Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/246,665

CONFIGURING RANDOM ACCESS PROCEDURES

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Mar 24, 2023
Examiner
NGUYEN, THE HY
Art Unit
2478
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
LENOVO (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
230 granted / 312 resolved
+15.7% vs TC avg
Strong +33% interview lift
Without
With
+33.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
345
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.1%
-37.9% vs TC avg
§103
54.2%
+14.2% vs TC avg
§102
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 312 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 16 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection under 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited prior art Rastegardoost et al. (US 2021/0051707 A1) in view of newly cited prior art Jeon et al. (US 2020/0221506 A1) for claims 1 and 8, and under 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of Jeon and previously cited prior art Cozzo et al. (US 2021/0360660 A1) for claim 16. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 16, the claim as a whole recites “receive, from a network, a first configuration associated with performing a transmission on multiple occasions, wherein the first configuration is received in a random access channel (RACH) common configuration information element (IE), receive, from the network using a random access response (RAR), a second configuration associated with performing Msg3 repetition; and perform the transmission based at least in part on the first configuration and the second configuration.” It appears the transmission is a Msg3 repetition and is based on the first configuration. In fact, claim 18 further clarifies this interpretation in the limitation “wherein the transmission comprises a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission.” However, the specification does not have support for “the first configuration is received in a random access channel (RACH) common configuration information element (IE)” for a PUSCH transmission on multiple occasions because the specification explicitly teaches in [0064] “a UE may be configured with multiple beams and/or multiple ROs to perform multiple and/or repeated PRACH preamble transmissions for an SSB candidate (e.g., one SSB (synchronization signal ("SS") and/or physical broadcast channel ("PBCH") ("SS/PBCH") block) may be mapped to /N consecutive valid PRACH occasions where a number N (N <1) of SS/PBCH blocks is associated with one PRACH occasion). The number of repetitions may be explicitly configured via radio resource control ("RRC") signaling (e.g., RACH-ConfigCommon IE) or may implicitly depend on a configured subcarrier spacing ("SCS").” In other words, there is no support that the first configuration which is received in a RACH common configuration IE is related to Msg3 repetition / PUSCH transmission because the specification teaches that the first configuration is related to preamble transmission. Claims 17-19 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 16. 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, 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) 1-3 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2021/0051707 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0221506 A1). Regarding claim 1, Rastegardoost discloses A method of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving a first configuration from a network, wherein the first configuration corresponds to performing a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission on multiple random access channel (RACH) occasions ([0241]: wireless device receives, from a base station, configuration regarding transmitting a preamble for a number of preamble repetitions using a number of PRACH occasions associated with a selected SSB), receiving a second configuration from the network, wherein the second configuration corresponds to performing Msg3 repetition, MsgA repetition, or a combination thereof ([0241]: wireless device receives, from the base station, configuration regarding transmitting a TB multiple time based on a MsgA PUSCH repetition level/number/factor); and performing a random access procedure based on the first configuration and the second configuration ([0241]: wireless device performs multiple transmissions of the preamble for the number of MsgA PRACH repetitions and multiple transmissions of the TB based on the number of repetitions). Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Jeon discloses wherein the first configuration is received in a RACH common configuration information element (IE) ([0351]: RACH-ConfigCommon comprises a total number of random access preambles, a number of PRACH occasions, a maximum number of random access preamble transmission that may be performed, and a number of SSBs per RACH occasion. The total number of random access preambles may be a multiple of the number of SSBs per RACH occasion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Rastegardoost, to provide a RACH-ConfigCommon comprising a total number of random access preambles, a number of PRACH occasions, a maximum number of random access preamble transmission that may be performed, and a number of SSBs per RACH occasion, as taught by Jeon. Doing so allows the wireless device to transmit a preamble on one or more PRACH resources that may comprise one or more PRACH occasions (Jeon: [0350]). Regarding claim 8, Rastegardoost discloses A user equipment (UE), comprising (Fig. 15A: wireless device 1502): at least one memory (Fig. 15A: memory 1524); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (Fig. 15A: processing system 1518 coupled to memory 1524): receive a first configuration from a network, wherein the first configuration corresponds to performing a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission on multiple random access channel (RACH) occasions ([0241]: wireless device receives, from a base station, configuration regarding transmitting a preamble for a number of preamble repetitions using a number of PRACH occasions associated with a selected SSB), receive a second configuration from the network, wherein the second configuration corresponds to performing Msg3 repetition, MsgA repetition, or a combination thereof ([0241]: wireless device receives, from the base station, configuration regarding transmitting a TB multiple time based on a MsgA PUSCH repetition level/number/factor); and perform a random access procedure based on the first configuration and the second configuration ([0241]: wireless device performs multiple transmissions of the preamble for the number of MsgA PRACH repetitions and multiple transmissions of the TB based on a number of repetitions). Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Jeon discloses wherein the first configuration is received in a RACH common configuration information element (IE) ([0351]: RACH-ConfigCommon comprises a total number of random access preambles, a number of PRACH occasions, a maximum number of random access preamble transmission that may be performed, and a number of SSBs per RACH occasion. The total number of random access preambles may be a multiple of the number of SSBs per RACH occasion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Rastegardoost, to provide a RACH-ConfigCommon comprising a total number of random access preambles, a number of PRACH occasions, a maximum number of random access preamble transmission that may be performed, and a number of SSBs per RACH occasion, as taught by Jeon. Doing so allows the wireless device to transmit a preamble on one or more PRACH resources that may comprise one or more PRACH occasions (Jeon: [0350]). Regarding claim(s) 2 and 9, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 8 as outlined above. Rastegardoost discloses wherein the first configuration comprises an indication to use multiple PRACH preamble transmissions for each detected synchronization signal block (SSB) ([0241]: wireless device receives, from a base station, configuration regarding transmitting a preamble for a number of preamble repetitions using a number of PRACH occasions associated with a selected SSB). Regarding claim(s) 3 and 10, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 8 as outlined above. Rastegardoost discloses further comprising configuring the multiple RACH occasions with PRACH repetition or multi-beam transmission in response to detecting at least one synchronization signal block (SSB) candidate ([0241]: wireless device receives, from a base station, configuration regarding transmitting a preamble for a number of preamble repetitions using a number of PRACH occasions associated with a selected SSB). Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2021/0051707 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0221506 A1) and Sun et al. (WO 2018/224013 A1). Regarding claim(s) 4 and 11, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 8 as outlined above. Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Sun discloses further comprising receiving information indicating a number of repetitions of beams explicitly along with a radio resource control (RRC) RACH configuration, implicitly based on a subcarrier spacing, or based on a predefined reference signal received power threshold of a synchronization signal block (SSB) (pg. 4 sections 1 and 3: NR-PRACH resource configuration information includes beam resource indication information and maximum retransmission times information, and is sent by the network device via RRC signaling). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device and the base station, as taught by Rastegardoost, to receive and to send, respectively, an NR-PRACH resource configuration information includes beam resource indication information and maximum retransmission times information via RRC signaling, as taught by Sun. Doing so provides a beam failure recovery request when a beam fails and a random access procedure for the terminal (Sun: pg. 3 last section). Claim(s) 5-6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2021/0051707 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0221506 A1) and Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al. (US 2021/0385880 A1). Regarding claim(s) 5 and 12, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 8 as outlined above. Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Taherzadeh Boroujeni discloses further comprising configuring the multiple RACH occasions, wherein each RACH occasions of the multiple RACH occasions is configured with a different subcarrier spacing (Fig. 3, [0111]-[0112]: UE 115 is configured with different transmission times and different frequencies having different subcarrier spacings for random access preambles). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device, as taught by Rastegardoost, to be configured with different transmission times and different frequencies having different subcarrier spacings for random access preambles, as taught by Taherzadeh Boroujeni. Doing so decreases a likelihood of additional, subsequent random access preamble transmission by the UE (Taherzadeh Boroujeni: [0053]). Regarding claim(s) 6 and 13, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon and Taherzadeh Boroujeni discloses all features of claim(s) 5 and 12 as outlined above. Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Taherzadeh Boroujeni discloses further comprising making one RACH attempt per one subcarrier spacing, and changing the subcarrier spacing if no random access response (RAR) message is received during a RAR monitoring time (Fig. 3, [0111]-[0112]: UE 115 transmits a first random access preamble 205-a at a first time and at a first frequency resource having a first subcarrier spacing. When the UE receives no RAR while monitoring during the RAR window 315, the UE transmits a second random access preamble 205-b at a second time and at a second frequency resource having a second subcarrier spacing). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device, as taught by Rastegardoost, to be configured with different transmission times and different frequencies having different subcarrier spacings for random access preambles, as taught by Taherzadeh Boroujeni. Doing so decreases a likelihood of additional, subsequent random access preamble transmission by the UE (Taherzadeh Boroujeni: [0053]). Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2021/0051707 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0221506 A1) and Ohara et al. (US 2022/0174749 A1). Regarding claim(s) 7 and 14, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon discloses all features of claim(s) 1 and 8 as outlined above. Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Ohara discloses further comprising configuring, for 2-step RACH, to perform repetition of MsgA with a different number of repetitions for a MsgA preamble and a MsgA physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) ([0052]: the maximum number of retransmissions of the MsgA in the 2-step RACH includes different values for the preamble of the MsgA and the PUSCH of the MsgA), and performing a first preamble repetition then MsgA repetition ([0035]: the retransmission starts from the transmission of the preamble and then the transmission of the PUSCH), wherein multiple MsgA preambles are combined to detect a preamble, the multiple MsgA PUSCHs are combined to decode PUSCH information (This limitation recites an action performed by a gNB based on applicant’s specification at [0068], [0076], and [0078]-[0079] which is different than the claimed UE and apparatus that the method and apparatus are directed to. According to MPEP 2111.04 I., "wherein" clauses may raise a question as to the limiting effect of claim language. Claim scope is not limited by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. As applied to claims 7 and 14, the wherein clause recited above does not affect the structural configuration or functionality of the claimed UE and apparatus because the limitation of the wherein clause recites functionality performed by a gNB and is not an action that the one or more processors of the claimed UE and apparatus perform. The operations performed by the claimed UE and apparatus do not rely on the existence of the performance by the gNB. Thus, the limitation of the wherein clause is not given patentable weight in determining whether the claim is rejectable in view of prior art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device, as taught by Rastegardoost, to be configured with a maximum number of retransmissions of the MsgA in the 2-step RACH including different values for the preamble of the MsgA and the PUSCH of the MsgA, as taught by Ohara. Doing so provides a technology capable of reducing latency by a 2-step RACH and increasing a success rate of random access even in a bad communication environment (Ohara: [0010]). Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2021/0051707 A1) in view of Jeon et al. (US 2020/0221506 A1) and Cozzo et al. (US 2021/0360660 A1). Regarding claim 16, Rastegardoost discloses A user equipment (UE), comprising (Fig. 15A: wireless device 1502): at least one memory (Fig. 15A: memory 1524); and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (Fig. 15A: processing system 1518 coupled to memory 1524): receive, from a network, a first configuration associated with performing a transmission on multiple occasions ([0241]: wireless device receives, from the base station, configuration regarding transmitting TB multiple times based on a number of repetitions, i.e., PUSCH occasions), perform the transmission based at least in part on the first configuration ([0241]: wireless device performs multiple transmissions of the TB based on the number of repetitions, i.e., PUSCH occasions). Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Jeon discloses wherein the first configuration is received in a RACH common configuration information element (IE) ([0351]: RACH-ConfigCommon comprises a total number of random access preambles, a number of PRACH occasions, a maximum number of random access preamble transmission that may be performed, and a number of SSBs per RACH occasion. The total number of random access preambles may be a multiple of the number of SSBs per RACH occasion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the base station, as taught by Rastegardoost, to provide a RACH-ConfigCommon comprising a total number of random access preambles, a number of PRACH occasions, a maximum number of random access preamble transmission that may be performed, and a number of SSBs per RACH occasion, as taught by Jeon. Doing so allows the wireless device to transmit a preamble on one or more PRACH resources that may comprise one or more PRACH occasions (Jeon: [0350]). Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Cozzo discloses receive, from the network using a random access response (RAR), a second configuration associated with performing Msg3 repetition (Fig. 8, [0099]: UE receives, from a gNB, a configuration indicating a number of repetitions of Msg3 PUSCH transmission); and perform the transmission based at least in part on the second configuration (Fig. 8, [0101]: UE transmits Msg3 with the number of repetitions when the PRACH transmission is successful). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device, as taught by Rastegardoost, to receive, from a gNB, a configuration indicating a number of repetitions of Msg3 PUSCH transmission, and to transmit Msg3 with the number of repetitions when the PRACH transmission is successful, as taught by Cozzo. Doing so provides coverage enhancements of Msg 3 (Cozzo: [0004]). Regarding claim(s) 17, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon and Cozzo discloses all features of claim(s) 16 as outlined above. Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Cozzo discloses wherein the RAR indicates a number of repetitions ([0103]: the number of repetitions of Msg3 PUSCH transmission is indicated by a field in the UL grant of the RAR message). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device, as taught by Rastegardoost, to receive, from the gNB, the configuration indicating the number of repetitions of Msg3 PUSCH transmission in the UL grant of the RAR message, as taught by Cozzo. Doing so provides coverage enhancements of Msg 3 (Cozzo: [0004]). Regarding claim(s) 18, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon and Cozzo discloses all features of claim(s) 16 as outlined above. Rastegardoost discloses wherein the transmission comprises a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission ([0222]: wireless device receives, from the base station, configuration regarding PUSCH occasions). Regarding claim(s) 19, Rastegardoost in view of Jeon and Cozzo discloses all features of claim(s) 16 as outlined above. Rastegardoost does not disclose, but Cozzo discloses wherein the RAR comprises an uplink (UL) grant (([0103]: the number of repetitions of Msg3 PUSCH transmission is indicated by a field in the UL grant of the RAR message)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the wireless device, as taught by Rastegardoost, to receive, from the gNB, the configuration indicating the number of repetitions of Msg3 PUSCH transmission in the UL grant of the RAR message, as taught by Cozzo. Doing so provides coverage enhancements of Msg 3 (Cozzo: [0004]). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm. 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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. 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. /THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478 TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 24, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 20, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 10, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 10, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Dec 11, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603722
CHANNEL STATE FEEDBACK REPORT FOR FREQUENCY DEPENDENT RESIDUAL SIDE BAND IMPAIRMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604354
COMMUNICATION PROCESSING METHOD OF TERMINAL INFORMATION AND RELATED DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598587
RESOURCE INDICATION INFORMATION TRANSMISSION METHOD, DEVICE, AND SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12587908
HANDOVER OF TERMINAL BETWEEN NODES SUPPORTING TWO RATS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587896
NULL RESOURCES CONFIGURATION FOR CHANNEL ESTIMATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+33.2%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 312 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month