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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filled on 04/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 21, 25,27,30,33,37,39, are amended.
Claims 42-45 are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments filed on 04/16/2026 have been fully considered and but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection(s)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HÖGLUND to (WO 2022081071 A1) in view of Sui to (WO 2021158162 A1)
Regarding claims 21,27,33,39 HÖGLUND teaches receiving a first message, wherein the first message is usable to determine an indication manner of a device type of a terminal device, (pages 17, lines 25-30 discloses network node 16 such as via one or more of processing circuitry 68, processor 70, signaling unit 32, communication interface 60 and radio interface 62 is configured to receive (Block SI 34) a reduced capability, RedCap, indication in at least one of message 1, Msgl, and message 3, Msg3) wherein the indication manner of the device type of the terminal device comprises indicating the device type of the terminal device via message 3 (Msg3), or indicating the device type of the terminal device via message 1 (Msg1); (pages 17, lines 25-30 discloses network node 16 such as via one or more of processing circuitry 68, processor 70, signaling unit 32, communication interface 60 and radio interface 62 is configured to receive (Block SI 34) a reduced capability, RedCap, indication in at least one of message 1, Msgl, and message 3, Msg3) and indicating the device type of the terminal device using the indication manner of the device type of the terminal device, page 18, lines 3-8 discloses processing circuitry 68 is configured to indicate, in system information, SI, that RedCap physical random access channel, PRACH, resources have been configured. According to one or more embodiments, if the indication is received in Msgl, one of: receiving the indication in the Msg3 indicates a RedCap type; and failing to receive the Msg3 indicates the wireless device is a non-RedCap wireless device)
HÖGLUND does not explicitly teach a second message, wherein the second message is usable to determine an indication manner of a second device type of a second terminal device, wherein the second device type of the second terminal device is different from the device type of the terminal device
However, Yui teaches a second message, wherein the second message is usable to determine an indication manner of a second device type of a second terminal device, wherein the second device type of the second terminal device is different from the device type of the terminal device ( page 23, lines 17-25 discloses the UE provides the first part of its 5G shortened temporary mobile subscriber identity (5G-S-TMSI) in Msg3 and the second part of the 5G-S-TMSI in Msg5 (e.g., the ID is split due to size constraints).. If several NR REDCAP UE classes/types/categories are introduced, until the UE ID is made known and the full UE capabilities can be retrieved, all REDCAP UEs can act as and be treated like the least capable of these UEs. However, many IoT applications such as sensor reporting transmit a very small data payload, and if EDT were employed, there would be very little signaling after the UE ID is known (e.g., in Msg3 or Msg5, respectively). In other words, if multiple NR REDCAP UE classes/types/categories are introduced, some type of early UE capability indication is required for the higher classes/types/categories to see any benefit from their higher capabilities (e.g., higher bitrate and/or longer UE battery life))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of HÖGLUND include a second message, wherein the second message is usable to determine an indication manner of a second device type of a second terminal device, wherein the second device type of the second terminal device is different from the device type of the terminal device, as suggested by Yui. This modification would benefit the system as a design choice.
Regarding claims 22,28,34,40, HÖGLUND teaches the device type of the terminal device is indicated by a correspondence between a transmission resource and the device type of the terminal device;(page 18, lines 3-8 discloses processing circuitry 68 is configured to indicate, in system information, SI, that RedCap physical random access channel, PRACH, resources have been configured. According to one or more embodiments, if the indication is received in Msgl, one of: receiving the indication in the Msg3 indicates a RedCap type; and failing to receive the Msg3 indicates the wireless device is a non-RedCap wireless device)
Regarding claims 23,29,35, HÖGLUND teaches wherein the transmission resource is at least one of a time domain resource or a frequency domain resource or a code domain resource of a random access preamble(page 25, lines 19-30 discloses The network node 16 such as via one or more of processing circuitry 68, processor 70, radio interface 62, signaling unit 32, etc., by default may detect PUSCH transmission (e.g., by DMRS detection) according to the time domain resource allocation corresponding to the first total slot offset value).
Regarding claims 24,36, HÖGLUND teaches determining the indication manner of the device type of the terminal device based on the first message from a network device(page 18, lines 3-8 discloses processing circuitry 68 is configured to indicate, in system information, SI, that RedCap physical random access channel, PRACH, resources have been configured. According to one or more embodiments, if the indication is received in Msgl, one of: receiving the indication in the Msg3 indicates a RedCap type; and failing to receive the Msg3 indicates the wireless device is a non-RedCap wireless device).
Regarding claims 25,30,37, HÖGLUND teaches wherein the first message is a system information block(page 18, lines 3-8 discloses processing circuitry 68 is configured to indicate, in system information, SI, that RedCap physical random access channel, PRACH, resources have been configured. According to one or more embodiments, if the indication is received in Msgl, one of: receiving the indication in the Msg3 indicates a RedCap type; and failing to receive the Msg3 indicates the wireless device is a non-RedCap wireless device).
Regarding claims 26,31,38 , HÖGLUND teaches wherein when the indication manner comprises indicating the device type of the terminal device via Msg1, the indication manner further comprises indicating the device type of the terminal device via Msg3(page 18, lines 3-8 discloses processing circuitry 68 is configured to indicate, in system information, SI, that RedCap physical random access channel, PRACH, resources have been configured. According to one or more embodiments, if the indication is received in Msgl, one of: receiving the indication in the Msg3 indicates a RedCap type; and failing to receive the Msg3 indicates the wireless device is a non-RedCap wireless device).
Regarding claim 32, HÖGLUND teaches sending second message, wherein the second message is usable to determine an indication manner of a second device type of a second terminal device, and wherein the second device type of the second terminal device is different from the REDCAP UE( page 21, lines 1-10 discloses A RedCap wireless device 22 is expected to use a Msgl indication, and the presence of a Msg3 indication further determines how the network node 16 interprets the wireless device 22’ s intentions and/or RedCap type: in one embodiment, if both Msgl and Msg3 indications are present, the network node 16 interprets the wireless device 22 to be of RedCap wireless device 22 type 1 and if Msgl indication is present but Msg3 indication is not present, the network node 16 interprets the wireless device 22 to be of RedCap wireless device 22 type 2 which is different from the RedCap wireless device type 1).
Regarding claims 42,43,44,45, HÖGLUND teaches wherein the device type of the terminal device is reduced capability user equipment (REDCAP UE) ( page 21, lines 1-10 discloses A RedCap wireless device 22 is expected to use a Msgl indication, and the presence of a Msg3 indication further determines how the network node 16 interprets the wireless device 22’ s intentions and/or RedCap type).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEWDU A BEYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ZEWDU A BEYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights