Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 21, 22 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/11/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the amendments substantially change the scope of the claimed subject matter and necessitate new grounds of rejection with new citations of prior art.
Regarding remarks on page 5-6, applicant states “Each amended independent claim requires that the system information comprise "first configuration information for [a] normal uplink (NUL) and second configuration information for [a] supplementary uplink (SUL), separate from the first configuration information," where the second (SUL) configuration information carries both the second RSRP threshold parameter and the repetition number parameter. Shih does not organize its random-access configuration on a per-carrier basis. Shih distinguishes the PRACH resources for coverage-enhanced RA from those for legacy RA only by PRACH occasion, time-frequency domain resource, and/or RA preamble index (Shih,||0395]) - not by NUL versus SUL. Although Shih selects between a NUL carrier and a SUL carrier, Shih does not place a SUL-specific msg3-repetition threshold, or a SUL-specific repetition number, within a SUL configuration that is separate from a NUL configuration.” However, the claim(s) merely appears to recite contents of the first and second configuration information, with no limitations regarding how information is organized or encapsulated ‘per-carrier basis’, nor does it limit any given information being for only one carrier exclusively. Without any other limiting language or structure, the phrase ‘first configuration information’ may be any information relating to configuring at least NUL transmissions, thus being ‘for NUL’, similar to the ‘second configuration information for SUL’ being any separate information relating to configuring at least SUL transmissions. Applicant further states “The Examiner's stated rationale - to enhance communications by allowing the network to configure appropriate msg3 repetitions (citing He, claim 8) - at most explains why a person of ordinary skill in the art might configure some number of msg3 repetitions. It does not explain why such a person would organize the random-access configuration on a per-carrier basis so that a SUL-specific RSRP threshold and a SUL-specific repetition number reside in a SUL configuration separate from the NUL configuration.”, however the combination of He does not pertain to organizing random access configurations on per-carrier basis, nor was He relied on to do so. As aforementioned, the claims do not limit how the information is organized or encapsulated ‘per-carrier’, nor does it limit any given information being for only one carrier exclusively. Without any other limiting language or structure, any given configuration information (e.g. network configured Msg3 repetition number) that at least partly relates to NUL and/or SUL transmissions may be ‘for NUL’ and/or ‘for SUL’, and may be reasonably implemented for an expected benefit that would be known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Rejections for similar independent and dependent claims are revised and/or maintained accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
Claim 1, 21, 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih et al. (US 2022/0150986) in view of He et al. (US 2022/0304074) in view of Fakoorian et al. (US 2026/0164463).
For claim 1, Shih teaches: A method performed by a wireless device (see at least fig. 2, UE and BS may comprise processor/memory for communication), the method comprising:
receiving system information of a cell, wherein the system information comprises first configuration information for normal uplink (NUL) (see at least 0390, network may transmit a first threshold in System Information for selection between a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier, thus may be for NUL/SUL), and
wherein the first configuration information comprises: a first reference signal received power (RSRP) threshold parameter for selection between the NUL and the SUL (see at least 0390, network may transmit a first threshold in System Information for selection between a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier), and
selecting the SUL for random access based on the first RSRP threshold parameter (see at least 0390, network may transmit a first threshold in System Information for selection between a normal uplink (NUL) carrier and a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier, thus SUL carrier may be selected);
transmitting a random access preamble on the SUL and receiving a random access response (RAR) (see at least 0461, RA preamble may be transmitted and RA response may be received); and
transmitting on the SUL a msg3 based on the RAR (see at least 0461, Msg3 may be transmitted after Msg2/RAR is received).
Shih further teaches msg3 repetition for coverage enhancement (Abstract) but not explicitly: …a repetition number parameter related to a number of repetitions for msg3, or: transmitting on the SUL a msg3 based on…and the repetition number parameter. He from an analogous art teaches (see at least claim 8, SIB may include a number of Msg3 repetitions). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate He to the system of Shih, so the SIB may include a number of Msg3 repetitions used for transmission, as suggested by He. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by allowing network to configure appropriate number of Msg3 repetitions (He claim 8).
Shih further teaches threshold for determining repetition in SIB (0398-0400) but not explicitly: …and second configuration information for supplementary uplink (SUL), separate from the first configuration information, or: …wherein the second configuration information comprises: a second RSRP threshold parameter, of the SUL, related to message 3 (msg3) repetition, or: …in response to selecting the SUL, determining that msg3 repetition is applicable for the random access based on the second RSRP threshold parameter. Fakoorian from an analogous art teaches (see at least 0052, UE may receive RSRP threshold T3 for determining whether to perform Msg3 repetition on NUL carrier, and RSRP threshold T4 for determining whether to perform Msg3 repetition on SUL carrier, thus being specific for NUL or SUL (0027, network may allocate Msg3 resources accordingly)). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Fakoorian to the system of Shih, He, so the SIB may include a separate RSRP threshold for msg3 repetition on SUL, and UE determines whether to perform msg3 repetition for selected SUL based on this specific threshold, as suggested by Fakoorian. The motivation would have been to enhance communications by configuring separate thresholds for determining Msg3 repetition on NUL and SUL (Fakoorian 0052).
Claim 21 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1, and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Claim 22 recites an apparatus substantially similar to the method of claim 1 from perspective of base station, and is rejected under similar reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jeon et al. (US 2020/0314917) discloses access procedures for wireless communications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIREN WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-0687. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 571-272-3940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Siren Wei/
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights