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 Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to claims 19, and 24-25, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The claims have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as discussed above in view of He et al. (US 2018/0368179 A1) and Li et al. (US 2023/0199859 A1). The applicant alleges that the combination of references fail to disclose and/or render obvious the following limitations:
“performing the RA procedure by using the RA-prioritization indicated by the indication when the terminal is an MPS terminal device or an MCS terminal device”
The applicant points to several paragraphs from He and in particular Li, and generally alleges that they do not disclose the claimed features, in view of these paragraphs. The office respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the above limitations, the disclosure of Li teaches that different types of UE’s should be supported with a different type of RACH priority, par.[0186] which recites, in part, “In some aspects, a separate set of msgA PUSCH resources may be configured/reserved for high priority UEs”. Additionally, different RACH resources are assigned for high priority UEs, par.[0175]. Additionally, the priority can be associated with a specific type of UE, par.[0117 – 0118], which discloses that the MCS or MPS UEs are configured with a priority for RACH process. The UE will use the RACH configuration associated with the priority for the type of UE, par.[0114, 0197- 0199]. As can be seen the UE which is performing an MCS or MPS service would receive an indication of RACH priority by being placed in a particular group and further being configured with a RACH resource of a certain priority corresponding with the service priority of the UE, and thus, the disclosure of Li in view of He teaches the claimed subject matter.
With regard to the applicants assertion that the disclosure of Li doesn’t teach a combination of prioritization for device type and slice type, the Abstract of Li teaches this feature. For example, Li discloses, “For a random access procedure (e.g., 2-step RACH and/or 4-step RACH), a network node may configure different physical random access preamble configurations (e.g., different PRACH occasions, preamble indexes, or preamble formats) for different user equipment (UE)/service groups that are associated with different UE priorities, UE types, service priorities, service types, and/or network slices. A UE may select a configuration to use to transmit the random access preamble based on the priority of the UE, the type of the UE, the priority of the service, the type of the service, and/or the network slice”. As can be seen, the UE can be issued a RACH configuration/resources corresponding to the device type/service, and/or the slice type as discussed in the abstract. The applicant also generally alleges that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the references, without any evidence outside of a general denial that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references. The office notes that motivation can come from the references being analogous, which He and Li are, directed to the same field of endeavor, along with some explicit suggestion from the prior art itself. As can be seen each disclosure is directed to prioritizing RACH attempts to provide a means for allowing certain use faster or higher priority access than other which is needed in particular with certain services such as Mission Critical Service (MCS). Thus, the office has shown that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of He with Li, and the rejection of the claims is proper.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 24-26 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.
With regard to claim 19, the claim has been amended to recite, in part:
“performing the RA procedure by using the RA-prioritization indicated by the indication when the terminal device is an MPS terminal device or an MCS terminal device”
The term RA-Prioritization lacks antecedent basis and is unclear. The claim initially recites, in part:
“wherein the plurality of sets of RA-prioritizations comprise an RA-prioritization for a specific type terminal device and an RA-prioritization for slicing”.
It is unclear which RA-prioritization the applicant is referring to, thus the claims are rejected.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2018/0368179 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2023/0199859 A1).
Regarding claim 19, He discloses:
a method for random access (RA) (par.[0007] describes the RACH procedure and prioritizations), executed by a terminal device (fig.1 depicts a User Equipment), and comprising:
on condition that the terminal device is configured with a plurality of sets of RA-prioritizations (par.[0007] describes selecting from a plurality of sets of PRACH parameters, parameters to use in the PRACH procedure based on a trigger), performing an RA procedure by selecting a set of RA-prioritizations according to a first rule (fig.8 element 802, and par.[0098] wherein the UE detects a trigger sent by the network, the trigger establishing a cause or a need for the UE to perform a RACH based on the trigger. The trigger comprising RACH parameters associated therewith, par.[0099] “the UE selecting from a plurality of sets of PRACH parameters, a set of values of the PRACH parameters to use in the PRACH procedure, based on the trigger.”),
wherein the plurality of set of RA-prioritizations comprise:
an RA-prioritization for slicing (par.[0103] recites, and/or a network slice, along with other PRACH parameters);
wherein performing the RA procedure by selecting the set of RA-prioritizations according to the first rule comprises:
receiving an indication from a network device, wherein the indication indicates the RA-prioritization for slicing (fig.8 element 802, par.[0098] which recites, in part, “with the UE detecting a trigger to perform a physical random access channel (PRACH) procedure.”, in coordination with fig.9 element 904); and
performing the RA procedure by using an RA-prioritization that is indicated by the indication in the plurality of sets of RA-prioritizations (par.[0106 – 0107] wherein the base station configures a plurality of PRACH configurations for high and low priority RACH procedures, wherein, the UE is configured to receive from the base station an indication to perform RACH, wherein the indication includes an indication of a set of one or more sets and a trigger to use the specific set, fig.9 element 904);
wherein the method further comprises:
receiving second configuration information, wherein the second configuration is used to configure the plurality of sets of RA-prioritizations (par.[0099] which describes PRACH parameters for high priority and low priority which are sent in broadcast information).
While the disclosure of He substantially discloses the claimed invention and prioritization for slicing, it does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of set of RA-prioritizations comprise:
an RA prioritization for a specific-type terminal device and an RA-prioritization for slicing; and
wherein the terminal device belongs to the specific-type terminal device, and wherein the specific-type terminal device is a multimedia priority service (MPS) terminal device or a mission critical service (MCS) terminal device,
performing the RA procedure by using the RA-prioritization indicated by the indication when the terminal device is an MPS terminal device or an MCS terminal device.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Li teaches:
wherein the plurality of set of RA-prioritizations comprise:
an RA prioritization for a specific-type terminal device (par.[0001] which describes RA priority for UE-type) and an RA-prioritization for slicing (par.[0103] recites, and/or a network slice, along with other PRACH parameters); and
wherein the terminal device belongs to the specific-type terminal device (par.[0001] which describes a terminal type), and the specific-type terminal device is a multimedia priority service (MPS) terminal device or a mission critical service (MCS) terminal device, and the terminal device is an MPS terminal device or an MCS terminal device (par.[0092] which describes the mission critical services, and/or a multimedia priority services as a function of the selection for the terminal, which recites, in part, “PRACH may be selected if the type of the UE is within the set of one or more UE types. In some aspects, the type of the UE may be a subscription type. In some aspects, the set of one or more UE types may include a mission critical (MC) UE and/or a multimedia priority UE.”).
performing the RA procedure (fig.15 element s1508 which describes the UE transmitting the RACH Preamble, par.[0203]. The PRACH preamble is the MSG1 or MSGA or rather the first message of the RACH procedure) by using the RA-prioritization (par.[0058] which recites, in part, “This brings stringent requirements for 5G access control mechanisms to be able to early identify and prioritize access requests from mission critical users, to guarantee that they are accepted and properly served even when the network experiences congestion.”. par.[0071] which recites, in part, “ pre-configuring UEs to different groups depending on the UE priority/type, the UE's service priority/type, and/or the UE's configured network slices. A Network node may configure different PRACH configurations (within 2-step RACH or 4-step RACH) and/or msgA PUSCH configurations (within 2-step RACH only) for different groups. A UE may select which configuration to use for random-access preamble transmission based on its associated group.”) indicated by the indication (par.[0071] which discloses that the different types of UE’s are placed into groups and that the configurations/indications are sent to the UEs of the groups) when the terminal device is an MPS terminal device or an MCS terminal device (fig.15 element s1506 wherein the UE that is an MPS or MCS terminal is configured to select a PRACH configuration corresponding to the groups for the type of terminal, which provides a certain RACH-PRIORITY, par.[0193 and 0195]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the random access configuration methods as discussed in He, with the disclosure Li which teaches that prioritizations/parameters can be established for UE-type. The motivation/suggestion would have been to allow for certain devices, such as those used by emergency personnel to receive higher priority or have a means of quickly transmitting and/or receiving data based on the type of user device, (Li: par.[0058]).
Regarding claim 24, He discloses:
wherein the second configuration information is carried in system information (SI) (par.[0099] the broadcast information carrying the configuration information).
Regarding claim 25, He discloses:
Wherein the RA-prioritization comprises at least one of:
a power ramping step (par.[0108] which describes a power ramping step); or
a scaling factor for a backoff indicator (BI) (par.[0108] describes a Backoff parameter value or backoff multiplier value, which would be used for a backoff indication).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He and Li as applied to claim 19 in view of Murray et al. (US 2023/0156583 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the disclosure He and Li disclose the method of claim 19, but fail to disclose:
wherein a use granularity of the RA-prioritization for slicing comprises a single slice group.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Murray teaches:
wherein a use granularity of the RA-prioritization for slicing comprises a single slice group (par.[0280] teaches preconfigured RACH transmission resources are mapped to network slices. A UE may request a slice or a slice group which helps to support RACH priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of He and Li with the disclosure of slice groups as discussed in Murray. The motivation/suggestion would have been to support the random access prioritization in the network or in support of congestion control by the network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1, 4, 18, 27 and 35, are allowed.
With regard to claims 1 and 27, the allowable subject matter indicated in the Non-Final Rejection dated 07/18/2025. Thus the claims are in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
He et al. (US 2019/0059113 A1) “Prioritized Random Access Procedure”
Kwak et al. (US 2019/0239283 A1) “Systems and Method for Physical Random Access Channel Transmissions”
Tao et al. (US 2022/0183081 A1) “User Equipment Involved in Performing a Random Access Procedure”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights