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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues ZTE Corporation discloses information indicating the repetition number of Msg 3 explicitly by using DCI or implicitly by Msg 1 transmission. However, ZTE Corporation fails to disclose sending msg 1 to indicate that the terminal requires repeated transmission of msg 3, as now recited in claim 1 and similarly in claim 9 and 18. Examiner respectfully disagrees. ZTE Corporation explicitly discusses using Msg1 to implicitly indicate repetition factor. Example quote/teaching in the reference: “Option 3: Implicit method. E.g., the repetition factor is implicitly determined by Msg1 transmission.” The reference also describes configuring dedicated PRACH resources or preamble groups for coverage enhancement and mapping preamble/PRACH choice to UE channel quality or repetition behavior. That teaches the UE choosing Msg1 (resource/preamble) that leads the network to apply a specific repetition behavior. This satisfies claimed limitation, UE uses Msg1 to indicate/trigger repetition. The reference also discusses ways the gNB indicates repetition in RAR/DCI. It lists options for indication in RAR/D CI and schedules Msg3 repetition. Thus, the ZTE Corporation reference can be read to disclose the claimed limitation, especially where it teaches Msg1→implicit determination and RAR/DCI → indicating repetition. Since ZTE Corporation teaches the UE‑side Msg1 indication (explicit or implicit), it can be used to combine those teaching of TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI to arrive at claim 1. See the detailed rejection below.
Claims 9 and 18 reciting similar features to those of amended claim 1 and claims 2-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 depending from claims 1, 9, and 18 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See the detailed rejection below.
In view of the amendment, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of claims 4-8 and 12-17 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAHERZADEH BOROUJENI (US 20210266955 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Taherzadeh”) in view of ZTE Corporation, 3GPP TSG RAN WG #103-e, cited in IDS of 03/04/2024, hereinafter referred to as “ZTE Corporation”.
Regarding claims 1, Taherzadeh teaches an information indication method, being applied to a terminal and comprising: receiving a random access response or scheduling information of the random access response, wherein a repetition number of the msg 3 is indicated in the random access response or the scheduling information of the random access response (see Abstract describing the UE may receive a random access response (RAR)/ or msg2 transmitted by a base station. The msg2 indicates to the UE to transmit a plurality of repetitions of a msg3; Table 1 and Para [0071] shows the msg2/RAR message includes an UL grant or a DL grant, which is interpreted as scheduling information). However, Taherzadeh fails to disclose wherein the msg 1 is used to indicate that the terminal requires repeated transmission of msg 3 or a repetition number of msg 3 expected by the terminal.
In the same field of endeavor, ZTE Corporation explicitly teaches that the repetition factor for Msg3 may be implicitly determined by Msg1: it discusses options for indicating repetition factor and lists “Option 3: Implicit method. E.g., the repetition factor is implicitly determined by Msg1 transmission.” (See RAN1#103‑e, section 2.2, discussion of Msg3 repetition aspects and proposals to use PRACH / preamble selection or dedicated PRACH resources/preamble groups to differentiate UEs that require coverage enhancement and to implicitly convey repetition behavior.) ZTE Corporation also discloses configuring first (coverage‑enhancement) and second (normal) PRACH resources and configuring preamble groups such that selection of a preamble or PRACH resource can signal information about the UE’s needs (e.g., channel quality, need for repeat transmissions, or desired repetition number).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Taherzadeh and ZTE Corporation. Both references address the same goal — improving RACH success for cell‑edge/weak UEs by repeating Msg3. It is obvious to use ZTE Corporation’s Msg1 to provide indication to identify UEs requiring repetition and to use the mechanism taught by Taherzadeh to convey the exact repetition number (or resource allocation) to the UE. Combining ZTE corporation’s teaching (UE selection of Msg1 resource/preamble to flag repetition need) with Taherzadeh’s teaching (Msg2/DCI indicating the number of Msg3 repetitions) yields the claimed two‑step sequence recited in claim 1 and other similar claims. The motivation to combine is to allow the UE to indicate its need via Msg1 selection, and allow the network to assign repetition counts via RAR/DCI, thereby providing an enhancement for msg3 repetitions in 5G random access procedure.
Regarding claim 2, Taherzadeh teaches wherein the random-access response comprises a first bit field, and the first bit field is used for indicating the repetition number of msg 3. (Para [0079] it is noted repetition parameters well-known included in RAR message, particularly in RARgrant field made up of bit fields carried by PDCCH/PDSCH).
Regarding claim 3, Taherzadeh teaches wherein the first bit field comprises a random-access response scheduling grant (RARgrant) field. (Table 1, Para [0071-0072] UL/DL grants).
Regarding claims 4, 12, Taherzadeh further teaches the overall RACH message flow (Msg1 → Msg2 → repeated Msg3 → Msg4) and terminal channel quality in Msg1 (Table 1; Para [0071-0071, 0075]).; however, Taherzadeh fails to disclose wherein the msg 1 includes a repetition number of msg 3 expected by the terminal.
In the same field of endeavor, ZTE Corporation in section 2.2 teaches potential enhancements on msg3 PUSCH repetition, in which an indication of the number of repetitions for msg3 is determined msg1.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a repetition number of msg 3 expected by the terminal in msg 1 for providing an enhancement for msg3 repetitions in 5G random access procedure. The combination of Taherzadeh and ZTE corporation with motivation is discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5, 13, Taherzadeh teaches a random access channel resource used by the msg 1 is a resource in a first random access channel resource; and the first random access channel resource is a random access channel resource used when the repeated transmission of the msg 3 is required (Para [0054, 0055, 0070-0071, 0073] Msg1 includes resource requirements).
Regarding claims 6, 14, Taherzadeh teaches the random access channel resource used by the msg 1 is a resource, in the first random access channel resource, corresponding to the channel quality of the terminal; and different random access channel resources in the first random access channel resource correspond to different channel qualities; or at least two random access channel resources in the first random access channel resource correspond to different channel qualities (Para [0054, 0055, 0070-0071, 0073] Msg1 includes resource requirements)
Regrading claims 7, 16, Taherzadeh teaches a random access preamble used by the msg 1 is a preamble in a first random access preamble group; and the first random access preamble group is a random access preamble group used when the repeated transmission of the msg 3 is required (Table 1; Para [0070] Preamble group in random access procedure is well-known used for Msg 1 and Para[0070] states msg1 may include one or more RACH preambles).
Regarding claims 8, 17, Taherzadeh teaches The method according to claim 7, wherein: the random access preamble used by the msg 1 is a preamble, in the first random access preamble group, corresponding to the channel quality of the terminal (Table 1; Para[0071-0071, 0075]); and different random access preambles in the first random access preamble group correspond to different channel qualities (Para [0075]); or at least two random access preambles in the first random access preamble group correspond to different channel qualities (Para [0075]).
Regarding claim 9, Taherzadeh teaches a terminal, comprising: a processor; a transceiver coupled to the processor; and a memory configured to store executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor, through loading and executing the executable instructions, is configured to: receive, via the transceiver, a random access response or scheduling information of the random access response, wherein a repetition number of message (msg) 3 is indicated in the random access response or the scheduling information of the random access response (Abstract; Para [0008]) (see Abstract and Para [008] describing the UE may receive a random access response (RAR)/ or msg2 transmitted by a base station. The msg2 indicates to the UE to transmit a plurality of repetitions of a msg3; Table 1 and Para [0071] shows the msg2/RAR message includes an UL grant or a DL grant, which is interpreted as scheduling information). However, Taherzadeh fails to disclose wherein the msg 1 is used to indicate that the terminal requires repeated transmission of msg 3.
In the same field of endeavor, ZTE Corporation explicitly teaches that the repetition factor for Msg3 may be implicitly determined by Msg1: it discusses options for indicating repetition factor and lists “Option 3: Implicit method. E.g., the repetition factor is implicitly determined by Msg1 transmission.” (See RAN1#103‑e, section 2.2, discussion of Msg3 repetition aspects and proposals to use PRACH / preamble selection or dedicated PRACH resources/preamble groups to differentiate UEs that require coverage enhancement and to implicitly convey repetition behavior.) ZTE Corporation also discloses configuring first (coverage‑enhancement) and second (normal) PRACH resources and configuring preamble groups such that selection of a preamble or PRACH resource can signal information about the UE’s needs (e.g., channel quality, need for repeat transmissions, or desired repetition number).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Taherzadeh and ZTE Corporation. Both references address the same goal — improving RACH success for cell‑edge/weak UEs by repeating Msg3. It is obvious to use ZTE Corporation’s Msg1 to provide indication to identify UEs requiring repetition and to use the mechanism taught by Taherzadeh to convey the exact repetition number (or resource allocation) to the UE. Combining ZTE corporation’s teaching (UE selection of Msg1 resource/preamble to flag repetition need) with Taherzadeh’s teaching (Msg2/DCI indicating the number of Msg3 repetitions) yields the claimed two‑step sequence recited in claim 9. The motivation to combine is to allow the UE to indicate its need via Msg1 selection, and allow the network to assign repetition counts via RAR/DCI, thereby providing an enhancements for msg3 repetitions in 5G random access procedure.
