DETAILED ACTION
The following communication is in response to the Reply filed on December 22, 2025.
Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 16, 29, and 30 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (i.e., system) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: processing system in claims 1-28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (e.g., paragraphs [0107]-[0114] of the filed specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, 15, 16, 19-25, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0061098 (hereinafter “Choi”) in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0145967 (newly cited, hereinafter “Park”).
Choi discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 1 and 29, a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (see at least paragraph 146, UE), the method and the apparatus comprising:
a processing system (see at least paragraphs 147-149, processor coupled to the memory and the processor controlling a series of operations to allow the UE to operate) configured to:
receive, from a first base station, an indication of a full duplex (FD) random access channel (RACH) configuration for one or more RACH resources (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the RedCap UE supporting full-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex);
select, based on the received indication, at least one RACH resource of the one or more RACH resources for the FD RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, through the PRACH configuration index, the random access configuration information included in the SIB, and the index of the SSB selected by the UE, the UE may identify the time and frequency resources for transmitting the random access preamble and transmit the selected sequence, as the preamble, to the base station); and
transmit, to the first base station via the selected at least one RACH resource, at least one message of a RACH procedure based on the FD RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, through the PRACH configuration index, the random access configuration information included in the SIB, and the index of the SSB selected by the UE, the UE may identify the time and frequency resources for transmitting the random access preamble and transmit the selected sequence, as the preamble, to the base station, where the random access configuration information is configured for the UE supporting full-duplex).
Choi does not explicitly disclose that the FD RACH configuration includes a first power configuration and that the at least one message is transmitted with a transmission power based on the first power configuration.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses or suggests a RACH configuration including a first power configuration and a random access preamble being transmitted with a transmission power based on the first power configuration (see at least paragraphs 322 and 326, the RACH configuration may comprise initial preamble power (e.g., random access preamble initial received target power) and a power-ramping factor (e.g., random access preamble power ramping step), where the wireless device may determine a transmit power for a transmission of a selected random access preamble at least based on an initial preamble power and a power-ramping factor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the RACH configuration and the random access preamble transmission technique, as taught by Park, in to the invention of Choi in order to ensure a successful random access procedure.
Choi further discloses or suggests:
regarding claim 4, the processing system is further configured to receive, from the first base station, an indication of a half duplex (HD) RACH configuration for a set of RACH resources, wherein at least one of (1) a first set of preambles associated with the FD RACH configuration is distinct from a second set of preambles associated with and the HD RACH configuration and (2) the one or more RACH resources associated with the FD RACH configuration are distinct from the set of RACH resources associated with the HD RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the RedCap UE supporting half-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex, where the separate configuration of random access resource for full-duplex and half-duplex renders the resources distinct from each other), wherein the one or more resources associated with the FD RACH configuration comprise at least one FD RACH occasion that overlaps with a scheduled downlink (DL) transmission (see at least paragraph 124, full-duplex communication refers to a communication scheme in which transmission and reception may be performed simultaneously);
regarding claim 5, the processing system is further configured to transmit, to the first base station, an indication of a capability of the at least one UE indicating that the at least one UE supports the FD RACH configuration, wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is received based on the transmitted indication (see at least paragraphs 111 and 124, capability information including at least one or more of whether full-duplex operation is supported, where the RedCap UE supporting full-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex);
regarding claim 6, the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is received via one of system information (SI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling (see at least paragraphs 106, 124, and 125, system information/SIB);
regarding claim 7, the one or more RACH resources comprise one or more of contention-based RACH resources and contention-free RACH resources (see at least paragraph 93, contention-based or contention-free scheme may be used), wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources is received via an RRC message (see at least paragraph 106, RRC);
regarding claim 8, the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is received based on an RRC state of the UE (see at least paragraphs 93 and 106, and Table 3, the base station may provide the UE with configuration information indicating which time-frequency resources may be used for PRACH, where the conditions/events under which a random access procedure is triggered is shown in Table 3, which includes a plurality of conditions/events related to the RRC state of the UE);
regarding claim 9, the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is received based on a RACH type associated with the UE (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the RedCap UE supporting full-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex);
regarding claim 10, the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is received based on a type of communication associated with communication between the UE and the first base station (see at least paragraphs 91-93 and 106, the base station may provide the UE with configuration information indicating which time-frequency resources may be used for PRACH for communication between the UE and the base station in NR type of communication); and
regarding claim 15, selecting at least one RACH resource of the one or more RACH resources for the FD RACH configuration comprises selecting the at least one RACH resource based on at least one of (1) a traffic type, (2) a determination that a downlink (DL) reference signal received power (RSRP) is above a threshold, or (3) an indication from the first base station (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, through the PRACH configuration index, the random access configuration information included in the SIB, and the index of the SSB selected by the UE, the UE may identify the time and frequency resources for transmitting the random access preamble based on the PRACH configuration index and the random access configuration information received from the base station).
Choi discloses or suggests:
regarding claims 16 and 30, a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station (see at least paragraph 151, base station), the method and the apparatus comprising:
a processing system (see at least paragraphs 151-153, processor coupled to the memory and the processor controlling a series of operations to allow the base station to operate) configured to:
configure one or more random access channel (RACH) resources for a full duplex (FD) RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex);
transmit, to at least one user equipment (UE), an indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the base station transmits, to a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex communication, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex); and
receive, from the at least one UE via the one or more RACH resources, at least one message of a RACH procedure based on the FD RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, through the PRACH configuration index, the random access configuration information included in the SIB, and the index of the SSB selected by the UE, the UE may identify the time and frequency resources for transmitting the random access preamble and transmit the selected sequence, as the preamble, to the base station, where the random access configuration information is configured for the UE supporting full-duplex, where the base station receives the preamble transmitted from the UE).
Choi does not explicitly disclose that the FD RACH configuration includes a first power configuration and that the at least one message is transmitted with a transmission power based on the first power configuration.
However, in an analogous art, Park discloses or suggests a RACH configuration including a first power configuration and a random access preamble being transmitted with a transmission power based on the first power configuration (see at least paragraphs 322 and 326, the RACH configuration may comprise initial preamble power (e.g., random access preamble initial received target power) and a power-ramping factor (e.g., random access preamble power ramping step), where the wireless device may determine a transmit power for a transmission of a selected random access preamble at least based on an initial preamble power and a power-ramping factor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the RACH configuration and the random access preamble transmission technique, as taught by Park, in to the invention of Choi in order to ensure a successful random access procedure.
Choi further discloses or suggests:
regarding claim 19, the processing system is further configured to configure a set of RACH resources for a half duplex (HD) RACH configuration, wherein at least one of (1) a first set of preambles associated with the FD RACH configuration is distinct from a second set of preambles associated with and the HD RACH configuration and (2) the one or more RACH resources associated with the FD RACH configuration are distinct from the set of RACH resources associated with the HD RACH configuration (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the RedCap UE supporting half-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex, where the separate configuration of random access resource for full-duplex and half-duplex renders the resources distinct from each other), wherein the one or more resources associated with the FD RACH configuration comprise at least one FD RACH occasion that overlaps with a scheduled downlink (DL) transmission (see at least paragraph 124, full-duplex communication refers to a communication scheme in which transmission and reception may be performed simultaneously);
regarding claim 20, the processing system is further configured to receive, from the at least one UE, an indication of a capability of the at least one UE indicating that the at least one UE supports the FD RACH configuration, wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is transmitted based on the received indication (see at least paragraphs 111 and 124, receiving capability information including at least one or more of whether full-duplex operation is supported, where the RedCap UE supporting full-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex);
regarding claim 21, the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is transmitted via one of system information (SI) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling (see at least paragraphs 106, 124, and 125, system information/SIB);
regarding claim 22, the one or more RACH resources comprise one or more of contention-based RACH resources and contention-free RACH resources (see at least paragraph 93, contention-based or contention-free scheme may be used), wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources is transmitted via an RRC message (see at least paragraph 106, RRC);
regarding claim 23, the processing system is further configured to determine an RRC state of the at least one UE, wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is transmitted based on the determination of the RRC state of the at least one UE (see at least paragraphs 93 and 106, and Table 3, the base station may provide the UE with configuration information indicating which time-frequency resources may be used for PRACH, where the conditions/events under which a random access procedure is triggered is shown in Table 3, which includes a plurality of conditions/events related to the RRC state of the UE);
regarding claim 24, the processing system is further configured to determine a RACH type associated with the at least one UE, wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is transmitted based on the determined RACH type (see at least paragraphs 106 and 124, the RedCap UE supporting full-duplex communication receives, from a base station, configuration information including resource information for random access, where the base station may configure a separate random access resource for each of a RedCap UE supporting full-duplex and a RedCap UE supporting half-duplex); and
regarding claim 25, the processing system is further configured to determine a type of communication associated with the at least one UE, wherein the indication of the one or more RACH resources configured for the FD RACH configuration is transmitted based on the determination of the type of communication associated with the at least one UE (see at least paragraphs 91-93 and 106, the base station may provide the UE with configuration information indicating which time-frequency resources may be used for PRACH for communication between the UE and the base station in NR type of communication).
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Park, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0164773 (hereinafter “Alfarhan”).
Regarding claims 11 and 26, Choi, as modified by Park, discloses all of the subject matter of the invention of claims 1 and 16 as described above but Choi, as modified by Park, does not explicitly disclose or suggest that the at least one message of the RACH procedure comprises a preamble and a payload, the processing system being further configured to: transmit a random access response (RAR) including fallback indication information indicating that the payload was not decoded, the fallback indication information further indicating power control information; and receive a retransmission of the payload based on the fallback indication information.
However, in an analogous art, Alfarhan discloses or suggests that the at least one message of the RACH procedure comprises a preamble and a payload (see at least paragraph 167, preamble and payload parts), the processing system being further configured to: transmit a random access response (RAR) including fallback indication information indicating that the payload was not decoded, the fallback indication information further indicating power control information (see at least paragraphs 151 and 167, receiving a fallback RAR indicating a payload retransmission, from which the WTRU/UE may determine that the payload transmission failed and to power ramp the payload transmission); and receive a retransmission of the payload based on the fallback indication information (see at least paragraph 167, the WTRU/UE retransmits the payload, which is received by the base station).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Alfarhan in to the invention of Choi, as modified by Park, in order to improve random access procedure and to avoid data loss.
Claims 12, 13, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Park, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2024/0171252 (hereinafter “Bhamri”).
Regarding claims 12, 13, 27, and 28, Choi, as modified by Park, discloses all of the subject matter of the invention of claims 1 and 16 as described above but Choi, as modified by Park, does not explicitly disclose or suggest that the processing system is further configured to transmit/receive one of (1) an indication that the at least one UE is allowed to transmit uplink (UL) data at a configured transmission power at a same time as the base station transmits DL data or (2) an indication that the at least one UE is not allowed to transmit UL data at a same time as the base station transmits DL data, wherein the indication is transmitted in one of DL control information (DCI) or in a random access response (RAR) indicating success of the RACH procedure, wherein an indication of the configured transmission power is at least one of (1) a reduced transmission power received via (i) L1 signaling or (ii) dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling or (2) a pre-configured reduced power transmission.
However, in an analogous art, Bhamri discloses or suggests that the processing system is further configured to transmit/receive one of (1) an indication that the at least one UE is allowed to transmit uplink (UL) data at a configured transmission power at a same time as the base station transmits DL data or (2) an indication that the at least one UE is not allowed to transmit UL data at a same time as the base station transmits DL data, wherein the indication is transmitted in one of DL control information (DCI) or in a random access response (RAR) indicating success of the RACH procedure, wherein an indication of the configured transmission power is at least one of (1) a reduced transmission power received via (i) L1 signaling or (ii) dedicated radio resource control (RRC) signaling or (2) a pre-configured reduced power transmission (see at least paragraphs 267 and 273, DCI for UE full-duplex operation for simultaneous UL transmission and DL reception associated with two beams of at least one TRP, where a maximum transmit power level is pre-configured in joint configuration of self-interference measurements at the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Bhamri in to the invention of Choi, as modified by Park, in order to minimize interference during full-duplex operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 14, 17, and 18 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.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 03/13/2026