DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is responsive to the RCE filed on 5/22/26.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-20 and 21-26 is/are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-20 and 21-26 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, to provide or not provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure”? the claim limitation is not entirely clear what determine whether to “provide or not provide” an earlier indication? Based on what? What condition the determination? What is the claimed invention? Please clarify
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2023/0122456 A1 in view of Koskinen, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2024/0224103 A1.
As to claim 1, Hoglund teaches a method for information indication, comprising:
receiving, by a Reduced Capability (RedCap) terminal first indication information from a network device (Hoglund, page 7, paragraph 77; i.e., [0077] Embodiments provide a RedCap indication in at least one of Msgl and Msg3. In one or more embodiments, an indication that the cell provided by network node 16 supports RedCap may be indicated in SI); and
determining, by RedCap terminal the according to the first indication information, whether to provide an earlier indication (RedCap) terminal in first uplink information of a random access procedure (Hoglund, page 9, paragraph 94-96; i.e., [0094] The wireless device 22 should use early RedCap indication in Msgl or use early RedCap indication in Msg3, or use both; [0096] The legacy scheduling of Msg2 and Msg3 may be sufficient for the wireless device 22 and no early indication in Msgl required);
wherein the first uplink information comprises at least one of a first Physical Random Access CHannel (PRACH) or a first Physical Uplink Shared CHannel (PUSCH) (Hoglund, page 7, paragraph 77; i.e., [0077] indication unit 34, etc., may select a PRACH resource from the pool configured for RedCap to indicate it is a RedCap wireless device 22 in Msgl, Msgl indication may be needed, e.g., if the initial access procedure (e.g., RACH procedure));
wherein the first indication information is used to configure resources for transmitting a PRACH for the RedCap terminal, and the resources comprise a resource used by a non-RedCap terminal and a resource used by the RedCap terminal (Hoglund, page 1, paragraph 13; i.e., [0013] In 3GPP, early indication that the wireless device is a RedCap device. For example, the following has been proposed regarding uplink (UL) initial BWP/RACH (bandwidth part/random access channel) resources);
wherein the determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, whether to provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure (Hoglund, page 7, paragraph 77; i.e., [0077] Embodiments provide a RedCap indication in at least one of Msgl and Msg3, an indication that the cell provided by network node 16 supports RedCap may be indicated in SI, an early RedCap indication in a Msgl indication or use the early RedCap indication later in Msg3. indication unit 34, etc., may select a PRACH resource from the pool configured for RedCap to indicate it is a RedCap wireless device 22 in Msgl, Msgl indication may be needed, e.g., if the initial access procedure ( e.g., RACH procedure)) comprises:
wherein the first PRACH comprises:
a PRACH of a 4-step random access procedure (Hoglund, page 8, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] early the RedCap indication is provided in Msgl by wireless device 22 if RF retuning is needed at the wireless device 22 to transmit Msgl (preamble) using the PRACH); or
a PRACH in a Message A (MsgA) of a 2-step random access procedure;
and
the first PUSCH comprises:
a PUSCH in a Message 3 (Msg3) of a 4-step random access procedure; or
a PUSCH of an MsgA of a 2-step random access procedure (Hoglund, page 8, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] early the RedCap indication is provided in Msgl by wireless device 22 if RF retuning is needed at the wireless device 22 to transmit Msgl (preamble) using the PRACH).
But Hoglund failed to teach the claim limitation wherein determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, to provide or not provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure.
However, Koskinen teaches the limitation wherein determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, to provide or not provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure (Koskinen, page 3, paragraph 33; i.e., [0033] UE capability
report may at least be used according to the existing framework to indicate (implicitly or explicitly) the number of Rx branches. However, it may be desirable to determine whether/how to support an earlier indication of RedCap UEs with a certain number of Rx branches by Msgl and/or Msg3, and MsgA.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Hoglund to substitute mMTC information from Koskinen for MBB from Hoglund to provide radio access functionality to a user equipment (i.e., similar to Node B in UTRAN or eNB in LTE) (Koskinen, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 4, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein in a case that the earlier indication that for the RedCap terminal is determined to provide in the random access procedure according to received second indication information, determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, whether to provide the earlier indication that for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure (Hoglund, page 1, paragraph 13; i.e., [0013] In 3GPP, early indication that the wireless device is a RedCap device. For example, the following has been proposed regarding uplink (UL) initial BWP/RACH (bandwidth part/random access channel) resources).
