DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 2/1/2024 in which claims 1, 2, 5, and 13-29 are pending.
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 .
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 13-19, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ly et al. (US20210037573A1).
As to claims 1, 13, 15, and 27, Ly teaches a method performed by a user equipment (UE), the method comprising: (claim 1 figs. 3 and 9)
receiving, from a base station (BS), multiple random access (RA) channel (RACH) configurations (claim 1 receiving, from a base station, random access configuration information, the random-access configuration information comprising a plurality of random-access configurations; [0069] In some aspects, the plurality of random access configurations may include additional parameters beyond those of conventional two-step RACH process for regular UEs)
comprising a non-feature-related RACH configuration indicating a first subset of preambles in each RA occasion (RO) of a set of ROs configured for a contention- based (CB) RA procedure, and ([0069] the plurality of random access configuration may include additional parameters for non-high end UEs or mid-tier and/or low-tier UEs, …at least one of the plurality of random access configurations may comprise contention-based parameters for transmitting the first random access message in a contention based random access procedure. [0092])
at least one feature-related RACH configuration associated with a first number of features, each feature-related RACH configuration indicating a subset of preambles in each RO of the set of ROs for a feature; and ([0038] The UE 104 may be configured to select one of the plurality of random access configurations which optimize and/or enhance coverage for a two-step RACH process. The UE 104 may generate a first random access message having a preamble and a payload, based on the selected random access configuration. [0069] the plurality of random access configuration may include additional parameters for non-high end UEs or mid-tier and/or low-tier UEs,)
determining a set of preambles to perform an RA procedure in an RO based on the first subset of preambles and a second subset of preambles that are determined from the at least one feature-related RACH configuration for the first number of features. (Claim 1 generating a first random access message having a preamble and a payload, based on the selected random access configuration; and transmitting the first random access message to the base station to initiate a random access procedure.)
As to claims 2, 14, 16, and 28, Ly teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein the first number of features comprise at least one of: reduced capability, coverage enhancement, small data transmission, and radio access network (RAN) slicing. ([0038] Referring again to FIG. 1, in certain aspects, the UE 104 may be configured to select random access configuration from a plurality of random access configuration that provide coverage enhancements in a two-step random access procedure. [0060] 5G NR may initially support 5G UEs (e.g., high end UEs, such as UEs supporting eMBB or URLLC services), but may also support non-high end UEs or NR reduced capability UEs (e.g., mid-tier and/or low tier UEs).As such, NR reduced capability UEs or non-high end UEs are likely to have limited coverage during a RACH procedure. Thus, it would be advantageous to provide coverage enhancement for two-step RACH procedure for NR reduced capability UEs or non-high end UEs while taking into consideration the coexistence between the two-step RACH process for high end UEs and NR reduced capability UEs. [0069] the plurality of random access configuration may include additional parameters for non-high end UEs or mid-tier and/or low-tier UEs)
As to claims 5, 19, and 29, Ly teaches the method of Claim 1, wherein an order of each feature in the first number of features is preconfigured or indicated by a configuration in system information block, based on which the preambles for the features are determined. ([0058] Prior to the beginning of a two-step RACH process, the UE may receive random access configuration information 06 from the base station. For example, the UE may receive an SSB, a SIB, and/or a reference signal broadcast by the base station. The UE may process these signals and channels and determine the configuration for the two-step RACH. [0065] The random-access configuration information may be transmitted by the base station to the UE in the form of a downlink reference signal (RS) and/or a physical channel such as a synchronization signal block (SSB) or system information block (SIB). The UE may receive and process the random-access configuration information in order to determine the configuration suitable for the two-step RACH process.)
As to claim 17, Ly teaches the UE of Claim 15, wherein the set of preambles comprises the first subset of preambles and the second subset of preambles, and wherein the second subset of preambles are configured by a base station (BS). ([0060] 5G NR may initially support 5G UEs (e.g., high end UEs, such as UEs supporting eMBB or URLLC services), but may also support non-high end UEs or NR reduced capability UEs (e.g., mid-tier and/or low tier UEs). Thus, it would be advantageous to provide coverage enhancement for two-step RACH procedure for NR reduced capability UEs or non-high end UEs while taking into consideration the coexistence between the two-step RACH process for high end UEs and NR reduced capability UEs.)
As to claim 18, Ly teaches the UE of Claim 15, wherein the set of preambles comprises the first subset of preambles and the second subset of preambles, and wherein the second subset of preambles comprises preambles that are configured for each of a second number of features among the first number of features that are not associated with the RO. ([0060] 5G NR may initially support 5G UEs (e.g., high end UEs, such as UEs supporting eMBB or URLLC services), but may also support non-high end UEs or NR reduced capability UEs (e.g., mid-tier and/or low tier UEs). Thus, it would be advantageous to provide coverage enhancement for two-step RACH procedure for NR reduced capability UEs or non-high end UEs while taking into consideration the coexistence between the two-step RACH process for high end UEs and NR reduced capability UEs.)
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.
Claim(s) 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over unpatentable over Ly in view of ERICSSON, "RACH partitioning for Rel-17 features", 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #114e, Tdoc R2-2104933, Electronic meeting, 2021-05-19 - 2021-05-27. [Retrieved from the Internet], 05/2021, 6 pages as cited in the IDS filed on 6/20/2025.
As to claim 20, Ly teaches the UE of Claim 19,
But does not specifically teach:
wherein preambles for each of a third number of features among the first number of features that are associated with the RO comprise a number of first sub-subsets, each first sub-subset corresponds to a feature in the third number of features, preambles that are configured for each of the second number of features comprise a number of second sub-subsets, each second sub-subset corresponds to a feature in the second number of features, an order of each first sub-subset in the number of first sub-subsets is determined according to a relative order of one or more features corresponding to the number of first sub-subsets, and an order of each second sub-subset in the number of second sub-subsets is determined according to a relative order of one or more features corresponding to the number of second sub-subsets.
However Ericsson teaches in section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
As to claim 21, Ly in view of Ericsson teaches the UE of Claim 20, wherein an order of each sub-subset in the number of first sub-subsets and the number of second sub-subsets is determined according to the order of a feature corresponding to the sub-subset. (Ericsson section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
As to claim 22, Ly in view of Ericsson teaches the UE of Claim 20, wherein each first sub-subset has an order lower than that of any second sub-subset. (Ericsson section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
As to claim 23, Ly in view of Ericsson teaches the UE of Claim 20, wherein each second sub-subset has an order lower than that of any first sub-subset. (Ericsson section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
As to claim 24, Ly teaches the UE of Claim 15,
But does not specifically teach:
wherein the first number of features comprise a joint feature relating to at least a first independent feature and a second independent feature, and the at least one feature-related RACH configuration indicates at least a first number of preambles corresponding to the first independent feature and a second number of preambles corresponding to the second independent feature.
However Ericsson teaches in section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
As to claim 25, Ly in view of Ericsson teaches the UE of Claim 24, wherein the at least one feature-related RACH configuration further indicates a third number of preambles corresponding to the joint feature, and the joint feature is configured with the third number of preambles comprising at least a first part of preambles from the first number of preambles and a second part of preambles from the second number of preambles. (Ericsson section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles. ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
As to claim 26, Ly in view of Ericsson teaches the UE of Claim 24, wherein the first number of preambles or the second number of preambles are configured for the joint feature when no RACH configuration indicates a number of preambles corresponding to the joint feature.
(Ericsson section 1 describes multiple features, 2.1 describes preamble partitioning for different groups, 2.2 describes preamble partitioning for different group having different features and section 2.3 includes a table for possible feature combinations for preambles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to understand that preambles used for individual features may also be used for feature combinations as seen in the RACH partitioning of Ericsson. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the RACH procedure of Ly with the RACH partitioning of Ericsson in order to differentiate between different RA preambles/procedures given the different feature combinations that are possible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9933. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 Mon-Fri.
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 at (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 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.
/Elton Williams/Examiner, Art Unit 2465