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 10/28/2025 for response of the office action mailed on 07/28/2025. Claims 6 and 12 are amended. Claims 13 and 14 are newly added. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
In light of applicant’s amendments to Claims 6 and 12, the rejection of Claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/28/2025 with respect to independent Claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant remarks (page 8) Office Action admits that neither TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI nor SAKHNINI disclose or suggest” the following features of Claim 1:
"... receiving a random access response (RAR) with an indication that the first RACH configuration is unavailable, wherein the RAR indicates (1) updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location . . ." [emphasis added by Applicant]
Applicant then argues (page 9) amended Claims 1 (and 7) are patentable over the cited references because “HAJIR [as cited in paragraph [0118]], does not disclose or suggest that the WTRU receives updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location." (emphasis added by applicant).
Response to Main Argument:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the excerpted limitation of Claim 1 above, the combination of references was relied upon to teach the limitation. Examiner relied on SAKHNINI to teach “receiving an RAR with an indication that the first RACH configuration is unavailable” (FIG. 5, ¶0075 at 510; ¶0079; see also ¶0073) and HAJIR to teach that “wherein the RAR indicates (1) updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location” (FIG. 7, ¶0118; FIG. 3, ¶0088), which was stated in the final office action dated 10/28/2025.
Further, during patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard:
The Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830] (Fed. Cir. 2004). Indeed, the rules of the PTO require that application claims must "conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description." 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP §2111.
See also In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259, 94 USPQ2d 1640, 1643 (Fed. Cir. 2010); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, the examiner reasonably interpreted the phrasing in HAJIR “may be configured”, underscored by applicant in ¶0118, (one of the paragraphs cited by examiner), in the context of 5G or 3GPP or any other specification, to correspond to the WTRU having an ability “to receive”.
Therefore, examiner maintains the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, line 3 and Claim 14, line 3, “Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit” should read - - Medium Access Control Protocol Data Unit (MAC PDU) - - for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non- obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI et al. (US 20210321460 A1), hereinafter TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, in view of SAKHNINI et al. (US 20210392697 A1), hereinafter SAKHNINI, further in view of HAJIR et al. (WO 2019195445 A1), hereinafter, HAJIR.
Regarding Claim 1,
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI teaches a method (FIG. 4; FIG. 8) implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (FIG. 3, 350; FIG. 4, UE,404) comprising:
transmitting one or more first random access channel (RACH) preambles (¶0095; FIG. 4,”first RACH preamble message”, 428, see also FIG. 8, step 808 ) based on a first RACH configuration (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG.8, at 802; ¶0162 , the reception component 1030 may be configured to receive information from the base station 102/180 indicating at least a portion of a first configuration associated with a first RACH procedure; see also FIG.8, ¶0165 step 808, [t]he first RACH component 1040 may be configured to generate at least one preamble for the first RACH procedure, e.g., based on the first configuration.); . . . retrieving a second RACH configuration information (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG. 4, as reflected in FIG. 8-9; ¶0125, at 802, the UE may receive information from a base station indicating at …. or a second configuration associated with a second RACH procedure…. the second RACH procedure may be an alternative RACH procedure, such as a RACH procedure used a fallback in conditions on a channel with the base station are poor; the UE 404 may receive the system information 422 from the base station 402, [that] may indicate various parameters associated with an initial or default RACH procedure and/or another RACH procedure, such as an alternative RACH procedure);
transmitting one or more second RACH preambles based on the second RACH configuration (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG. 4, [transmitting] “alternative preamble message(s)” 432a, 432b, 432 c; FIG. 8-9 (which corresponds to FIG. 4.), ¶0135 the UE/WTRU may generate the preamble message for the second RACH procedure based on the second (RACH) configuration)) and
performing a random access procedure based on the second RACH configuration (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG. 4, ¶0123, the UE/WTRU may receive the contention resolution message 440, and perform the alternative four-step RACH procedure).
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI does not explicitly teach receiving an RAR with an indication that the first RACH configuration is unavailable.
However, in the analogous art, SAKHNINI explicitly discloses receiving an RAR with an indication that the first RACH configuration is unavailable (SAKHNINI FIG. 5, ¶0075 at 510, base station 110 may determine to switch PRACH ROs for UE 120. . . [f]or example, base station 110 may determine that a [first] beam is congested and; ¶0079, base station 110 transmit an RAR message (to UE/WTRU) triggering the RO Switch (as illustrated in Fig 5, 6). For example, when base station 110 identifies a collision associated with a first PRACH communication on the first RO (i.e., first RO is unavailable as because first beam is congested/unavailable), base station 110 may transmit an RAR message (to the UE/WTRU) as a response to the first PRACH communication to trigger a second PRACH communication on a second RO; see also ¶0073).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI’s invention of a wireless network random access procedure with SAKHNINI’s invention of an apparatus and techniques for random access channel switching The motivation is to provide an efficient mechanism for the UE to enable dynamic random access channel switching to improve coverage of message communication, quickly recover from network interference and for providing 5G services to enable dynamic random access channel switching and for providing 5G services (e.g., M2M < machine-to-machine>, MTC < machine-type communication>, IoT <Internet of things >) in the next-generation wireless communication system (¶005, ¶0035, ¶0038-0039, ¶0073 SAKHNINI).
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI and SAKHNINI do not explicitly teach, wherein the RAR indicates (1) updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location
However, in the analogous art, HAJIR explicitly discloses wherein the RAR indicates (1) updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location (HAJIR, FIG. 7, ¶0118, UL BWP 700 is associated only with SSB resources 730; [and] [t]he SSB resources 730 may be associated with CFRA or CBRA, while the CSI-RS resources are associated with CFRA. DL BWP 711 contains the frequency location of the CSI-RS resources 731 and DL BWP 710 contains the frequency location of the SSB resources 730, interpreted to correspond to updated SSB frequency location(s); see also FIG. 3, ¶0088 at 304B at step 304B, the WTRU may then perform the Random Access procedure by sending a preamble on the active UL BWP and monitoring the active DL BWP for a RAR message from the NW).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI’s invention of a wireless network random access procedure and SAKHNINI’s invention of an apparatus and techniques for random access channel switching with HAJIR’s methods for bandwidth part (BWP) management in wireless systems. The motivation is to minimize inter-carrier interference and address restrictions in terms of BWP configuration for WTRUs [HAJIR, ¶0074, ¶0091].
Regarding Claim 2, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR teach Claim 1.
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI further teaches wherein the second RACH configuration is retrieved from a stored SIB (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG. 1, ¶0089, the UE 404 may receive system information 422 from the base station 402 which may include one or more SIBs; ¶0090 system information 422 may include at least one alternative RACH procedure, which the UE 404 may attempt when the initial four-step RACH procedure fails and/or when conditions of the channel on which the UE 404 communicates with the base station 402 are poor).
Regarding Claims 3, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR teach Claim 1.
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI further teaches wherein the second RACH configuration is retrieved from a most-recently received SIB message (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG. 1, ¶0089, the UE 404/WTRU may receive system information 422 from the base station 402 which may include one or more SIBs; ¶0090 system information 422 may include at least one alternative RACH procedure, which the UE 404 may attempt when the initial four-step RACH procedure fails).
Regarding Claim 4, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR teach Claim 1.
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI further teaches wherein the second RACH configuration is retrieved from the RAR (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI FIG. 9, which corresponds to FIG. 4, ¶0157, at 914, the base station may transmit control information of an RAR message for the second RACH procedure) . . .[and] may transmit the RAR message in response to at least one of the alternative preamble messages; FIG. 4, the base station 402 may transmit at least one of the alternative RAR messages 434a-c, e.g., in the second RAR window 408 in response to one or more of the alternative preamble messages 432a-c; ¶0193 FIG. 9, Step 9, the second configuration may be different from the first configuration of the first RACH procedure, which may result in a different RAR and/or different RAR transmission than that which would result from the first configuration.).
Regarding Claims 7-10, the claims disclose similar features of Claims 1-4 and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 1-4, in apparatus form (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (FIG. 3/ 350; FIG. 4, 404) a transmitter (FIG. 3, TX in 354); a receiver (FIG. 3, RX in 354); and a processor (FIG. 3, 359) in communication with the transmitter and receiver (FIG. 3, ¶0066).
Regarding Claim 13, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR teach Claim 1.
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI further teaches [control information] transmitted in a MAC PDU (TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, ¶0056, the RAR may be included in a MAC PDU of the PDSCH communication).
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI and SAKHNINI do not explicitly teach the (1) updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location are transmitted.
However, in the analogous art, HAJIR explicitly discloses the (1) updated initial bandwidth part (BWP) information and (2) updated cell-defining synchronization frequency block (SSB) frequency location (HAJIR, FIG. 7, ¶0118, UL BWP 700 is associated only with SSB resources 730; [and] [t]he SSB resources 730 may be associated with CFRA or CBRA, while the CSI-RS resources are associated with CFRA. DL BWP 711 contains the frequency location of the CSI-RS resources 731 and DL BWP 710 contains the frequency location of the SSB resources 730, interpreted to correspond to updated SSB frequency location(s); see also FIG. 3, ¶0088 at 304B at step 304B, the WTRU may then perform the Random Access procedure by sending a preamble on the active UL BWP and monitoring the active DL BWP for a RAR message from the NW).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI’s invention of a wireless network random access procedure and SAKHNINI’s invention of an apparatus and techniques for random access channel switching with HAJIR’s methods for bandwidth part (BWP) management in wireless systems. The motivation is to minimize inter-carrier interference and address restrictions in terms of BWP configuration for WTRUs [HAJIR, ¶0074, ¶0091].
Regarding Claim 14, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 13 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 13, in apparatus form.
Claims 5-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, in view of SAKHNINI and HAJIR, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, further in view of TAKAHASHI et al. (US 20240340897 A1), hereinafter, TAKAHASHI.
Regarding Claim 5, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI, and HAJIR teach Claim 1.
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR do not explicitly teach wherein frequency domain resources of a RACH configuration are defined by a start frequency location and information related to a number of frequency-multiplexed RACH occasions.
However, in the analogous art, TAKAHASHI explicitly discloses wherein frequency domain resources of a RACH configuration are defined by a start frequency location (TAKAHASHI FIG. 11, ¶0022, ¶0207, a frequency location of one or multiple PRACH transmission occasions indicated by msg1-FrequencyStart and msg1-FrequencyStart-rc).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI’s invention of a wireless network random access procedure, SAKHNINI’s invention of an apparatus and techniques for random access channel switching, and HAJIR’s methods for bandwidth part (BWP) management in wireless systems with TAKAHASHI’s invention of a terminal apparatus and timing synchronization method for wireless. The motivation is to provide an efficient mechanism to lower latency for providing 5G services in the next-generation wireless communication system [TAKAHASHI, ¶0004].
Regarding Claim 6, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR teach Claim 1.
TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI teaches the second RACH configuration. . . may be different from the first RACH configuration. (see Claim 1 above)
Yet, TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI, SAKHNINI and HAJIR do not explicitly teach the second RACH configuration is separated from the first RACH configuration in the frequency domain.
However, in the analogous art TAKAHASHI explicitly discloses the second RACH configuration is separated from the first RACH configuration in the frequency domain (TAKAHASHI, method disclosed in FIG. 11, ¶0206-0208; at ¶0206, a parameter msg1-FrequencyStart indicating a first offset of the lowest PRACH transmission occasion in the frequency domain with respect to a PRB with an index of 0 (“the first RACH configuration”), and a parameter msg1-FrequencyStart-rc indicating a second offset of the lowest RACH occasion in the frequency domain (the “second RACH configuration”); ¶0207, FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating the concept of a frequency location of one or multiple PRACH transmission occasions indicated by msg1-FrequencyStart and msg1-FrequencyStart-rc; ¶0208, accordingly, configuring different offset values for two parameters msg1-FrequencyStart and msg1-FrequencyStart-rc in this way, it is possible to allocate sets of PRACH transmission occasions different between the terminal apparatus 1 that supports msg1-FrequencyStart-rc and the terminal apparatus 1 that does not support msg1-FrequencyStart-r first and second RACH configurations allocated at different location, i.e. frequency domain separation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI’s invention of a wireless network random access procedure, SAKHNINI’s invention of an apparatus and techniques for random access channel switching, and HAJIR’s methods for bandwidth part (BWP) management in wireless systems with TAKAHASHI’s invention of a terminal apparatus and timing synchronization method for wireless. The motivation is to provide an efficient mechanism to lower latency for providing 5G services in the next-generation wireless communication system [TAKAHASHI, ¶0004].
Regarding Claims 11-12, the claim discloses similar features of Claims 5-6 and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 5- 6, in apparatus form.
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 TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is 571-270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30. 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 at 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465