As to claim 6, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein the resources configured by the first indication information are used to transmit the first uplink information (Hoglund, page 8, paragraph 86; i.e., [0086] indication unit 34, etc., indicates it is a RedCap wireless device 22 in Msgl but does not indicate it is a RedCap wireless device 22 in Msg3).
As to claim 9, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the method as recited in claim 8, wherein the transmitting, by the network device, the first indication information to the RedCap terminal comprises:
transmitting, by the network device, the first indication information to the RedCap terminal in a case that second indication information is transmitted to the RedCap terminal (Hoglund, page 7, paragraph 77; i.e., [0077] Embodiments provide a RedCap indication in at least one of Msgl and Msg3, as described herein. In one or more embodiments, an indication that the cell provided by network node 16 supports RedCap may be indicated in SI, either explicit or implicit via, e.g., configuration parameters. In one example, it is implicit from the presence of a PRACH partition for RedCap whether the wireless device 22 may use an early RedCap indication in a Msgl indication or use the early RedCap indication later in Msg3. Indication unit 34, etc., may select a PRACH resource from the pool configured for RedCap to indicate it is a RedCap wireless device 22 in Msgl, Msgl indication may be needed, e.g., if the initial access procedure ( e.g., RACH procedure)),
wherein the second indication information indicates that the RedCap terminal determines to provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal during the random access procedure (Hoglund, page 7, paragraph 77; i.e., [0077] Embodiments provide a RedCap indication in at least one of Msgl and Msg3, as described herein. In one or more embodiments, an indication that the cell provided by network node 16 supports RedCap may be indicated in SI, either explicit or implicit via, e.g., configuration parameters. In one example, it is implicit from the presence of a PRACH partition for RedCap whether the wireless device 22 may use an early RedCap indication in a Msgl indication or use the early RedCap indication later in Msg3. indication unit 34, etc., may select a PRACH resource from the pool configured for RedCap to indicate it is a RedCap wireless device 22 in Msgl, Msgl indication may be needed, e.g., if the initial access procedure ( e.g., RACH procedure)).
As to claim 17, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the terminal device as recited in claim 12, wherein
the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal comprises:
an indication about at least one of a type or a capability of the RedCap terminal based on predetermined information; and
the predetermined information comprises at least one of the following:
a PRACH occasion;
a PRACH format;
a preamble;
a BandWidth Part (BWP) for transmitting the PRACH (Hoglund, page 8, paragraph 87; i.e., [0087] different sizes of preamble groups in the initial BWP and the active BWP. For example, for a 2-step RA procedure, this may allow a separate (additional) set of preamble group A and B PUSCH (Physical Uplink Shared Channel) resources);
a scrambling code of data carried by the PUSCH;
a sequence of a DeModulation Reference Signal (DMRS) of the PUSCH;
information carried by the PUSCH;
a PUSCH resource configuration; and
a DMRS configuration for the PUSCH.
As to claim 20, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the network device as recited in claim 18, wherein the first indication information further indicates third uplink information, and the third uplink information is used to provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal (Hoglund, page 9, paragraph 94-96; i.e., [0094] The wireless device 22 should use early RedCap indication in Msgl or use early RedCap indication in Msg3, or use both; [0096] In one embodiment, in cases where early RedCap indication in both Msgl and Msg3. The legacy scheduling of Msg2 and Msg3 may be sufficient for the wireless device 22 and no early indication in Msgl required).
As to claim 25, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein determining, by the RedCap terminal according to whether the resources configured by the first indication information comprise the resource used by the RedCap terminal, whether to provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure (Hoglund, page 9, paragraph 94-96; i.e., [0094] The wireless device 22 should use early RedCap indication in Msgl or use early RedCap indication in Msg3, or use both; [0096] The legacy scheduling of Msg2 and Msg3 may be sufficient for the wireless device 22 and no early indication in Msgl required).
Claim(s) 8 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1 & 6. Therefore, claim(s) 8 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1 & 6.
Claim(s) 12, 15-16 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1, 4 & 6. Therefore, claim(s) 12, 15-16 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1, 4 & 6.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 8-9. Therefore, claim(s) 18-19 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 8-9.
Claim(s) 26 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 25. Therefore, claim(s) 26 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 25.
Claim(s) 22 & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoglund, U.S. Pub/Patent No. US 2023/0122456 A1 in view of Koskinen, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2024/0224103 A1, and further in view of He, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2023/0042274 A1.
As to claim 22, Hoglund-Koskinen teaches the method as recited in claim 1, wherein in a case where the resources configured by the first indication information comprise a PRACH resource for the non-RedCap terminal, providing, by the RedCap terminal, the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first PRACH of the random access procedure (Hoglund, page 8, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] early the RedCap indication is provided in Msgl by wireless device 22 if RF retuning is needed at the wireless device 22 to transmit Msgl (preamble) using the PRACH); and
But Hoglund-Koskinen failed to teach the claim limitation wherein in a case where the resources configured by the first indication information do not comprise the PRACH resource for the non-RedCap terminal, not providing, by the RedCap terminal, the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first PRACH of the random access procedure, and providing, by the RedCap terminal, the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first PUSCH of the random access procedure.
However, He teaches the limitation wherein in a case where the resources configured by the first indication information do not comprise the PRACH resource for the non-RedCap terminal, not providing, by the RedCap terminal, the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first PRACH of the random access procedure, and providing, by the RedCap terminal, the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first PUSCH of the random access procedure (He, page 3, paragraph 35; page 7, paragraph 78-79; i.e., [0078] The exemplary embodiments also introduce techniques for enabling and disabling the early indication of redcap UEs. In one technique, the presence of a dedicated redcap PRACH resource configuration in SIB! (ROs or preambles), may indicate whether the early indication of redcap device type is enabled; [0079] In some embodiments, frequency hopping for physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) transmission and PUSCH transmission during initial access or random access procedure may be disabled for redcap UEs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Hoglund-Koskinen to substitute obtaining status information from He for the printer information from Hoglund-Koskinen to provide cost and/or complexity reduction benefits (He, page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 24 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 22. Therefore, claim(s) 24 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21 & 23 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for objected the claim(s):
In interpreting the claim(s), in light of the specification and the applicant’s argument(s) filed on 12/26/25, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art(s) of record.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reason(s) for objected the claim(s) to be allowed:
The examiner has found that the prior art(s) of record does/do not appear to teach or suggest or render obvious the claimed limitation(s) in combination with the specific added limitations as recited in dependent claim(s). The closest prior art of the record, Hoglund discloses “the wireless device 22 from the value of ssb-perRACH-OccasionAndCB-PreamblesPerSSI as to whether the wireless device 22 should use early RedCap indication in Msg1 or use early RedCap indication in Msg3 or use both. The wireless device 22 is specifically configured by the network node in a connected state as to when to provide a RedCap indication - Msg1 or Msg3 or both”. However, Hoglund does not teach “wherein the first indication information is used to configure resources for transmitting a PRACH for the RedCap terminal, and the resources comprise a resource used by a non-RedCap terminal and a resource used by the RedCap terminal; the first indication information comprises a target bit, the target bit with a value of 1 is used to indicate the RedCap terminal to provide the earlier indication, and the target bit with a value of 0 is used to indicate the RedCap terminal not to provide the earlier indication”. Another close prior art, Hoglund only involves the technical solution of the early RedCap indication in Msg1 and/or Msg3 are always determined to be used by the the RedCap wireless device from the indication from the network node. Thereby, regarding to two technical solutions implemented by the RedCap terminal based on the indication of the first indication information provided by the network device, Hoglund gives no indication or disclosure on that the RedCap terminal determines, according to the first indication information, to not provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal in the first PRACH and/or the first PUSCH defined in amended claim 1 as set forth in dependent claim(s) 21 & 22. Claim(s) 21 & 23 is/are object to be allowed because of the combination of other limitation(s) and the limitation listed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 15-20 and 21-26 has/have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments include the failure of previously applied art to expressly disclose “determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, to provide or not provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure” (see Applicant’s response, 5/22/26, page 12-14). It is evident from the detailed mappings found in the above rejection(s) that Koskinen disclosed this functionality (see Koskinen, page 3, paragraph 33). Further, it is clear from the numerous teachings (previously and currently cited) that the provision for “determining, by the RedCap terminal according to the first indication information, to provide or not provide the earlier indication for the RedCap terminal through the first uplink information of the random access procedure” was widely implemented in the networking art. Thus, Applicant’s arguments drawn toward distinction of the claimed invention and the prior art teachings on this point are not considered persuasive.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Chatterjee, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20240196413 A1 discloses early indication, RedCap UE.
He, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20230042274 A1 discloses 4-step random access procedure; PRACH and PUSCH.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights