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
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant Argues (Pages 9-10, Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112):
"The Office rejected claims 10, 20 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre- AIA ), second paragraph, as allegedly 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." (See Office Action, p. 3). Claim 9 recites "skipping monitoring response information of the preamble sequence that is for determining a quantity of terminal devices within coverage of the network device." Thus, the information that is skipped in claim 9 is specifically "response information of the preamble sequence." In contrast, claim 10 recites receiving "a second broadcast message from the network device," where the second broadcast message comprises first indication information usable to indicate a state of the network device. In a non-limiting embodiment of the present disclosure, the "second broadcast message" of claim 10 is not the "response information of the preamble sequence" recited in claim 9. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that skipping monitoring of response information associated with a transmitted preamble sequence does not prevent a terminal device from receiving a broadcast message from the network device. A broadcast message is transmitted by the network device for reception by terminal devices within coverage of the network device, and is not dependent on establishment of a dedicated connection with the particular terminal device. Accordingly, even if the terminal device does not enter or maintain a connected state as a result of the transmitted preamble sequence, the terminal device may still receive a broadcast message from the network device."
Examiner Answer:
Applicant argues "second broadcast message" of claim 10 is not the "response information of the preamble sequence" as recited in claim 9. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Examiner reviewed applicant specification, there are currently 3 instances wherein the Network device sends a message to the terminal device: S602, First Message, third broadcast message before S603 as disclosed in paragraph 146, and second broadcast message S606 or response information as disclosed in paragraph 216. Thus, the only reasonable message that can be made based on the applicant specification is the "second broadest message" refers to the "response information of the preamble sequence" that is recited in claim 9. Examiner further points to applicant specification paragraph [0173], "Based on the foregoing solution, after receiving the second information, the network device may determine the quantity of terminal devices based on the second information. Further, the state of the network device may be determined based on the quantity of terminal devices. When there is a large quantity of terminal devices, the network device may send the common signal in the first period, to meet communication requirements of the large quantity of terminal devices. When there is a small quantity of terminal devices, the network device may send the common signal in the longer second period, to reduce power consumption of the network device." Here we see the network device sending a common signal and at first it may seem a message that is different from S606, but as claim 10 is written, the "common signal" was given no patentable weight and therefore the claim reads:
"receiving a second broadcast message from the network device, wherein the second broadcast message comprises first indication information, and the first indication information is useable to indicate a state of the network device; and…the state of the network device comprises…a third state; wherein…in the third state, the network device prohibits access of the terminal device."
Even with the common signal, with broadest reasonable interpretation, when the network device sends second broadcast message, comprises first indication information, and the first indication information is useable to indicate a state of the network device with the first, second, or third state, that is a response message to the UE sending second information as the state is determined by the number of terminal devices. For example, when the UE receives second broadcast that has the network state as first or second state, that tells the UE the number of terminal devices within the network device is under threshold, see applicant specification paragraph [0162]. If the network device is in the third state, then the UE knows the number of terminals within the network device is above threshold. Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "response information of the preamble sequence that is for determining a quantity of terminal devices within coverage of the network device" and "a second broadcast message" are the same message.
If they are in fact district messages, examiner requests the applicant to point to a specification the distinct messages, and explain how the messages are different.
Applicant argues “A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that skipping monitoring of response information associated with a transmitted preamble sequence does not prevent a terminal device from receiving a broadcast message from the network device.”
Examiner does not disagree; however, the message sends by the network in claim 10 is not distinct from the last limitation of claim 9 skipping monitoring the response message, therefore, one in ordinary skill in the art would not understand how the UE is able to receive the second broadcast message when the UE is skipping monitoring the second broadcast message.
Examiner notes because this office action will be non-final due to applicant argument 35 U.S.C. § 103, examiner is updating the 112(b) rejection to clearly explain the issue of claims 10, 20, and 26, and adding claims 11-12, 21-22, and 27-28 are further rejected by 112(b) as they do not remedy the vague and indefiniteness in the parent claims.
Responding to Applicant Argues (Pages 10-17, Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103):
Applicant' s arguments/remarks made in an amendment filed 06/30/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In view of the applicant argument and upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by the applicant argument is made in view of different interpretation of the previously applied references (and new prior art) as presented in this Office action. Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) are therefore moot. This action is non-final.
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.
Claims 10-12, 20-22 and 26-28 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 10, reciting the limitation receiving a second broadcast message from the network device, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the terminal device is receiving a second broadcast message when the terminal device is skipping monitoring response information as stated in claim 9. Applicant arguments, see pages 9-10 “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112” third paragraph, filed on 06/30/2026, argues “In contrast, claim 10 recites receiving "a second broadcast message from the network device," where the second broadcast message comprises first indication information usable to indicate a state of the network device. In a non-limiting embodiment of the present disclosure, the "second broadcast message" of claim 10 is not the "response information of the preamble sequence" recited in claim 9.” As explained in Response to Argument “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112,” see this office action page 3 paragraph 4, the specification does not provide support for indicating the second broadcast message in claim 10 is different from claim 9 response message. Even if the specification does disclose two distinct messages, the disclosed specification is not read into the claims, therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, when the network device sends a second broadcast message disclosed in claim 10 that indicates a state of the network device, the state of the network device indicates to the UE a quantity of terminals devices within coverage of the network device, however, claim 9 states the UE is skipping monitor the second broadcast and therefore not receiving the second broadcast message.
See also claims 11 and 12, wherein claim 11 states “wherein the state of the network device is determined based on the quantity of terminals devices within coverage of the network device,” and claim 12 states “wherein the state of the network device is the first state or the third state in response to the quantity of terminal devices within coverage of the network device being greater than or equal to a first threshold; or the state of the network device is the second state or the third state in response to the quantity of terminal devices within coverage of the network device being less than the first threshold.”
Thus, when the network device sends the second broadcast message that comprises network state, that is telling the UE the quantity of terminals is above or below a certain threshold, the network device is stating the number of terminals via state information comprised in second broadcast information. Consequently, it is unclear how the UE is receiving the second broadcast message disclosed in claim 10, wherein claim 9 the UE is skipping monitoring the second broadcast message.
For examination purposes, claims 10-12, 20-22 and 26-28 will not be further examined as it’s not clear how a UE is able to receive a message indicating the UE the number of users when the UE is skipping monitoring the message.
Regarding Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 10, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 26, which is similar in scope to claim 10, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 11-12, 21-22, and 27-28 are further rejected by 112(b) as they do not remedy the vague and indefiniteness in the parent claims.
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.
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) 9, 19, and 25 are rejected under are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US-20120202493-A1) in view of Cirik (US-20210345424-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang discloses an information sending method, wherein the method comprises: receiving a first message from a network device (paragraph [0125], Fig.11:1130, “In one aspect of the system 1100, the UE 1102 receives a Counting Request 1130 for one or more services, for example as described above. In one example, UE 1102 can receive the Counting Request in a paging signal from eNB 1106.” and paragraph [0126], Fig.11:1134, " the eNB 1106 may transmit a message 2 or other RACH response 1134 to the UE 1102 indicating resources over which UE 1102 can request radio resources from eNB 1106. In some aspects, the response can be received over a downlink shared channel (DL-SCH)." (i.e., eNB sending to a message to a UE.)),
wherein the first message comprises first information, the first information is useable to indicate to a terminal device to send a preamble sequence of a random access procedure (paragraph [0125], Fig.11:1130, “In one aspect of the system 1100, the UE 1102 receives a Counting Request 1130 for one or more services, for example as described above. In one example, UE 1102 can receive the Counting Request in a paging signal from eNB 1106.” and paragraph [0126], Fig.11:1134, " the eNB 1106 may transmit a message 2 or other RACH response 1134 to the UE 1102 indicating resources over which UE 1102 can request radio resources from eNB 1106. In some aspects, the response can be received over a downlink shared channel (DL-SCH)." (i.e., Fig.11 shows a 4-step RACH procedure, such as steps 1132, 1134, 1136, 1138, and having the first message send by the network device or eNB 1130. The examiner will introduce another reference that will modify Wang to explain how Wang reads on claim 9.)),
and the first message is (paragraph [0125], Fig.11, " In one aspect of the system 1100, the UE 1102 receives a Counting Request 1130 for one or more services, for example as described above. In one example, UE 1102 can receive the Counting Request in a paging signal from eNB 1106." (i.e., paging message.));
sending the preamble sequence (paragraph [0125], “To initiate the change, the UE 1102 may send a random access preamble 1132 over a random access channel to eNB 1106, such as the RACH. The preamble may be sent to contend for system resources, and may indicate that the UE 1102 desires to transmit a message.” and paragraph [0127], Fig.11, "The UE may respond with a connection request message 1136, for example an RRCConnectionReq transmitted over a common control channel (CCCH). The request message may be used to request a unicast connection to the eNB 1106 such that the UE 1102 may send a response to the Counting Request or for another purpose (e.g., in response to a paging message, in response to an application requesting network access, etc.). In an example, the connection request message can include the response to the counting message.” (i.e., information is being send in one or more resources.));
and skipping monitoring response information of the preamble sequence that is for determining a quantity of terminal devices within coverage of the network device (paragraph [0134], Fig.11, " When the eNB 1106 receives the connection request message and identifies that the value has been set to indicate a response to the Counting Request, the eNB 1106 may include the information indicated therein in the Counting Result Report message. The eNB 1106 may also determine that a unicast connection need not be established, and the transmissions 1138, 1140, and 1142 may be omitted. The eNB 1106 may therefore refrain from sending a further response to the UE 1102, in this example, and the UE 1102 may return to the idle state without receiving further communication from the eNB 1106 and without completing the connection procedure." (i.e., The eNB refrain from sending a response message, and the UE skips monitoring for a response as disclosed when par.134 states “UE 1102 may return to the idle state.” See applicant specification paragraph 174.)).
However, Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the first message comprises first information, the first information is useable to indicate to a terminal device to send a preamble sequence of a random access procedure on one or more first resources, and the first message is a first broadcast message
Cirik discloses wherein the first message comprises first information, the first information is useable to indicate to a terminal device to send a preamble sequence of a random access procedure on one or more first resources (paragraph [0323], Fig.16, " A base station may transmit one or more RRC messages to configure a wireless device with one or more parameters of two step RACH configuration. The one or more RRC messages may broadcast or multicast to one or more wireless devices. The one or more RRC messages may be wireless device-specific messages, e.g., a dedicated RRC message transmitted to a wireless device with RRC INACTIVE 1520 or RRC CONNECTED 1530. The one or more RRC messages may comprise parameters required for transmitting a two-step Msg1 in FIG. 16. For example, the parameter may indicate at least one of following: PRACH resource allocation, preamble format, SSB information (e.g., total number of SSBs, downlink resource allocation of SSB transmission, transmission power of SSB transmission, and/or other information), and uplink radio resources for one or more transport block transmissions.” (i.e., Wang discloses Fig.11:1130 message sending to UE requesting the UE counting, and Cirik discloses instead of waiting for the UE to first send the preamble message and then the network device send resources for the UE to send information with the counting information see Wang Fig.11:1134, paragraph 126, the base station can send a first message with first information is useable to indicate to a terminal device to send a preamble sequence of a random access procedure on one or more first resources as disclosed in Cirik Fig.16, paragraph 323.)),
and the first message is a first broadcast message(paragraph [0323], Fig.16, " A base station may transmit one or more RRC messages to configure a wireless device with one or more parameters of two step RACH configuration. The one or more RRC messages may broadcast or multicast to one or more wireless devices. " (i.e., the first message can be a broadcast message.);
sending the preamble sequence on at least a portion of the one or more first resources (paragraph [0322], Fig.16, "FIG. 16 is an example of a two-step RA procedure that may comprise an uplink (UL) transmission of a two-step Msg1 that may comprise a random access preamble (RAP) transmission and one or more transport blocks transmission," and paragraph [0324], “In the UL transmission of a two-step RA procedure, a wireless device may transmit, via a cell and to a base station, a RAP for UL time alignment and/or one or more transport blocks (e.g., delay-sensitive data, wireless device ID, security information, device information such as IMSI, and/or other information).” (i.e., Examiner is modifying Wang UE to send preamble message and other information such as Wang counting information disclosed in paragraph 127.)).
Wang and Cirik are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless channel access. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the method of Cirik two-step RA procedure to modify Wang Fig.11 in order to reduce random access latency (Cirik, paragraph [0324], “A two-step RA procedure may reduce RA latency compared with a four-step RA procedure, e.g., by integrating a random access preamble transmission (e.g., a process to obtain a timing advance value) with one or more transport block transmissions.” ).
Regarding Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 9, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Wang further discloses at least one processor (Wang, paragraph [0018], Fig.2, “an apparatus for wireless communication is provided that includes at least one processor”);
One or more memories couples to the at least one processor (Wang, paragraph [0018], Fig.2, “The apparatus further includes a memory coupled to the at least one processor.”).
determine the preamble sequence after the apparatus receives the first information (Wang, paragraph [0125], Fig.11:1130;1132, “In one aspect of the system 1100, the UE 1102 receives a Counting Request 1130 for one or more services…For example, a UE 1102 in an RRC_IDLE mode may switch to a RRC_CONNECTED mode. To initiate the change, the UE 1102 may send a random access preamble 1132 over a random access channel to eNB 1106, such as the RACH. The preamble may be sent to contend for system resources, and may indicate that the UE 1102 desires to transmit a message.” (i.e., the UE is determining the system resources for RRC connection after receiving a counting request.)).
Regarding Claim 25, which is similar in scope to claim 9, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Wang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Wang, paragraph [0014], “a computer-program product for counting devices related to broadcast data is provided including a non-transitory computer-readable medium…”).
Claim(s) 13-14, 23-24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US-20120202493-A1) in view of Cirik (US-20210345424-A1) in further view of FUJISHIRO (US-20200187245-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang in view of Cirik discloses all the limitation of claim 9.
Cirik further discloses receiving a third broadcast message from the network device (paragraph [0323], Fig.16, "A base station may transmit one or more RRC messages to configure a wireless device with one or more parameters of two step RACH configuration. The one or more RRC messages may broadcast or multicast to one or more wireless devices.” (i.e., Applicant specification states third broadcast message can be the same message as first broadcast message, see applicant specification paragraph 148.)).
However, Wang in view of Cirik do not disclose wherein the third broadcast message comprises second indication information, and the second indication information is useable to indicate a maximum quantity of times that one terminal device is configured to send the preamble sequence on the one or more first resources; and the sending the preamble sequence on at least the portion of the one or more first resources comprises: sending the preamble sequence second information on the at least the portion of the one or more first resources based on the maximum quantity of times.
FUJISHIRO discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving a third broadcast message from the network device (paragraph [0081], Fig.7, "In step S1001, the eNB 200 transmits physical random access channel (PRACH) related information by broadcast signaling (for example, SIB). (i.e., Examiner reading third broadcast message is the same as the first broadcast message.)),
wherein the third broadcast message comprises second indication information (paragraph [0081], Fig.7 “The PRACH related information includes various parameters… Various parameters include a reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold, a PRACH resource, and the maximum number of times of preamble transmissions.”),
and the second indication information is useable to indicate a maximum quantity of times that one terminal device is configured to send the preamble sequence on the one or more first resources (paragraph [0081], Fig.7, " Various parameters include…the maximum number of times of preamble transmissions." (i.e., FUJISHIRO discloses sending the maximum number of preamble transmissions using the PRACH resource.)),
and the sending the preamble sequence on at least the portion of the one or more first resources comprises (FUJISHIRO paragraph [0085-86], Fig.7:S1005, disclose UE sending second information on the one or more first resources.):
sending the preamble sequence on the at least the portion of the one or more first resources based on the maximum quantity of times (paragraph [0085] Fig.7:S1005, “In step S1005, the UE 100 transmits Msg1 (random access preamble) to the eNB 200 using the selected PRACH resource.” and paragraph [0086], “The UE 100 can transmit the Msg1 plural times up to the maximum number of times of preamble transmissions corresponding to its own enhanced coverage level until the UE 100 normally receives the Msg2.” (i.e., the UE sends the random-access preamble on selected PRACH resource and the selected PRACH resource is the portion of first resources. Par.81 and Par.86 disclose a maximum number of times the preamble is sent.)).
Wang in view of Cirik and FUJISHIRO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the method of FUJISHIRO of sending the preamble sequence based on the maximum quantity of times because the method provides the UE with Enhanced Coverage (EC) enabling the UE of reattempting contact with the eNB in order to insure message delivery and communication reliability (FUJISHIRO, paragraph [0077], “The eMTC UE and the NB-IoT UE support an enhanced coverage (EC) function using repeated transmission or the like in order to realize coverage extension. The enhanced coverage function may include repetition that repeatedly transmits the same signal using a plurality of subframes. The coverage can be extended as the number of times of repetitions increases. The enhanced coverage function may include power boosting that increases a power density of the transmitted signal. As an example, the power density increases by narrowband transmission that narrows the frequency bandwidth of the transmitted signal. The coverage can be extended as the power density of the transmitted signal increases. The enhanced coverage function may include lower MCS transmission that lowers the MCS used for the transmitted signal. The coverage can be extended by performing transmission using MCS with a low data rate and high error tolerance.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Wang in view of Cirik discloses all the limitation of claim 9.
However, Wang in view of Cirik do not explicitly or were not relied on disclose wherein the first information comprises resource configuration information, and the resource configuration information is useable to configure the one or more first resources; and the resource configuration information comprises a time domain offset value, the time domain offset value is an offset value of a time domain position of a first resource of the one or more first resources relative to a time domain position of the first message, and the frequency domain offset value is an offset value of a frequency domain position of the first resource of the one or more first resources relative to a frequency domain position of the first message; and the method further comprises: determining the one or more first resources based on the first information.
FUJISHIRO discloses wherein the first information comprises resource configuration information (paragraph [0081], Fig.7, " the eNB 200 transmits physical random access channel (PRACH)…The PRACH related information includes various parameters…a PRACH resource, … The PRACH resource includes a radio resource " (i.e., the UE will use radio resource to send first message to eNB.)),
and the resource configuration information is useable to configure the one or more first resources (paragraph [0083], Fig.7:S1003, "the UE 100 determines its own enhanced coverage level (CE level) by comparing the measured RSRP with the RSRP threshold for each enhanced coverage level…" and paragraph [0084], Fig.7:S1004, "In step S1004, the UE 100 selects the PRACH resource corresponding to its own enhanced coverage level." (i.e., once the UE determines the coverage more explained in par.77 and par.80, the limitation “is useable to configure” is reading on par.84 UE selects the PRACH resource as the UE will use the resource to specify the subframe or slot or resource block to communicate with eNB, par.70)); and
the resource configuration information comprises a time domain offset value (paragraph [0081], "The PRACH resource includes a radio resource (time…resource)" (i.e., a radio resource that maps to “the resource configuration” and that comprises time and frequency resource.)) or a frequency domain offset value (paragraph [0081], "The PRACH resource includes a radio resource (…frequency resource)"),
the time domain offset value (Par.70, Fig.5, a subframe (or slot)) is an offset value of a time domain position (Par.70, Fig.5, time resource) of a first resource (Par.70, Fig.5, radio resource) of the one or more first resources relative to a time domain position (par.172, Fig.14, PRACH resource pool…time direction) of the first message (paragraph [0070], Fig.5, " Of the radio resources (time/frequency resources) allocated to the UE 100,…a time resource can be specified by a subframe (or slot)." and paragraph [0084], Fig.7:S1004, "In step S1004, the UE 100 selects the PRACH resource corresponding to its own enhanced coverage level." and paragraph [0172], Fig.14 “FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an example of a PRACH resource configuration…Each of the PRACH resource pools may be divided in the time direction.” (i.e., explanation of the time resource allocated by the eNB send to the UE to then use to transmit second information.)),
and the frequency domain offset value is an offset value (Par.70, Fig.5, a resource block) of a frequency domain position (Par.70, Fig.5, frequency resource) of the first resource of the one or more first resources relative to a frequency domain position (par.172, Fig.14, PRACH resource pool…frequency direction) of the first message (paragraph [0070], Fig.5, " Of the radio resources (time/frequency resources) allocated to the UE 100, a frequency resource can be specified by a resource block," and paragraph [0084], Fig.7:S1004, "In step S1004, the UE 100 selects the PRACH resource corresponding to its own enhanced coverage level." and paragraph [0172], Fig.14 “FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an example of a PRACH resource configuration…Each of the PRACH resource pools is divided in a frequency direction and divided into a plurality of resource groups.” (i.e., Examiner points to par.172 and Fig.14 of PRACH resource and separated in time and frequency.));
and the method further comprises: determining the one or more first resources based on the first information (paragraph [0081], Fig.7, “eNB 200 transmits physical random access channel (PRACH) related information…The PRACH related information includes various parameters…Various parameters include…a PRACH resource…The PRACH resource includes a radio resource (time/frequency resource)…” and paragraph [0084], “In step S1004, the UE 100 selects the PRACH resource corresponding to its own enhanced coverage level.” (i.e., as disclosed earlier in claim 14 rejection Fig.7:S1004 is UE selecting the PRACH resource to send second information and the PRACH resource is obtained from eNB broadcasting to the UE.)).
Wang in view of Cirik and FUJISHIRO are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field wireless communications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wang to implement the method of FUJISHIRO of sending the preamble sequence on the one or more resources based on the first information because such a modification is the result of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable result. More specifically, FUJISHIRO allows sending messages between UE and eNB without connecting to RRC connection thus allow a reduce overhead, and furthermore, allowing a more accuracy counting of UE that are unable to connect to RRC connection based on the limited allowable of data indicated by the SIB (FUJISHIRO, paragraph [0004], “A communication control method according to one embodiment is a method in a mobile communication system. The communication control method comprises steps of: transmitting, by a base station, a system information block (SIB) indicating that an allowable amount of data allowed to be transmitted in an early data transmission which transmits uplink user data using message 3 during a random access procedure; receiving, by a radio terminal in an RRC idle mode, the SIB; and determining, by the radio terminal, to perform the early data transmission when an amount of transmission data to the base station is less than or equal to the allowable amount of data indicated by the SIB.”).
Regarding Claim 23, which is similar in scope to claim 13, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 24, which is similar in scope to claim 14, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 29, which is similar in scope to claim 13, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 30, which is similar in scope to claim 14, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights