DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 10 April 2026. Claims 9, 11, and 13-14 are now pending in the present application and claims 1-8, 10, and 12 are canceled. This office action is made Final.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (hereinafter Li) (WO 2021/012137 A1).
Regarding claims 9, 13, and 14, Li discloses a terminal (e.g., UE 115) { (see Figs. 7-9, 11, & 15) } comprising:
a receiver (e.g., UE 115, 1120) that receives a notification including information regarding an application condition of a number of repetitions of uplink channel transmission, and receives a downlink signal { (see pp. 44-45, [0170, 0173]; pg. 2, [0005]; Figs. 7-9, 11, & 15), where the system provides a UE (115) with parameters of a number of repetitions (see pg. 43, [0163]; pg. 46, [0176]; pg. 27, [0112]; pg. 53, [0216]) }; and
a processor (e.g., UE 115, 1140) that determines, based on the information regarding the application condition and a received power (e.g., signal strength) of the downlink signal, the number of repetitions to apply to the uplink channel transmission { (see pg. 53, [0216]); pp. 44-45, [0170, 0173]; pg. 2, [0005]; Figs. 7-9, 11, & 15), where the system provides a UE (115) with parameters of a number of repetitions and a processor (1140) (see pg. 43, [0163]; pg. 46, [0176]; pg. 27, [0112]), and monitors signal strength and signal quality (see pp. 23-24, [0099-0100]; pg. 25, [0103]; pg. 30, [0120]; pg. 31, [0124]) },
wherein the application condition is a range of a reference signal received power (RSRP) of the downlink signal, and when the RSRP of the downlink signal is within the range, the processor determines to apply the number of repetitions to the uplink channel transmission { (see pp. 23-24, [0099-0100]; pg. 25, [0103]; pg. 30, [0120]; pg. 31, [0124]; Figs. 7-9, 11, & 15), monitors signal strength and signal quality (see pg. 53, [0216]); pp. 44-45, [0170, 0173]) }.
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the terminal according to claim 9, wherein the receiver (e.g., UE 115, 1120) receives the notification by broadcast (e.g., PBCH) or higher layer signaling { (see pg. 30, [0130]; pg. 53, [0216]; Figs. 7-9, 11, & 15) }.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments as the applied reference(s) provide more than adequate support and to further clarify (see the above claims for relevant citations and comments in this section).
Regarding applicant’s argument of claim 9 on pg. 7, 3rd full par., “…fail to disclose determining the number of repetitions of the random access preamble based on a received power of a downlink…”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has failed to interpret and appreciate the teachings of well-known prior art ??? that clearly discloses the claimed feature(s) as would be clearly recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As a note, applicant statement and orig. spec. discloses is the following:
Note 1: Applicant states “…Support for the amendments can be found in the originally-filed specification, for example at least in claim 10…” without citing any specific paragraphs/figures of orig. spec. as support.
Note 2: The applicant is advised to review the subject matter of the orig. specification (see pg. 52, [0272]), which basically describes “…application condition may be at least one of…received power / reception quality of a specific SSB is equal to or lower than a threshold (for example, the specific SSB…corresponding to the highest received power / reception quality among 65 SSBs)…”.
Note 3: The applicant is advised to review the subject matter of the orig. specification (see pg. 54, [0277]), which clearly states “…application condition may be defined by a range of a value P of an SSB RSRP. Boundary values P_0, P_1, and P_2 may be defined in a specification or may be notified…”.
As a note, applicant admits the following:
Admission #1: Applicant admits “…Li discloses that UE…may receive an indication (e.g., in an SSB) of a number of repetitions for the initial random access preamble and a repetition pattern from the base station…” (see pg. 7, 1st full par., lines 1 et seq.).
Admission #2: Applicant admits “…Li…transmit signals multiple time in different directions for identifying a beam direction for…transmission or reception by the UE…direction which has the best reception quality…” (see pg. 7, 2nd full par.). Therefore, the BS and UE has a feedback operation for determining quality and power control.
In particular, Li discloses the language as related to the claimed feature(s)
wherein the application condition is a range of a reference signal received power (RSRP) of the downlink signal { (see pg. 23, [0098]), where the base station (e.g., 105) transmits reference signals, and the UE receives a SSB and parameters for transmitting repetitions (see pg. 16, lines 1-4 [0077], lines 5-11,16-23 [0078]; pg. 29, lines 5-7 [0116]; pg. 17, [0082, lines 23-27]), and monitors signal strength and signal quality (see pp. 23-24, [0099-0100]; pg. 25, [0103]; pg. 30, [0120]; pg. 53, [0216]); pp. 44-45, [0170, 0173]), }, and
when the RSRP of the downlink signal is within the range, the processor determines to apply the number of repetitions to the uplink channel transmission { (see pp. 23-24, [0099-0100]; pg. 25, [0103]; pg. 30, [0120]; pg. 31, [0124]; Figs. 7-9, 11, & 15), monitors signal strength and signal quality (see pg. 53, [0216]); pp. 44-45, [0170, 0173]), and the base station (e.g., 105) transmits reference signals(see pg. 23, [0098]), and the UE receives a SSB and parameters for transmitting repetitions (see pg. 16, lines 1-4 [0077], lines 5-11,16-23 [0078]; pg. 29, lines 5-7 [0116]; pg. 17, [0082, lines 23-27]) }.
Therefore, as addressed above, the applied reference more than adequately meets the claim limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument(s) of claims 11 and 13-14, the claims are addressed for the same reasons as set forth above and as applied above in each claim rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al. (US 2023/0074086 A1) discloses repetition of a transport block via a plurality of carriers.
Moroga et al. (US 11,595,997 B2) discloses user terminal, radio base station and radio communication method.
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 WILLIE J DANIEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-7907. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 - 6.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420. 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.
/WILLIE J DANIEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
WJD,Jr
26 May 2026
Prosecution Insights