DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/5/24 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments on page 7 with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been updated to reflect the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 7, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the currently applied art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited portions of Feuersänger (US 20130058315 A1) and Gaal (US 20120127931 A1) still teach the claims as amended, as is discussed further in this action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US10206181B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claims 1-16 of US10206181B2 by omitting limitations, such as “identifying a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission for a different serving cell other than the serving cell” and by rearranging certain limitations. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
The table below maps the claims in the instant applications to corresponding claims which have substantially the same limitations [up to and including limitations of parent and intervening claims] in US10206181B2. The key differences have been underlined or struck through.
Instant Application
US10206181B2
1. A method comprising:
performing by one or more processors in a user equipment device,
receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order to initiate a random access procedure on a first serving cell;
transmitting a PRACH transmission to the first serving cell in a subframe; and
transmitting the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the same subframe
transmitting a PRACH retransmission in a second subframe;
transmitting a PUCCH transmission in the second subframe; and prioritizing the PRACH retransmission in case of a power limitation between the PRACH retransmission to the first serving cell in the second subframe and the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the second subframe.
1. A method comprising:
performing by one or more processors in a user equipment device,
receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order to initiate a random access procedure on a serving cell;
transmitting a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) transmission to the serving cell in a subframe;
transmitting the PUCCH transmission to the different serving cell in the subframe;
5. determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scaling a transmission power level during the subframe
so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.
1. …
scaling down the PUCCH transmission power level during a portion of the subframe having overlapping PRACH and PUCCH transmissions so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH transmission during the overlapping portion does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment device.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scaling down a PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission power level during the subframe
so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.
1.
… scaling down the PUCCH transmission power level during a portion of the subframe having overlapping PRACH and PUCCH transmissions so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH transmission during the overlapping portion does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment device.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein:
said scaling down results in a PRACH transmission and no transmission of PUSCH, PUSCH, or SRS.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein:
said scaling down results in a PRACH transmission and no transmission of PUCCH.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
3. …
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
5. …
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
3.
…determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
4. …identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe.
3. …and increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe;
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
5.
…determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
6. …increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
Claims 9-16 are substantially similar to claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US11770776B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of the instant application merely broaden the scope of claims 1-16 of US11770776B2 by omitting limitations, such as that “the second serving cell belonging to a second timing advance group different than the first timing advance group” and by rearranging certain limitations. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
The table below maps the claims in the instant applications to corresponding claims which have substantially the same limitations [up to and including limitations of parent and intervening claims] in US11770776B2. The key differences have been underlined or struck through.
Instant Application
US11770776B2
1. A method comprising:
performing by one or more processors in a user equipment device,
receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order to initiate a random access procedure on a first serving cell;
transmitting a PRACH transmission to the first serving cell in a subframe; and
transmitting the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the same subframe
transmitting a PRACH retransmission in a second subframe;
transmitting a PUCCH transmission in the second subframe; and prioritizing the PRACH retransmission in case of a power limitation between the PRACH retransmission to the first serving cell in the second subframe and the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the second subframe.
1. A method comprising:
performing by one or more processors in a user equipment device,
receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order to initiate a random access procedure on a first serving cell
identifying a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission for a second serving cell other than the first serving cell,
transmitting a PRACH transmission to the first serving cell in a subframe;
transmitting the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the same subframe
adjusting a transmission power of the PUCCH transmission to prioritize the PRACH transmission over the PUCCH transmission.
5. determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scaling a transmission power level during the subframe so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scaling a transmission power level during the subframe so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
scaling down a PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission power level during the subframe
so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
adjusting the transmission power of the PUCCH transmission during the subframe so that a combined transmission power for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein:
said scaling down results in a PRACH transmission and no transmission of PUSCH, PUSCH, or SRS.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein:
said scaling down results in a PRACH transmission and no transmission of a PUCCH.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe;
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe;
identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe;
increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.
Claims 9-16 are substantially similar to claims 1-8 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feuersänger (US 20130058315 A1) in view of Gaal (US 20120127931 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feuersänger discloses:
“A method comprising: performing by one or more processors in a user equipment device, receiving a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) order to initiate a random access procedure on a first serving cell;” ([para 0322]: “An alternative embodiment of the invention suggests that a user equipment is configured to only perform RACH procedures on secondary component carriers (i.e. on component carriers other than the primary component carrier (PCell)) in response to a PDCCH order.” Wherein the Scell in Feuersänger corresponds to the first serving cell in the instant claim.)
“transmitting a PRACH transmission to the first serving cell in a first subframe; and transmitting the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the first subframe.” ([para 0009]: “It should be noted that a sub-frame, also referred to as transmission time interval (TTI), is the smallest time interval for user data transmission.” ; [para 0284]: “A user equipment supporting carrier aggregation may simultaneously perform a RACH access while transmitting PUSCH/PUCCH on other component carriers. In other words a user equipment may encounter situations where it transmits a RACH preamble, i.e. PRACH transmission, and in the same TTI also transmit PUSCH and/or PUCCH.”)
“transmitting a PRACH retransmission to the first serving cell in a second subframe;” ([para 0276]: “Furthermore, the eNodeB may optionally configure preamble power ramping so that the transmit power P.sub.PRACH(i) for each retransmitted preamble, i.e. in case the PRACH transmission attempt was not successfully, is increased by a fixed step.”)
“transmitting a PUCCH transmission in the second subframe;” ([para 0239]: “Alternatively, the second aspect of the invention allows to individually scale the transmit power of simultaneous uplink transmissions via a physical random access channel (PRACH) and via a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).”)
Feuersänger does not explicitly disclose “and prioritizing the PRACH retransmission in case of a power limitation between the PRACH retransmission to the first serving cell in the second subframe and the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the second subframe.”
However, Gaal discloses the missing feature “and prioritizing the PRACH retransmission in case of a power limitation between the PRACH retransmission to the first serving cell in the second subframe and the PUCCH transmission to the second serving cell in the second subframe” ([para 0078]: “In one configuration, the plurality of component carriers includes a PCC and at least one SCC, and the UE prioritizes the transmission power between the PRACH and the second channel by assigning the PRACH a first priority and the second channel a second priority when the PRACH indicates an UL SR on the PCC and the second channel is a PUCCH transmitted on the PCC. In another configuration, the first priority is greater than the second priority as shown in channel combination 10 of FIG. 11.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Feuersänger and Gaal, to modify the prioritization as disclosed by Feuersänger, to include the possibility of prioritizing PRACH over PUCCH as disclosed by Gaal. The motivation for including such a possibility is that such a network situation may arise from the many possible situations listed in Fig. 11 of Gaal, and thus by taking it into account the most important transmission can be prioritized, thus enhancing service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Feuersänger with Gaal to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “scaling a transmission power level during the subframe so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.” ([para 0094]: “P.sub.MAX is the maximum available transmit power of the user equipment, which is depending on the user equipment class and configuration by the network.” ; [para 0179]: “In another exemplary embodiment of the invention, the mobile terminal reduces the determined transmit powers such that the sum of the determined transmit powers is smaller or equal to a maximum transmit power available P.sub.MAX to the mobile terminal for transmitting on the uplink component carriers within the transmission time interval i.”)
Regarding claim 3, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “scaling down a PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission power level during the subframe so that a combined transmission power level for the PRACH transmission and the PUCCH, PUSCH, or SRS transmission does not exceed a maximum transmission power for the user equipment.” ([para 0277]: “One option is that the PRACH transmission power P.sub.PRACH(i) is prioritized over the PUSCH transmission power…” ; [para 0283]: “Then, the user equipment reduces the determined transmit power for the PUSCH transmission and/or the PRACH transmission (see step 1604). This power reduction is performed according to a prioritization between the transmit power for the PUSCH transmission and the transmit power for the PRACH transmission.”)
Regarding claim 4, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “said scaling down results in a PRACH transmission and no transmission of PUSCH, PUSCH, or SRS.” ([para 0277]: “There are different alternatives for the power scaling for the case of concurrent PRACH and PUCCH/PUSCH transmission. One option…” ; [para 0279]: “In a third option, no concurrent transmission of PRACH and PUCCH/PUSCH is allowed. Hence, in this case the user equipment drops either the PUCCH/PUSCH transmission or PRACH transmission.”)
Regarding claim 5, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; and increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe..” ([para 0276]: “Furthermore, the eNodeB may optionally configure preamble power ramping so that the transmit power P.sub.PRACH(i) for each retransmitted preamble, i.e. in case the PRACH transmission attempt was not successfully, is increased by a fixed step.”)
Regarding claim 7, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe; and
increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.” ([para 0260]: “The mobile terminal first receives 1001 multiple uplink resource assignments for one TTI using its receiver unit, and a processing unit of the mobile terminal determines 1002 their priority order.” ; [para 0276]: “Furthermore, the eNodeB may optionally configure preamble power ramping so that the transmit power P.sub.PRACH(i) for each retransmitted preamble, i.e. in case the PRACH transmission attempt was not successfully, is increased by a fixed step.”)
Claims 1-5 and 7 are substantially similar to claims 9-13 and 15, with the differences amount to that claims 1-5 and 7 are directed towards a method and claims 9-13 and 15 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Feuersänger in paragraph 358. Thus claims 9-13 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-5 and 7.
Claims 6, 8, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feuersänger (US 20130058315 A1) in view of Gaal (US 20120127931 A1) and further in view of Imamura (US 20100027484 A1) .
Regarding claim 6, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe…” ([para 0260]: “The mobile terminal first receives 1001 multiple uplink resource assignments for one TTI using its receiver unit, and a processing unit of the mobile terminal determines 1002 their priority order.” ; [para 0276]: “Furthermore, the eNodeB may optionally configure preamble power ramping so that the transmit power P.sub.PRACH(i) for each retransmitted preamble, i.e. in case the PRACH transmission attempt was not successfully, is increased by a fixed step.”)
Feuersänger does not explicitly disclose “and increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.”
However, Imamura discloses the missing feature “and increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.” ([para 0048]: “Here, the " RA burst transmission priority information" refers to information whose communication service has a high degree of emergency or priority such as emergency communication, a service with a stringent delay requirement (e.g., VoIP, video streaming, gaming), retransmission RACH (which has higher priority as the number of retransmissions increases) and high service fee.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Feuersänger, Gaal, and Imamura, to modify the PRACH retransmission as disclosed by Feuersänger, to be at an increased priority as disclosed by Imamura. The motivation for increasing the priority of retransmissions is that it becomes more crucial that a PRACH succeed as time passes, and hence by increasing the priority of the PRACH the chance that it is successful also increases, hence enhancing service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Feuersänger with Gaal and Imamura to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Feuersänger in view of Gaal discloses all the limitations of the parent claim.
Feuersänger further discloses “determining that the PRACH transmission will be retransmitted in a second subframe; identifying one or more other uplink transmissions during the second subframe… increasing a power level of the PRACH transmission during the second subframe.” ([para 0260]: “The mobile terminal first receives 1001 multiple uplink resource assignments for one TTI using its receiver unit, and a processing unit of the mobile terminal determines 1002 their priority order.” ; [para 0276]: “Furthermore, the eNodeB may optionally configure preamble power ramping so that the transmit power P.sub.PRACH(i) for each retransmitted preamble, i.e. in case the PRACH transmission attempt was not successfully, is increased by a fixed step.”)
Feuersänger does not explicitly disclose “increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe;”
However, Imamura discloses the missing feature “increasing a transmission priority value for the PRACH transmission during the second subframe;” ([para 0048]: “Here, the " RA burst transmission priority information" refers to information whose communication service has a high degree of emergency or priority such as emergency communication, a service with a stringent delay requirement (e.g., VoIP, video streaming, gaming), retransmission RACH (which has higher priority as the number of retransmissions increases) and high service fee.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Feuersänger, Gaal, and Imamura, to modify the PRACH retransmission as disclosed by Feuersänger, to be at an increased priority as disclosed by Imamura. The motivation for increasing the priority of retransmissions is that it becomes more crucial that a PRACH succeed as time passes, and hence by increasing the priority of the PRACH the chance that it is successful also increases, hence enhancing service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Feuersänger with Gaal and Imamura to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 6 and 8 are substantially similar to claims 14 and 16, with the differences amount to that claims 6 and 8 are directed towards a method and claims 14 and 16 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Feuersänger in paragraph 358. Thus claims 14 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 6 and 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached on (571)-270-7191. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD KHAWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412