figure 1: details 2-Step RACH; MsgB; MsgB reception window); applying, by the UE device, a decoding process to decode the msgB transmission (Section 2.1; 2.2: details case 2… MsgB; MsgB reception window… successfully decoded); based on successfully decoding of a first part of the msgB transmission (Proposal 2: details where MsgB includes a MAC RAR and a RAPID corresponding to transmitted MsgA preamble), and unsuccessfully decoding of a second part of the msgB transmission (Proposal 2: details but does not contain a matched contention resolution id), continuing the RA procedure (Proposal 2: details A UE will fall back from 2-step RACH to 4-step RACH).
Vivo does not explicitly teach the unsuccessful decoding comprising detecting an error during application of the decoding process to the second part of the msgB transmission.
However, Lei teaches teach the unsuccessful decoding comprising detecting an error during application of the decoding process to the second part of the msgB transmission ([0101]: details if the UE 604 successfully decodes the PDCCH, but does not successfully decode the message on the PDSCH, then the UE 604 can transmit a negative acknowledgment (NACK) to the serving base station 602, which can cause the base station 602 to retransmit the message on the PDSCH, as detecting an error to the second part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Lei and include the unsuccessful decoding comprising detecting an error during application of the decoding process to the second part of the msgB transmission of Lei with Vivo. Doing so would reduce latency (Lei, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Vivo teaches wherein continuing the RA procedure includes transmitting the msgB transmission (Section 2.1, case 2, proposal 2: details MsgB reception window).
Regarding claim 3, Vivo teaches further comprising splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part (Section 2.1, case 2; proposal 2: details detects MAC entity in UE recognizes a MAC subPDU with both RAPID corresponding to the transmitted MsgA preamble and MAC RAR but cannot find out a matched UE contention resolution id).
Regarding claim 4, Vivo teaches wherein splitting further comprises storing, in the first part of the msgB, at least one of a) a time advance (TA), b) a temporary identifier, c) a random access preamble identifier (RAPID), or d) an uplink (UL) grant (Proposal 2: details a RAPID corresponding to transmitted MsgA preamble).
Regarding claim 5, Vivo teaches wherein splitting further comprises storing, in the first part of the msgB, all of a) a time advance (TA), b) a temporary identifier, c) a random access preamble identifier (RAPID), and d) an uplink (UL) grant (Section 2.1: details preamble transmission counter; downlink assignment; CCCH SDU; RA-RNTI; RAPID; RAR UL grant).
Regarding claim 6, Vivo teaches further comprising identifying the UE device the msgB transmission is intended for based on the RAPID (Section 2.1, 2.2: details where a RAPID corresponding to transmitted MsgA preamble).
Regarding claim 7, Vivo teaches further comprising transmitting, by the UE device, a msg3 transmission based on the UL grant in continuation of the RA procedure (Section 2.1, 2.2; Figure 3: details utilize RAR UL grant to transmit the Msg3).
Regarding claim 8, Vivo teaches wherein splitting further comprises storing, in the second part of the msgB, a contention resolution identifier (Section 2.1, 2.2: details contention resolution id).
Regarding claim 10, Vivo teaches based on unsuccessfully decoding of the second part of the msgB transmission (Proposal 2: details but does not contain a matched contention resolution id): falling back to a 4-step random access channel (RACH) (Proposal 2: details A UE will fall back from 2-step RACH to 4-step RACH); and transmitting, by the UE device, a msg3 transmission based on the UL grant stored in the first part of the msgB transmission in continuation of the RA procedure (2.2: details Msg3 transmission… RAR UL grant in MsgB is received).
Regarding claim 14, Vivo teaches wherein receiving further comprises: receiving, by the UE device, the first part of the msgB transmission from the base station during the RA procedure; and separately receiving, by the UE device, the second part of the msgB transmission from the base station during the RA procedure (Section 2, Figure 1: details 2-Step RACH; MsgB; MsgB reception window).
Regarding claim 15, Vivo does not explicitly teach wherein the UE device is configured to independently check the first part of the msgB transmission for errors, and independently check the second part of the msgB transmission for the errors.
However, Lei teaches wherein the UE device is configured to independently check the first part of the msgB transmission for errors, and independently check the second part of the msgB transmission for the errors ([0101]: details if the UE 604 successfully decodes the PDCCH, but does not successfully decode the message on the PDSCH, then the UE 604 can transmit a negative acknowledgment (NACK) to the serving base station 602, which can cause the base station 602 to retransmit the message on the PDSCH, as independently check for errors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Lei and include wherein the UE device is configured to independently check the first part of the msgB transmission for errors, and independently check the second part of the msgB transmission for the errors of Lei with Vivo. Doing so would reduce latency (Lei, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 19, Vivo does not explicitly teach wherein unsuccessfully decoding includes detecting one or more errors in the second part of the msgB transmission.
However, Lei teaches wherein unsuccessfully decoding includes detecting one or more errors in the second part of the msgB transmission ([0101]: details but does not successfully decode the message on the PDSCH, as detecting an error to the second part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Lei and include wherein unsuccessfully decoding includes detecting one or more errors in the second part of the msgB transmission of Lei with Vivo. Doing so would reduce latency (Lei, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 20, Vivo does not explicitly teach wherein successfully decoding includes not detecting an error in the first part of the msgB transmission.
However, Lei teaches wherein successfully decoding includes not detecting an error in the first part of the msgB transmission ([0101]: details if the UE 604 successfully decodes the PDCCH, as successfully decode without detecting error in the first part).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Lei and include wherein successfully decoding includes not detecting an error in the first part of the msgB transmission of Lei with Vivo. Doing so would reduce latency (Lei, paragraph [0004]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo in view of Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0053571 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 9, Vivo does not explicitly teach encoding the first part of the msgB transmission; and separately encoding the second part of the msgB transmission.
However, Lee teaches encoding the first part of the msgB transmission; and separately encoding the second part of the msgB transmission (claim 18: details encode MsgB PDCCH and MsgB payload, as separately encoding first and second parts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Lee and include encoding the first part of the msgB transmission; and separately encoding the second part of the msgB transmission of Lee with Vivo. Doing so would provide efficient use of the resources of a wireless network (Lee, paragraph [0003]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivo in view of Lei as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0154488 (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 12, Vivo does not explicitly teach wherein splitting further comprises splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part from a media access control (MAC) layer stage.
Zhang teaches wherein splitting further comprises splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part from a media access control (MAC) layer stage ([0068][0077]: details split the msgB into multiple parts; control message inspection, as control layer stage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and include splitting further comprises splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part from a media access control (MAC) layer stage of Zhang with Vivo. Doing so would improve two-step RACH procedure (Zhang, paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, Vivo does not explicitly teach wherein splitting further comprises splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part from a code block segmentation and low-density parity check (LDPC) coding stage.
Zhang teaches wherein splitting further comprises splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part from a code block segmentation and low-density parity check (LDPC) coding stage ([0068][0077][0088]: details split the msgB into multiple parts; LDPC coding scheme, as LDPC coding stage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Vivo to incorporate the teachings of Zhang and include wherein splitting further comprises splitting the msgB transmission into the first part and the second part from a code block segmentation and low-density parity check (LDPC) coding stage of Zhang with Vivo. Doing so would improve two-step RACH procedure (Zhang, paragraph [0102]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 6-20 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 filed 10/30/2025 regarding claim 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant alleges that Vivo does not teach all the items stored in the first of the two separate parts of the msgB. Examiner respectfully disagrees. For example, preamble transmission counter; downlink assignment; CCCH SDU; RA-RNTI; RAPID; RAR UL grant of Vivo teaches the claimed a) a time advance (TA), b) a temporary identifier, c) a random access preamble identifier (RAPID), and d) an uplink (UL) grant because they perform all the functions of the claimed items. Examiner suggests explicating reciting how the claimed items are functionally different.
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 Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415