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 Arguments Regarding Specification
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/10/2025, with respect to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the specification, has been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, 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 Islam et al. (2019/0053271), hereinafter Islam.
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).
However, Islam 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) (¶0156 - UE 115-a may transmit the additional information in RACH Msg1 through dedicated time or frequency region 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 teaching of Islam to the teaching of Liu. The motivation for such would be as Islam provides both a correspondence sent in Msg1 and a resource used by the terminal device to send the message (¶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.
Re. Claims 2, 10, and 15, Liu and Islam teach Claims 1, 9, and 14.
Yet, Liu 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. The motivation for such would be 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.
Re. Claims 4, 12, and 17, Liu and Islam 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 Islam 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 Islam teach Claims 1, and 14.
Additionally, Liu further teaches wherein the transmission parameter of the random access procedure comprises a transmission parameter of a Message (Msg3) (Pg. 10, Line 25 - The enhanced control parameter may indicate information associated with the number of repeated transmissions of Msg3); and the transmission parameter of the Msg3 comprises at least one of: an aggregation factor of a Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) carrying the Msg3 (Pg. 10, Line 9 - The enhanced control parameter may be enhanced transmission uplink signaling (e.g., Msg3) configuration), 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 Islam 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 3, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Islam and Fan et al. (CN 109769303 A), hereinafter Fan.
Re. Claims 3, 11, and 16, Liu and Islam teach 2, 10 and 15.
Yet, the combination of Liu and Islam 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, Fan explicitly teaches wherein the resource used by the terminal device to send the Msg1 comprises: a reserved resource of an RACH (Pg. 1, Line 18 - UE transmits PRACH (MSG1) to the eNodeB. 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 Islam. The motivation for such would be as Fan provides that the terminal device sends the Msg1 comprising a reserved resource of a RACH (Fan, Pg. 1, Line 18). 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 Islam and Zhang et al. (CN 117641592 A), hereinafter Zhang.
Re. Claims 8, Liu and Islam teach 7 and 20.
Yet, the combination of Liu and Islam 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 Islam. The motivation for such would be 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 with respect to claims 1, 9, and 14, have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection relying on previously presented Application. No. CN 111919490 (Liu) and newly presented Application No. US 2019/0053271 (Islam).
Applicant previously argued that Liu does not expressly teach both a communication and a resource used to transmit the communication. Examiner agrees with this interpretation and thanks Applicant for the clarification of “resource” as claimed herein. In view of this, Examiner provides the previously provided reference Islam to supplement Liu, as Islam discloses a communication and a resource (¶0156 - UE 115-a may transmit the additional information in RACH Msg1 through dedicated time or frequency region resources). As such, since Islam cures the deficiencies of Liu and the combination of references fully discloses the claimed limitations of the present application, the rejection of the independent claims is maintained.
Applicant further argues that since the independent claims are permissible, the dependent claims should be permitted in turn. Examiner disagrees with this in light of the upheld rejections as stated above and maintains the rejections of the dependent claims.
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 2472
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472