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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed on 04/10/2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 4-6 are amended; Claims 2-3 and 7 are cancelled and Claims 1, 4-6 are currently pending.
In light of the amendment, the 112(b) rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 04/10/2026, 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.
Applicant amended the independent claims significantly, which necessitates the new ground rejection.
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, 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.
Claims, 1, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al (US 2022/0312501 A1), in view of Abindader et al (US 2023/0318684 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 5, Lei teaches a terminal/method (Fig. 6, UE 115-c) comprising:
a transmitting section (Fig. 7, element 720) that transmits a message in a random access procedure in a physical uplink shared channel (Fig. 4, step 415 and 420; and also see [0129], “UE 115-b may transmit, to base station 105-b, a payload of the first message (e.g., msgA payload), where the payload is transmitted in one or more PUSCH occasions associated with the RACH occasion”); and
a control section (Fig. 7, element 715) that controls a plurality of repetitions of at least one of reception of a downlink channel for scheduling the physical uplink shared channel (Fig.4, step 435) and transmission of the physical uplink shared channel (Fig. 3, [0123], “a first random access message of the two-step RACH procedure (e.g., a msgA) may fail as described above, leading to the UE 115 to determine to retransmit the first random access message. However, the UE 115 may determine to reconfigure the first random access message according to a set of transmission configuration options (e.g., transmission parameters that can be changed by the UE 115) to improve performance of the first random access message transmission”),
wherein the control section uses a plurality of beams for the plurality of respective repetitions ([0125], “the retransmission of the first random access message may use a second transmission configuration state 305-b, a third transmission configuration state 305-c, etc. up to a k-th transmission configuration state 305-k”, “the transmission configuration state 305-k may include a different transmit beam than the other transmission configuration states 305, etc”), wherein when initial transmission of the message has failed, the control section controls the plurality of repetitions of the transmission of the physical uplink shared channel (Fig. 3, [0123], “a first random access message of the two-step RACH procedure (e.g., a msgA) may fail as described above, leading to the UE 115 to determine to retransmit the first random access message. However, the UE 115 may determine to reconfigure the first random access message according to a set of transmission configuration options (e.g., transmission parameters that can be changed by the UE 115) to improve performance of the first random access message transmission”), and
Lei doesn’t explicitly teach that the beams for the plurality of repetitions of the transmission of the physical uplink shared channel are narrower than a beam for the initial transmission of the message, wherein an index of the beam for the initial transmission is associated with indexes of the beams for the repetition of transmissions.
Abindader teaches that the beams for the plurality of repetitions of the transmission of the physical uplink shared channel are narrower than a beam for the initial transmission of the message, wherein an index of the beam for the initial transmission is associated with indexes of the beams for the repetition of transmissions ([0080], “2) BS Beam Refinement: also known as “P2 procedure”, is a procedure for further refining the serving BS beam selected during the P1 procedure, usually conducted by transmitting a sequence of CSI-RSs (channel state information reference signals) over the narrow beams that are quasi-co-located (QCL) with the wide SSB beam, then deciding the N best narrow CSI-RS beams (e.g. higher RSRPs), reporting the N best beams to gNB via TRP (transmission/reception point) report, then the gNB selects the new serving BS beam, and finally the gNB informs the new serving BS beam to the UE via DCI (downlink control information) signaling indicating the new TCI (transmission configuration indicator) state to be used”, also see [0081], it’s noted that the narrow CSI-RS beams (repetition beams) are spatially associated/linked to the wide SSB beam (initial transmission beam) via the QCL relationship. The SSB index directly maps to the set of CSI-RS beam indices used in repetition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Abindader in the system disclosed by Lei. The combination is to apply narrow beam refinement to PUSCH repetitions (a known device/method) would predictably yield improved signal gain and coverage – exactly the result both techniques independently aim to achieve. No unexpected result arises from the combination.
Regarding claim 6, Lei teaches a base station comprising:
a receiving section that receives a message in a random access procedure in a physical uplink shared channel (Fig. 4, step 415 and 420; and also see [0129], “UE 115-b may transmit, to base station 105-b, a payload of the first message (e.g., msgA payload), where the payload is transmitted in one or more PUSCH occasions associated with the RACH occasion”); and
a control section that controls a plurality of repetitions of at least one of transmission of a downlink channel for scheduling the physical uplink shared channel (Fig.4, step 435; Fig. 6, step 605) and reception of the physical uplink shared channel (Fig. 6, step 630, 635 and 640; see [0126], [0123]).
wherein the control section uses a plurality of beams for the plurality of respective repetitions ([0125], “the retransmission of the first random access message may use a second transmission configuration state 305-b, a third transmission configuration state 305-c, etc. up to a k-th transmission configuration state 305-k”, “the transmission configuration state 305-k may include a different transmit beam than the other transmission configuration states 305, etc”), wherein when initial transmission of the message has failed, the control section controls the plurality of repetitions of the transmission of the physical uplink shared channel (Fig. 3, [0123], “a first random access message of the two-step RACH procedure (e.g., a msgA) may fail as described above, leading to the UE 115 to determine to retransmit the first random access message. However, the UE 115 may determine to reconfigure the first random access message according to a set of transmission configuration options (e.g., transmission parameters that can be changed by the UE 115) to improve performance of the first random access message transmission”), and
Lei doesn’t explicitly teach that the beams for the plurality of repetitions of the transmission of the physical uplink shared channel are narrower than a beam for the initial transmission of the message, wherein an index of the beam for the initial transmission is associated with indexes of the beams for the repetition of transmissions.
Abindader teaches that the beams for the plurality of repetitions of the transmission of the physical uplink shared channel are narrower than a beam for the initial transmission of the message, wherein an index of the beam for the initial transmission is associated with indexes of the beams for the repetition of transmissions ([0080], “2) BS Beam Refinement: also known as “P2 procedure”, is a procedure for further refining the serving BS beam selected during the P1 procedure, usually conducted by transmitting a sequence of CSI-RSs (channel state information reference signals) over the narrow beams that are quasi-co-located (QCL) with the wide SSB beam, then deciding the N best narrow CSI-RS beams (e.g. higher RSRPs), reporting the N best beams to gNB via TRP (transmission/reception point) report, then the gNB selects the new serving BS beam, and finally the gNB informs the new serving BS beam to the UE via DCI (downlink control information) signaling indicating the new TCI (transmission configuration indicator) state to be used”, also see [0081], it’s noted that the narrow CSI-RS beams (repetition beams) are spatially associated/linked to the wide SSB beam (initial transmission beam) via the QCL relationship. The SSB index directly maps to the set of CSI-RS beam indices used in repetition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Abindader in the system disclosed by Lei. The combination is to apply narrow beam refinement to PUSCH repetitions (a known device/method) would predictably yield improved signal gain and coverage – exactly the result both techniques independently aim to achieve. No unexpected result arises from the combination.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al (US 2022/0312501 A1), in view of Abindader et al (US 2023/0318684 A1), further in view of Shih et la (US 11,291,012 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Lei in view of Abindader teaches all of the limitations as applied to claim 3, further teaches that the random access procedure is based on a first synchronization signal block (Fig. 4, step 405, “SSB” transmitted from BS to UE, SSB correspond to synchronization signal block; [0128], “UE 115-b may perform a downlink synchronization based on the received SSB to synchronize with base station 105-b prior to beginning the two-step RACH procedure”). However, Lei fails to disclose that retransmission of the message is based on a second synchronization signal block.
Shih discloses that retransmission of the message is based on a second synchronization signal block (see Claim 6, “after the transmission using the at least one PUR is not successful, determining whether the first beam becomes unsuitable based on the RSRP of the first SSB; selecting, by the UE, a second SSB from the multiple SSBs to perform a retransmission of the data in the RRC_INACTIVE state if the UE determines that the first beam is unsuitable and the second SSB fulfills the at least one condition”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the teaching of Shih in the system disclosed by Lei in view of Abindader for the purpose of improving transmission reliability by switching to a different beam associated with another SSB.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIMING LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3859. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/SIMING LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights