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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Amendments and remarks regarding double patenting rejections are noted and they are revised and/or maintained accordingly.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to independent claim(s) have been considered and the rejections under 35 USC 102 and/or 35 USC 103 are withdrawn accordingly.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 4, 15 of US Patent 11,576,212.
Regarding claim 1, 13, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 1
‘212 patent Claim 1, 2
A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message including information for a reconfiguration with synchronization, wherein the information for the reconfiguration with synchronization includes dedicated configuration information for a two-step random access (RA) procedure;
A method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a radio resource control (RRC) message comprising information on a reconfiguration with synchronization, wherein the information on the reconfiguration with synchronization includes information on a dedicated configuration for a two-step random access (RA) procedure;
identifying whether the dedicated configuration information for the two-step RA procedure includes information on a maximum number for message A (MSGA) preamble transmissions for the two-step RA procedure; and
identifying whether the information on the dedicated configuration for the two-step RA procedure includes information on a maximum number for message A (MSGA) transmissions;
in response to identifying the dedicated configuration information for the two- step RA procedure includes the information on the maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions, performing, on a cell associated with the reconfiguration with synchronization, the two-step RA procedure based on the information on the maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions included in the dedicated configuration information for the two-step RA procedure,
performing, on a cell, the two-step RA procedure based on the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions included in the information on the dedicated configuration for the two-step RA procedure, in case that the information on the dedicated configuration includes the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions;
wherein the information on the maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions is associated with an RA type switching from the two-step RA procedure to a four-step RA procedure.
(claim 2) …switching from the two-step RA procedure to a four-step RA procedure, in case that the number of MSGA transmissions associated with the two-step RA procedure reaches the value based on the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions included in the information on the dedicated configuration.
As can be seen by claim comparison, claim 1 of the instant application recites a substantially similar variation of claim 1 of ‘212; thus the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Regarding claim 2, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 2
‘212 patent Claim 1
further comprising: in response to identifying the dedicated configuration information for the two-step RA procedure does not include the information on the maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions, performing, on the cell associated with the reconfiguration with synchronization, the two-step RA procedure without applying the information on the maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions.
and performing, on the cell, the two-step RA procedure based on the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions included in information on a common configuration associated with the two-step RA procedure, in case that the information on the dedicated configuration does not include the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions.
Regarding claim 4, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 5, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 15 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 8, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 4, 2 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 9, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 10, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 14, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 15, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 17, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 4, 2 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 18, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of ‘212.
Regarding claim 19, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of ‘212.
Claim 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 2, 3 of US Patent 11,576,212 in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0314917) in view of Li (US 2022/0386383).
Claim 3, 11 is rejected in view of Jeon, Li, who teaches: initiating a second two-step RA random access procedure, on the cell associated with the reconfiguration with synchronization; identifying whether common configuration for the second two-step RA procedure includes information on a second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions; in response to identifying the common configuration information includes the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions, performing, on the cell associated with the reconfiguration with synchronization, the second two-step RA procedure based on the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions included in the common configuration information for the second two-step RA procedure (Jeon see at least 0371, 0377, RACH-ConfigCommon may be received for a separate RA procedure, and may comprise maximum number of preamble transmissions); and in response to identifying the common configuration information does not include the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions, performing, on the cell associated with the reconfiguration with synchronization, the second two-step RA procedure without applying the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions (Li see at least 0094, if random access parameter does not include the number of random access attempts, a default value of RA attempts may be selected). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Jeon, Li into the system of claim 1 of the ‘212 patent, to enhance random access by providing ConfigCommon for RA procedures, and default repetition value for preamble transmissions.
Regarding claim 6, 12, 16, 20, although the conflicting claim(s) are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from claim 3 of ‘212 in view of Jeon, Li.
Regarding claim 7, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other:
Instant application claim 7
‘212 patent Claim 2
wherein the performing of the second two-step RA procedure based on the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions included in the common configuration information for the second two-step RA procedure comprises:
Not disclosed
identifying whether a number of MSGA preamble transmissions for the second two-step RA procedure reaches a value corresponding to the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions included in the common configuration information; and switching from the second two-step RA procedure to a second four-step RA procedure, in case that the number of MSGA preamble transmissions for the second two-step RA procedure reaches the value corresponding to the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions included in the common configuration information.
…identifying whether a number of MSGA transmissions associated with the two-step RA procedure reaches a value based on the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions included in the information on the dedicated configuration; and switching from the two-step RA procedure to a four-step RA procedure, in case that the number of MSGA transmissions associated with the two-step RA procedure reaches the value based on the information on the maximum number for MSGA transmissions included in the information on the dedicated configuration.
Claim 2 of ‘212 does not disclose: wherein the performing of the second two-step RA procedure based on the information on the second maximum number for MSGA preamble transmissions included in the common configuration information for the second two-step RA procedure. However Jeon teaches (Jeon see at least 0371, 0377, RACH-ConfigCommon may be received for a separate RA procedure, and may comprise maximum number of preamble transmissions). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate Jeon into the system of claim 2 of the ‘212 patent, to enhance random access by providing ConfigCommon parameters for RA.
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 SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467