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 .
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 3/3/2026.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4-5, 7, 12, 18, and 20 has been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment of the claims. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4-5, 7, 12, 18, and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's other arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, Applicant argues that the claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions, and transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions” is supported by the specification. Applicant argues that paragraph [0065] (which was previously cited by Applicant as providing support for such claim language) is not limited to detecting an SS/PBCH block that “has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE” “[i]n case of reciprocal/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE.” Applicant argues that the more general (“typical”) case described in the specification is that “[t]he UE . . . acquires a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR).” Applicant asserts that paragraph [0065] describes a special case. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims have been amended to recite “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitionsRegarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, Applicant argues that “the Office Action appears to read a requirement into the claim language that is not supported by that actual claim limitations.” Applicant argues that the claim limitation relating to use of the “same spatial filter” reads “transmit, on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions.” Applicant argues that paragraph [0070] of the specification further teaches that a “UE can transmit different PRACH preambles or repeat a same PRACH preamble in a number of ROs using a same spatial setting or cycling over a number of different spatial settings. For example, a UE can transmit a same PRACH preamble or different PRACH preambles using a same spatial setting.” Applicant also argues that paragraph [0095] recites “[a] UE can either transmit a PRACH preamble with a spatial setting, wherein the spatial setting can be determined from measurements of SS/PBCH block receptions and/or receptions in CSI-RS resources, if configured, or transmit a PRACH preamble by cycling over different spatial settings.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would also like to note that the Examiner finds this argument confusing because the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection (as is also discussed above) was based on the breadth of the claim language and did not address the “same spatial filter” language as Applicant appears to assert. Paragraph [0070] does not appear to discuss determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions as is broadly recited by the claims. Paragraph [0070] thus does not appear to contain any language that supports the broadly recited claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions.” Paragraph [0095] also does not appear to discuss determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions as is broadly recited by the claims. Paragraph [0095] thus also does not appear to contain any language that supports the broadly recited claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions.” Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, Applicant argues that the claim requires “determin[ing] a transmission power for a physical random access channel (PRACH) based on the SS/PBCH block,” not determining spatial settings from the SS/PBCH block. Applicant asserts that the specification is not limited to spatial settings determined in the (special case) manner described in paragraph [0065]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would also like to note that the Examiner finds this argument confusing because the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection (as is also discussed above) was based on the breadth of the claim language and did not address the “determin[ing] a transmission power” language as Applicant appears to assert. The Examiner has reviewed the rest of Applicant’s specification and is unable to locate any portion of the specification that provides support for the broadly recited claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions.” Claim 1, 8, and 14 thus contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, Applicant argues that the independent claims separately recite “a physical random access channel (PRACH)” and “PRACH preamble repetitions.” Applicant argues that it is understood in the art that “the PRACH” refers to a specific channel on which PRACH preamble(s) are transmitted to initiate random access (as opposed to scheduled access), while “PRACH preamble repetitions” are transmission of the PRACH preamble during each of a number of (repeated) random access opportunities (ROs). Applicant thus argues that one skilled in the art would understand that “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” do not refer to the same feature. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are intended to be different. However, the claims do not explicitly recite transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions. If transmission of the PRACH is different from transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions, it is therefore unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require also transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions (e.g., on the determined set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions). Alternatively, it is unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require transmitting “the PRACH” based on previous transmission of “the PRACH preamble repetitions” because the claims do not explicitly require transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions when using an interpretation wherein “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are different. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are thus indefinite. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 2, Applicant argues that MPEP Section 2111.04(II) states that contingent limitations . . . are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Applicant thus argues that these conditional limitations do not render the claims indefinite. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in MPEP Section 2111.04(II) the full sentence quoted by Applicant recites “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” As can be seen from such language, it only applies to a method (or process) claim, whereas claim 2 is an apparatus claim. It is thus still unclear if the claim language “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” is intended to require that the spatial filter be different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions because using such an interpretation would mean that the opposite condition recited in claim 3 could never occur. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 17, Applicant argues that the amendments to claims 4 and 17 obviate the rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the amendment of claim 4 appears to obviate the rejection, the Examiner would like to note that claim 17 was not similarly amended to remove the “enabling transmission” language. Claim 17 is thus still indefinite. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 8, and 14, Applicant argues that Ali does not teach “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions” and “transmit, on the set of resources . . ., the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions.” Applicant argues that the cited portions of Ali describe how a number of PRACH preamble repetitions is determined, now how resource(s) for those repetitions are determined. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. Ali teaches that the UE may be configured with multiple beams and/or multiple ROs to perform multiple and/or repeated PRACH preamble transmissions for an SSB candidate (e.g., one SSB (synchronization signal (“SS”) and/or physical broadcast channel (“PBCH”) (“SS/PBCH”) block) may be mapped to 1/N consecutive valid PRACH occasions where a number N (N<1) of SS/PBCH blocks is associated with one PRACH occasion) (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). In some embodiments, a UE may select a number of repetitions based on an RSRP level of a detected SSB (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). In one example, the UE upon detecting the SSB may perform PRACH preamble repetition on a configured RO for each repetition (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). In another example, the UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission in the same direction of the SSB beam (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). The UE may thus be interpreted as determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions. Ali also teaches that the UE may transmit the PRACH preamble repetitions using one or more narrow beams (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting such repetitions using one beam (i.e., a same beam). The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting, on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite “[a] user equipment (UE) comprising: . . . a processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to: . . . determine a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions, and transmit, on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions.” Applicant argues that paragraph [0065] (which was previously cited by Applicant as providing support for such claim language) is not limited to detecting an SS/PBCH block that “has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE” “[i]n case of reciprocal/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE.” Applicant argues that the more general (“typical”) case described in the specification is that “[t]he UE . . . acquires a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR).” Applicant asserts that paragraph [0065] describes a special case. However, the claim broadly recites “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions,” which is much broader than the support provided in paragraph [0065]. The broadly recited language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions” may thus be interpreted as covering any situation wherein a UE determines a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions in any way, which is problematic because paragraph [0065] only appears to support “acquir[ing] a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)” or “[i]n case of reciprocal reception/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE, the SS/PBCH block that the UE detects has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE.” The claim language is thus broader than the support provided by the specification. The Examiner has reviewed the rest of Applicant’s specification and is unable to locate any portion of the specification that provides support for the broadly recited claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions based on the SS/PBCH block.” Claim 1 thus contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as written. Regarding claim 8, the claim has been amended to recite “[a] base station (BS) comprising: . . . a processor coupled with the transceiver and configured to: . . . determine a set of resources for a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble repetitions, and receive on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, a PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions.” Applicant argues that paragraph [0065] (which was previously cited by Applicant as providing support for such claim language) is not limited to detecting an SS/PBCH block that “has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE” “[i]n case of reciprocal/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE.” Applicant argues that the more general (“typical”) case described in the specification is that “[t]he UE . . . acquires a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR).” Applicant asserts that paragraph [0065] describes a special case. However, the claim broadly recites “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions,” which is much broader than the support provided in paragraph [0065]. The broadly recited language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions” may thus be interpreted as covering any situation wherein a UE determines a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions in any way, which is problematic because paragraph [0065] only appears to support “acquir[ing] a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)” or “[i]n case of reciprocal reception/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE, the SS/PBCH block that the UE detects has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE.” The claim language is thus broader than the support provided by the specification. The Examiner has reviewed the rest of Applicant’s specification and is unable to locate any portion of the specification that provides support for the broadly recited claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions.” Claim 8 thus contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as written. Regarding claim 14, the claim has been amended to recite “[a] method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: . . . determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions; and transmitting, on the set of resources a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions.” Applicant argues that paragraph [0065] (which was previously cited by Applicant as providing support for such claim language) is not limited to detecting an SS/PBCH block that “has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE” “[i]n case of reciprocal/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE.” Applicant argues that the more general (“typical”) case described in the specification is that “[t]he UE . . . acquires a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR).” Applicant asserts that paragraph [0065] describes a special case. However, the claim broadly recites “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions,” which is much broader than the support provided in paragraph [0065]. The broadly recited language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions” may thus be interpreted as covering any situation wherein a UE determines a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions in any way, which is problematic because paragraph [0065] only appears to support “acquir[ing] a SS/PBCH block corresponding to a largest signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR)” or “[i]n case of reciprocal reception/transmission quasi-collocation properties at the UE, the SS/PBCH block that the UE detects has quasi-collocation properties that best match the ones of transmissions from the UE.” The claim language is thus broader than the support provided by the specification. The Examiner has reviewed the rest of Applicant’s specification and is unable to locate any portion of the specification that provides support for the broadly recited claim language “determin[ing] a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions.” Claim 14 thus contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claims as written. Regarding claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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. Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite to “determine a transmission power for a physical random access channel (PRACH) based on the SS/PBCH block, determine a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions, and transmit, on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power.” Applicant argues that “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are intended to be different. However, the claims do not explicitly recite transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions. If transmission of the PRACH is different from transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions, it is therefore unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require also transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions (e.g., on the determined set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions). Alternatively, it is unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require transmitting “the PRACH” based on previous transmission of “the PRACH preamble repetitions” because the claim does not explicitly require transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions when using an interpretation wherein “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are different. Claim 1 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” as potentially being directed to either of the two alternatives discussed above. Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, power ramping counter is suspended.” Conditional language such as “when” is typically interpreted as requiring that the recited condition occur absent additional claim language indicating that such a condition is intended to be optional. However, claim 3 (which depends from claim 2) recites the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” is intended to require that the spatial filter be different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions because using such an interpretation would mean that the opposite condition recited in claim 3 could never occur. Claim 2 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this condition, the Examiner will interpret the “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” language recited in claim 2 as not requiring that such a condition occur such that the condition recited in claim 3 may occur. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites to “enable transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters.” However, it is unclear if “enabling transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters” requires actually transmitting more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filter, or if such “enabling” simply means that transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is permitted but not required. Claim 4 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “enabling transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters” as not requiring transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters. Regarding claim 8, the claim has been amended to recite to “transmit a synchronization signal and a physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block, determine a set of resources for a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble repetitions based on the SS/PBCH block, and receive on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, a PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with a transmission power for the PRACH associated with the SS/PBCH block.” Applicant argues that “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are intended to be different. However, the claims do not explicitly recite transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions. If transmission of the PRACH is different from transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions, it is therefore unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require also transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions (e.g., on the determined set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions). Alternatively, it is unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require transmitting “the PRACH” based on previous transmission of “the PRACH preamble repetitions” because the claim does not explicitly require transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions when using an interpretation wherein “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are different. Claim 8 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” as potentially being directed to either of the two alternatives discussed above. Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “wherein when the spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, a transmission power for the PRACH retransmission is identical to the transmission power for the PRACH preamble repetitions.” Conditional language such as “when” is typically interpreted as requiring that the recited condition occur absent additional claim language indicating that such a condition is intended to be optional. However, claim 10 (which depends from claim 9) recites the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “when the spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” is intended to require that the spatial filter be different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions because using such an interpretation would mean that the opposite condition recited in claim 10 could never occur. Claim 9 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this condition, the Examiner will interpret the “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” language recited in claim 9 as not requiring that such a condition occur such that the condition recited in claim 10 may occur. Regarding claim 11, the claim recites to “transmit a system information block (SIB), wherein the SIB includes a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled.” However, it is unclear if enabling “transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters” requires that more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filter actually be transmitted/received, or if such “enabling” simply means that transmission/reception of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is permitted but not required. Claim 11 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret enabling “transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters” as not requiring transmission/reception of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters. Regarding claim 14, the claim has been amended to recite to “receiving a synchronization signal and a physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block based on a first spatial filter; determining a transmission power for a physical random access channel (PRACH) based on the SS/PBCH block; determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions based on the SS/PBCH block; and transmitting, on the set of resources a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power.” Applicant argues that “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are intended to be different. However, the claims do not explicitly recite transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions. If transmission of the PRACH is different from transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions, it is therefore unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require also transmitting the PRACH preamble repetitions (e.g., on the determined set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions). Alternatively, it is unclear if “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” is intended to require transmitting “the PRACH” based on previous transmission of “the PRACH preamble repetitions” because the claim does not explicitly require transmission of the PRACH preamble repetitions when using an interpretation wherein “the PRACH” and “the PRACH preamble repetitions” are different. Claim 14 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “transmit[ting], on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power” as potentially being directed to either of the two alternatives discussed above. Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, power ramping counter is suspended.” Conditional language such as “when” is typically interpreted as requiring that the recited condition occur absent additional claim language indicating that such a condition is intended to be optional. However, claim 16 (which depends from claim 15) recites the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions.” It is therefore unclear if the claim language “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” is intended to require that the spatial filter be different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions because using such an interpretation would mean that the opposite condition recited in claim 16 could never occur. Claim 15 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this condition, the Examiner will interpret the “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” language recited in claim 15 as not requiring that such a condition occur such that the condition recited in claim 16 may occur. Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “enabling transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters.” However, it is unclear if “enabling transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters” requires actually transmitting more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filter, or if such “enabling” simply means that transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is permitted but not required. Claim 17 is thus indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “enabling transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters” as not requiring transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters. Regarding claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (US 2023/0371081, Ali hereinafter). Regarding claims 1 and 14, Ali teaches a method and a user equipment (UE) (User equipment (UE); Ali; Figs. 1-11; [0043], [0064]) comprising: a transceiver (The UE may be comprised of a transmitter/receiver; Ali; Figs. 1-2; [0043]); and a processor coupled with the transceiver (The UE may be comprised of a processor coupled to the transmitter/receiver; Ali; Figs. 1-2; [0043]) and configured to: receive a synchronization signal and a physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block (The UE may is described as receiving at least one SSB (synchronization signal (“SS”) and/or physical broadcast channel (“PBCH”) (“SS/PBCH”) block); Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), determine a transmission power for a physical random access channel (PRACH) based on the SS/PBCH block (The UE is described as determining a transmit power for a PRACH based at least on a beamforming gain of a narrow beam relative to a receive beam and/or spatial filter used for receiving the SSB. The UE may thus be interpreted as determining a transmission power for a physical random access channel (PRACH) based on the SS/PBCH block; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), determine a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions (The UE may be configured with multiple beams and/or multiple ROs to perform multiple and/or repeated PRACH preamble transmissions for an SSB candidate (e.g., one SSB (synchronization signal (“SS”) and/or physical broadcast channel (“PBCH”) (“SS/PBCH”) block) may be mapped to 1/N consecutive valid PRACH occasions where a number N (N<1) of SS/PBCH blocks is associated with one PRACH occasion). In some embodiments, a UE may select a number of repetitions based on an RSRP level of a detected SSB. In one example, the UE upon detecting the SSB may perform PRACH preamble repetition on a configured RO for each repetition. In another example, the UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission in the same direction of the SSB beam. The UE may thus be interpreted as determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), and transmit, on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power (The UE may transmit the PRACH preamble repetitions using one or more narrow beams. The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting such repetitions using one beam (i.e., a same beam). The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting, on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, the PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with the determined transmission power; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). Regarding claims 2 and 15, Ali teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to: determine to perform PRACH retransmission associated with the PRACH preamble repetitions (The UE is described as potentially performing PRACH retransmission, which may be interpreted as being associated with the PRACH preamble repetitions; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0071]-[0075]), determine a spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission (Retransmissions of a PRACH having a determined spatial filter may be interpreted as also having a determined spatial filter; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0071]-[0075]), and perform the PRACH retransmission using the determined spatial filter (PRACH retransmissions having a determined spatial filter may be interpreted as being performed using the determined spatial filter; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0071]-[0075]), wherein when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, power ramping counter is suspended (As is also discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the condition “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” is being interpreted as being optional because claims 3 and 16 recite the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions.” The claims may thus be interpreted as not suspending the power ramping counter when using an interpretation wherein the determined spatial filter is not different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions. However, the Examiner would like to note that Ali does teach suspending a power ramping counter as well as using different spatial filters; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0071]-[0075]). Regarding claims 3 and 16, Ali teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 15 respectively. Ali further teaches when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, power ramping is applied for the PRACH retransmission (The same spatial filter may be interpreted as being used for PRACH preamble repetition transmissions, and power ramping for such transmissions is described as potentially being used. The Examiner would also like to note that the condition “when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” may be interpreted as not occurring when using an interpretation wherein the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” in claims 2 and 15 occurs; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0071]-[0075]). Regarding claims 5 and 18, Ali teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to transmit first more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH using respective first more than one spatial filters (The UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission, which may be interpreted as transmitting first more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH using respective first more than one spatial filters; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), wherein each of the first more than one spatial filters has a narrower beam-width than a spatial filter for reception of the SS/PBCH block (The UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), and wherein transmission power for each of the first more than one PRACHs is the determined transmission power (The UE may perform PRACH preamble transmission using a transmit power based at least on the spatial filter used for receiving the SSB (i.e., the first power); Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ali teaches the limitations of claims 5 and 18 respectively. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to transmit second more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH (As can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 6, multiple RACH occasions (ROs) may be used for preamble repetition transmissions (i.e., at least second more than one PRACHs). See also at least Figs. 7-11 and their corresponding discussion of the transmission of multiple preamble repetitions, which may also be interpreted as including at least second more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0070]-[0080], [0084], [0088]), wherein the second more than one PRACHs use respective second more than one spatial filters (PRACH transmissions are described as using spatial filters (i.e., respective second more than one spatial filters); Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0070]-[0080], [0084], [0088]), and wherein the second more than one spatial filters: include a spatial filter that is not included in the first more than one spatial filters or are a subset of the first more than one spatial filters (As can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 6 and its corresponding description, transmission of preamble repetitions in different ROs may include at least the use of different subcarrier spacings (SCS), a different number of attempts based on the different SCSs, multiplexing ROs in frequency in different bandwidth parts (BWPs), different power settings potentially including different power ramping during different ROs, frequency hopping, and/or slot hopping. See also at least Figs. 7-11 and their corresponding discussion of the transmission of multiple preamble repetitions having potentially different spatial filters between ROs. The Examiner would also like to note that other interpretations may be used regarding which transmissions are interpreted as the claimed “first more than one PRACH transmissions” and “second more than one PRACH transmissions” respectively; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0070]-[0080], [0084], [0088]). Regarding claims 7 and 20, Ali teaches the limitations of claims 5 and 18 respectively. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to: receive a random access response (RAR) after the transmission of the first more than one PRACHs (The UE may receive a random access response (RAR) message after the transmission of the first more than one PRACHs; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0068]-[0075]), and transmit a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) with a spatial filter from the first more than one spatial filters, wherein the PUSCH is scheduled by information in the RAR (The RAR is described as including configuration information including at least configuration information for Msg3 PUSCH slots. The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) with a spatial filter from the first more than one spatial filters, wherein the PUSCH is scheduled by information in the RAR; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0068]-[0075]). Regarding claim 8, Ali teaches a base station (BS) (Network unit/device (e.g., a base station); Ali; Figs. 1-11; [0038], [0051], [0064]) comprising: a transceiver (The BS may be comprised of a transmitter/receiver; Ali; Figs. 1-2; [0051])); and a processor coupled with the transceiver (The BS may be comprised of a processor coupled to the transmitter/receiver; Ali; Figs. 1-2; [0051]) and configured to: transmit a synchronization signal and a physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block (The base station is described as transmitting at least one SSB (synchronization signal (“SS”) and/or physical broadcast channel (“PBCH”) (“SS/PBCH”) block); Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), determine a set of resources for a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble repetitions (The UE may be configured with multiple beams and/or multiple ROs to perform multiple and/or repeated PRACH preamble transmissions for an SSB candidate (e.g., one SSB (synchronization signal (“SS”) and/or physical broadcast channel (“PBCH”) (“SS/PBCH”) block) may be mapped to 1/N consecutive valid PRACH occasions where a number N (N<1) of SS/PBCH blocks is associated with one PRACH occasion). In some embodiments, a UE may select a number of repetitions based on an RSRP level of a detected SSB. In one example, the UE upon detecting the SSB may perform PRACH preamble repetition on a configured RO for each repetition. In another example, the UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission in the same direction of the SSB beam. The UE may thus be interpreted as determining a set of resources for PRACH preamble repetitions. Therefore, at least the reception of such PRACH preamble repetitions by the base station may also be interpreted as including determining a set of resources for a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble repetitions; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), and receive on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, a PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with a transmission power for the PRACH associated with the SS/PBCH block (The UE may transmit the PRACH preamble repetitions using one or more narrow beams and a transmission power associated with the SS/PBCH block. The UE may thus be interpreted as transmitting such repetitions using one beam (i.e., a same beam). The base station may thus be interpreted as receiving on the set of resources using a same spatial filter, a PRACH based on the PRACH preamble repetitions with a transmission power for the PRACH associated with the SS/PBCH block; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). Regarding claim 9, Ali teaches the limitations of claim 8. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to perform reception of PRACH retransmission associated with the PRACH preamble repetitions using a spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission (The UE is described as potentially performing PRACH retransmission using a spatial filter. The base station may thus be interpreted as performing reception of PRACH retransmission associated with the PRACH preamble repetitions using a spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0071]-[0075]), wherein when the spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, a transmission power for the PRACH retransmission is identical to the transmission power for the PRACH preamble repetitions (As is also discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above, the condition “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” is being interpreted as being optional because claim 10 recites the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions.” The claims may thus be interpreted as not suspending the power ramping counter when using an interpretation wherein the determined spatial filter is not different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions. However, the Examiner would like to note that Ali does teach suspending a power ramping counter as well as using different spatial filters; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0071]-[0075]). Regarding claim 10, Ali teaches the limitations of claim 9. Ali further teaches when the spatial filter for the PRACH retransmission is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions, the transmission power for the PRACH retransmission is increased (The same spatial filter may be interpreted as being used for PRACH preamble repetition transmissions, and power ramping for such transmissions is described as potentially being used. The Examiner would also like to note that the condition “when the determined spatial filter is identical to the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” may be interpreted as not occurring when using an interpretation wherein the opposite mutually exclusive condition “when the determined spatial filter is different from the same spatial filter used for the PRACH preamble repetitions” in claims 2 and 15 occurs; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0071]-[0075]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali et al. (US 2023/0371081, Ali hereinafter) in view of Rastegardoost et al. (US 2023/0060894, Rastegardoost hereinafter). Regarding claims 4 and 17, Ali teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 14 respectively. Ali further teaches processor is further configured to: receive a system information block (SIB) (The UE may receive a SIB (e.g., SIB1); Ali; Figs. 4-11; [0064], [0076]), wherein the SIB indicates configuration information related to transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters (The configuration of the CSI-RS (e.g., time and/or frequency resource, repetition, etc.) associated with the SSB beam may be indicated in SIB1 (System Information Block 1) for contention-based RA. Configuration of redundancy version (RV) cycles is also described as potentially being performed using a SIB. At least a time gap in terms of slots is also described as being configured for MsgA repetition, which as can be seen in at least Figs. 6-9 and their corresponding descriptions may comprise transmission of PRACH preamble repetitions. At least such configuration of repetitive transmission of PRACH preambles may be interpreted as the SIB indicating configuration information related to transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0072]-[0080]); and based on the indication, transmit of more than one PRACH preambles other than a PRACH preamble for the PRACH with more than one spatial filters (The UE may be interpreted as performing transmission (i.e., enabling transmission) of RACH preamble repetitions (e.g., other than PRACH preamble for the PRACH) based on received configuration information regarding such repetitive transmission. Ali may also be interpreted as teaching the “enabling transmission” language of claim 17; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0072]-[0080]). However, although Ali teaches that the SIB includes configuration information for at least contention-based RA and MsgA repetition (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0072]-[0080]), Ali does not specifically disclose the SIB includes a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled. Rastegardoost teaches the SIB includes a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled (One or more SIB messages may comprise one or more fields/bitmaps that indicate configuration information including configuration information regarding RACH resource set(s), including at least beams associated with each RACH resource set. The SIB may thus be interpreted as including a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled; Rastegardoost; [0252]-[0254], [0260]-[0262], [0265], [0272]-[0273], [0279]-[0280]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Rastegardoost regarding random access with the teachings as in Ali regarding random access. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by enabling better resource utilization and reducing signaling overhead (Rastegardoost; [0236]-[0239]). Regarding claim 11, Ali teaches the limitations of claim 8. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to: transmit a system information block (SIB) (The UE may receive a SIB (e.g., SIB1); Ali; Figs. 4-11; [0064], [0076]), wherein the SIB indicates configuration information related to reception of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters (The configuration of the CSI-RS (e.g., time and/or frequency resource, repetition, etc.) associated with the SSB beam may be indicated in SIB1 (System Information Block 1) for contention-based RA. Configuration of redundancy version (RV) cycles is also described as potentially being performed using a SIB. At least a time gap in terms of slots is also described as being configured for MsgA repetition, which as can be seen in at least Figs. 6-9 and their corresponding descriptions may comprise transmission of PRACH preamble repetitions. At least such configuration of repetitive transmission of PRACH preambles may be interpreted as the SIB indicating configuration information related to transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0072]-[0080]). However, although Ali teaches that the SIB includes configuration information for at least contention-based RA and MsgA repetition (Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0072]-[0080]), Ali does not specifically disclose the SIB includes a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled. Rastegardoost teaches the SIB includes a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled (One or more SIB messages may comprise one or more fields/bitmaps that indicate configuration information including configuration information regarding RACH resource set(s), including at least beams associated with each RACH resource set. The SIB may thus be interpreted as including a field indicating whether transmission of more than one PRACH preambles with more than one spatial filters is enabled; Rastegardoost; [0252]-[0254], [0260]-[0262], [0265], [0272]-[0273], [0279]-[0280]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Rastegardoost regarding random access with the teachings as in Ali regarding random access. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance at least by enabling better resource utilization and reducing signaling overhead (Rastegardoost; [0236]-[0239]). Regarding claim 12, Ali and Rastegardoost teach the limitations of claim 11. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to receive first more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH using respective first more than one spatial filters (The UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission. The base station may thus be interpreted receiving first more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH using respective first more than one spatial filters; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), wherein each of the first more than one spatial filters has a narrower beam-width than a spatial filter for reception of the SS/PBCH block (The UE may use one or more narrow beams (e.g., narrower than the SSB beam and/or the receive beam used for receiving the SSB) (e.g., similar beams but not identical) for PRACH preamble transmission; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]), and wherein transmission power for each of the first more than one PRACHs is the transmission power for the PRACH associated with the SS/PBCH block (The UE may perform PRACH preamble transmission using a transmit power based at least on the spatial filter used for receiving the SSB (i.e., the first power); Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064]). Regarding claim 13, Ali and Rastegardoost teach the limitations of claim 12. Ali further teaches the processor is further configured to receive second more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH (As can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 6, multiple RACH occasions (ROs) may be used for preamble repetition transmissions (i.e., at least second more than one PRACHs). See also at least Figs. 7-11 and their corresponding discussion of the transmission of multiple preamble repetitions, which may also be interpreted as including at least second more than one PRACHs other than the PRACH; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0070]-[0080], [0084], [0088]), wherein the second more than one PRACHs use respective second more than one spatial filters (PRACH transmissions are described as using spatial filters (i.e., respective second more than one spatial filters); Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0064], [0070]-[0080], [0084], [0088]), and wherein the second more than one spatial filters: include a spatial filter that is not included in the first more than one spatial filters or are a subset of the first more than one spatial filters (As can be seen for instance in at least Fig. 6 and its corresponding description, transmission of preamble repetitions in different ROs may include at least the use of different subcarrier spacings (SCS), a different number of attempts based on the different SCSs, multiplexing ROs in frequency in different bandwidth parts (BWPs), different power settings potentially including different power ramping during different ROs, frequency hopping, and/or slot hopping. See also at least Figs. 7-11 and their corresponding discussion of the transmission of multiple preamble repetitions having potentially different spatial filters between ROs. The Examiner would also like to note that other interpretations may be used regarding which transmissions are interpreted as the claimed “first more than one PRACH transmissions” and “second more than one PRACH transmissions” respectively; Ali; Figs. 4-11; Table 1; [0056], [0064], [0070]-[0080], [0084], [0088]).
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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights