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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-9, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 111919490 A), hereinafter Liu in view of Pi et al. (2023/0276436), hereinafter Pi.
Re. Claims 1, 9, and 14, Liu teaches a network device, comprising: a processor and a memory configured to store a computer program runnable on the processor (Fig. 7 & Pg. 24, Line 17 - The device 3000 may include one or more of the following components: Processing assembly 3002, memory 3004), a terminal device, comprising: a processor and a memory configured to store a computer program runnable on the processor (Pg. 6, Line 8- Provided a communication device, comprising a processor, a transceiver, a memory and an executable program stored on the memory and capable of running by the processor), and a method for random access, comprising: determining, by a terminal device, a transmission parameter of a random access procedure (Pg. 2, Line 20 - The enhanced control parameter is used for enhancing the message transmission in the random access process of the first type of UE.) according to at least one of: a type of the terminal device (Pg. 2, Line 18 - Sending the downlink control information DCI carried with the enhanced control indication, wherein the enhanced control indication comprises: for the enhanced control parameter of the random access of the first type of user equipment UE. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) OR indication information sent by a network device.
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein there is a correspondence between the type of the terminal device and a resource used by the terminal device to send a Message 1 (Msg1) and wherein the transmission parameter of the random access procedure comprises a transmission parameter of a Message 3 (Msg3); the transmission parameter of the Msg3 comprises: a repetition factor of a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) carrying the Msg3; and the repetition factor of the PUSCH carrying the Msg3 is: a number of time domain units for sending the Msg3
However, Pi explicitly teaches wherein there is a correspondence between the type of the terminal device and a resource used by the terminal device to send a Message 1 (Msg1) (¶0051 - based on predetermined information in transmitted physical random access channel (PRACH) and a mapping relationship between the predetermined information and the number of repetitions, the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH, wherein the predetermined information includes a set to which PRACH resources belong and a set to which a preamble format belongs & ¶0096 - the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the Msg3 PUSCH is determined according to a set to which PRACH resources transmitted by the UE belong to and a set to which a preamble format belongs; wherein the mapping relationship between the set to which the PRACH resources belong to or the set to which the preamble format belongs to and the number of repetitions is defined in advance or notified to the UE by the base station via broadcast information) and wherein the transmission parameter of the random access procedure comprises a transmission parameter of a Message 3 (Msg3) (¶0080 - before transmitting the Msg3 PUSCH to the network device, the user equipment may determine the number of repetitions of the Msg3 PUSCH firstly); the transmission parameter of the Msg3 comprises: a repetition factor of a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) carrying the Msg3 (¶0080 - before transmitting the Msg3 PUSCH to the network device, the user equipment may determine the number of repetitions of the Msg3 PUSCH firstly); and the repetition factor of the PUSCH carrying the Msg3 is: a number of time domain units for sending the Msg3 and a time domain unit is a slot (¶0081 - UE may determine time domain resources for the repetitions of the Msg3 PUSCH. After determining the time domain resources for the repetitions of the Msg3 PUSCH, the Msg3 PUSCH may be transmitted to the network device with the number of repetitions according to the determined time domain resources for the repetitions of the Msg3 PUSCH. & ¶0086 - determine the time domain resources for these repetitions based on the repetition type of the PUSCH which is defined in advance or notified to the UE by the base station via broadcast, and perform the first transmission of the Msg3 PUSCH on these time domain resources).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teachings of Pi to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency by including a preamble and MSG3 communication between a UE and Base Station as Pi provides both a correspondence sent in Msg1 or preamble and a resource used by the terminal device to send the message (¶0051, Pi) and Pi provides a transmission parameter of a Msg3 which includes a repetition (¶0081, Pi). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 3, 11, and 16, Liu, and Pi teach 1, 9 and 14.
Yet, Liu does not expressly teach wherein the resource used by the terminal device to send the Msg1 comprises: a reserved resource of an RACH or an RACH resource corresponding to a reserved RACH ID.
However, Pi explicitly teaches wherein the resource used by the terminal device to send the Msg1 comprises: a reserved resource of an RACH (¶0051 - based on predetermined information in transmitted physical random access channel (PRACH) and a mapping relationship between the predetermined information and the number of repetitions, the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the PUSCH, wherein the predetermined information includes a set to which PRACH resources belong and a set to which a preamble format belongs. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”.) OR an RACH resource corresponding to a reserved RACH ID.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Fan to the teachings of Liu and Pi. The motivation for such would be to further improve communication efficiency as Pi provides that the terminal device sends the Msg1 comprising a reserved resource of a RACH (¶0051, Pi). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 4, 12, and 17, Liu, and Pi teach Claims 1, 9, and 14.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the indication information is carried in Downlink Control Information (DCI) (Pg. 2, Line 18 - Sending the downlink control information (DCI) carried with the enhanced control indication).
Re. Claims 5, 13, and 18, Liu, and Pi teach Claims 1, 9, and 14.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the indication information is used for indicating (Pg. 3, Line 9 - The enhanced control indication is further used for indicating whether to apply the enhanced control parameter) a transmission parameter of a channel (Pg. 11, Line 25- The enhanced control parameter may be… a transmission parameter configuration of the radio frequency component) after transmitting the indication information during the random access procedure (Pg. 3, Lines 13-16 - The method comprising: receiving downlink control information DCI; obtaining the enhanced control indication carried by the DCI, the enhanced control indication, comprising: aiming at the enhanced control parameter of the random access of the first type of UE).
Re. Claims 6, and 19, Liu, and Pi teach Claims 1, and 14.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the transmission parameter of the Msg3 comprises at least one of: a frequency hopping manner of the Msg3, a modulation parameter of the Msg3 (Pg. 11, Line 17- DCI can be used for… modulation and coding policy information indicating PDSCH signaling and so on. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”), OR a resource parameter of the Msg3.
Re. Claims 7, and 20, Liu, and Pi teach Claims 6, and 19.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the aggregation factor of the PUSCH carrying the Msg3 is: a number of time domain units for sending the Msg3 (Pg. 3, Line 7 - The enhanced control parameter of the Msg3 for the first type of UE indicates the offset value of the number of repeating transmission times of the Msg3).
Claims 2, 10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 111919490 A), hereinafter Liu in view of Pi and Islam et al. (2019/0053271), hereinafter Islam.
Re. Claims 2, 10, and 15, Liu, and Pi teach Claims 1, 9, and 14.
Yet, the combination of Liu and Pi does not expressly teach wherein there is a correspondence between the type of the terminal device and at least one of: a capability of the terminal device; or a Random Access Channel Identifier (RACH ID) for the terminal device to initiate random access.
However, Islam explicitly teaches wherein there is a correspondence between the type of the terminal device and at least one of: a capability of the terminal device; or a Random Access Channel Identifier (RACH ID) for the terminal device to initiate random access (¶0156 - the additional information may include additional selected SSB indexes, link gains or layer 1 (L1) RSRP for a selected SSB index, or any other parameters relevant to a RACH procedure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Islam to the teaching of Liu and Pi. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission efficiency as the correspondence includes an ID to initiate random access procedures as Islam provides that the correspondence sent in Msg1 may include any parameter relevant to a RACH procedure, which could include RACH ID (¶0156, Islam). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Pi and Zhang et al. (CN 117641592 A), hereinafter Zhang.
Re. Claims 8, Liu, and Pi teach 7 and 20.
Yet, the combination of Liu, and Pi does not expressly teach wherein the modulation parameter comprises at least one of: a modulation multi-access mode, or a modulation order limit.
However, Zhang explicitly teaches wherein the modulation parameter comprises at least one of: a modulation multi-access mode (Pg. 45, Line 40-41 - The modulation mode used by the Msg3, for example, fixed as QPSK modulation. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”.), OR a modulation order limit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Zhang to the teachings of Liu and Pi. The motivation for such would be to improve communication efficiency between the UE and BS via implementing a specific modulation parameter as Zhang provides that the modulation parameter can be a modulation multi-access mode (Zhang, Pg. 45, Line 40). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/31/26 with respect to claims 1, 9, and 14, have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are arranged into two major conclusions. First, Applicant Argues that PI is “completely silent” on the basis of establishing correspondence between the PRACH resource and the UE type (Pg. 8). Examiner does not find this to be a persuasive argument. The previously presented quoted section of the reference Pi shows that there was a relation between the PRACH resource and the associated preamble, which Examiner interprets as being sufficient to establish the existence of a Msg1. Further, Examiner would like to present ¶0096 (the first number of repetitions for the first transmission of the Msg3 PUSCH is determined according to a set to which PRACH resources transmitted by the UE belong to and a set to which a preamble format belongs; wherein the mapping relationship between the set to which the PRACH resources belong to or the set to which the preamble format belongs to and the number of repetitions is defined in advance or notified to the UE by the base station via broadcast information) which Examiner reads to disclose that a Msg1 is used in advance by the UE and BS to establish the number of repetitions during the transmission of the subsequent Msg3. The specification defines “type” as “the terminal device with the limited capability and the terminal device with the unlimited capability. The terminal device with the limited capability sends Msgl by using a first resource, and the terminal device with the unlimited capability sends Msgl by using a second resource”, (¶0056) this language does not appear in the claim language to further restrict the scope of the claim, and as such, Examiner is permitted to reasonably interpret “type” to a degree understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Here, Pi discloses a terminal device (UE) that is communicating with a resource in order to transmit the PRACH resources and associated preamble in a Msg1. As per this understanding, Examiner interprets that this demonstrates the claimed language that appears in the independent claims and upholds the rejection on these grounds.
Further, Applicant argues that Pi fails to disclose a “specific number of time domains units for sending the Msg3, let alone the time domain unit is a slot” (Pg. 9). To this end, Examiner finds this interpretation to not be persuasive, as Examiner finds Pi does in fact disclose that these resources are 1) finite to a point of determining that these are the time slots in which the Msg3 is to be repeated, and 2) inherently slots for communications to be performed on. To support this, Examiner points to ¶0086 (determine the time domain resources for these repetitions based on the repetition type of the PUSCH which is defined in advance or notified to the UE by the base station via broadcast, and perform the first transmission of the Msg3 PUSCH on these time domain resources) which expressly discloses that the Msg3 is transmitted ON the time domain resources selected for the repetition to be performed. Examiner finds that just because a term is broad, it does not render it impossible to use for the purposes of the claimed language. As such, Examiner finds that the argument put forth here is not persuasive and upholds the rejection provided previously.
As such, Examiner upholds the rejection provided in the previous, non-final office action under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for independent claims 1, 9 and 14, as well as all claims depending therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (WO 2020173415 A1) – Pg. 1, Line 8 – Pg. 9, Line 3;
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