Regarding claim 10, Taherzadeh teaches the random access response comprises a first bit field, and the first bit field is used for indicating the repetition number of msg 3 (Para [0079] it is noted repetition parameters well-known included in RAR message, particularly in RARgrant field made up of bit fields carried by PDCCH/PDSCH).
Regarding 11, Taherzadeh teaches the first bit field comprises a random access response scheduling grant (RARgrant) field (Table 1, Para [0071-0072] UL/DL grants).
Regarding claim 18, Taherzadeh teaches a network device (Base station 102 of Fig. 4) comprising: a processor; a transceiver coupled to the processor; and a memory configured to store executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor, through loading and executing the executable instructions, is configured to: send, via the transceiver, a random access response or scheduling information of the random access response, wherein a repetition number of message (msg) 3 is indicated in the random access response or the scheduling information of the random access response (Para [00120]). However, Taherzadeh fails to disclose wherein the msg 1 is used to indicate that the terminal requires repeated transmission of msg 3.
In the same field of endeavor, ZTE Corporation explicitly teaches that the repetition factor for Msg3 may be implicitly determined by Msg1: it discusses options for indicating repetition factor and lists “Option 3: Implicit method. E.g., the repetition factor is implicitly determined by Msg1 transmission.” (See RAN1#103‑e, section 2.2, discussion of Msg3 repetition aspects and proposals to use PRACH / preamble selection or dedicated PRACH resources/preamble groups to differentiate UEs that require coverage enhancement and to implicitly convey repetition behavior.) ZTE Corporation also discloses configuring first (coverage‑enhancement) and second (normal) PRACH resources and configuring preamble groups such that selection of a preamble or PRACH resource can signal information about the UE’s needs (e.g., channel quality, need for repeat transmissions, or desired repetition number).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Taherzadeh and ZTE Corporation. Both references address the same goal — improving RACH success for cell‑edge/weak UEs by repeating Msg3. It is obvious to use ZTE Corporation’s Msg1 to provide indication to identify UEs requiring repetition and to use the mechanism taught by Taherzadeh to convey the exact repetition number (or resource allocation) to the UE. Combining ZTE corporation’s teaching (UE selection of Msg1 resource/preamble to flag repetition need) with Taherzadeh’s teaching (Msg2/DCI indicating the number of Msg3 repetitions) yields the claimed two‑step sequence recited in claim 18. The motivation to combine is to allow the UE to indicate its need via Msg1 selection, and allow the network to assign repetition counts via RAR/DCI, thereby providing an enhancements for msg3 repetitions in 5G random access procedure.
Regarding claim 19, Taherzadeh teaches the random access response comprises a first bit field, and the first bit field is used for indicating the repetition number of msg 3 (Para [0079] it is noted repetition parameters included in RAR message carried by PDCCH/PDSCH made up of bit fields/slots).
Regarding claim 20, Taherzadeh teaches wherein the first bit field comprises a random access response scheduling grant (RARgrant) field (Table 1, Para [0071-0072] UL/DL grants).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taherzadeh Boroujeni (US 20210266955 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Taherzadeh”) in view of ZTE Corporation, 3GPP TSG RAN WG #103-e, cited in IDS of 03/04/2024, hereinafter referred to as “ZTE Corporation” and further in view of Rastegardoost; Nazanin et al (US 20220210806 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Rastegardoost”).
Regarding claim 15, Taherzadeh in combined with ZTE Corporation teach all the aspects of the claimed invention except wherein: the random access channel resource used by the msg 1 is a resource, in the first random access channel resource, corresponding to the repetition number of msg 3 expected by the apparatus; and different random access channel resources in the first random access channel resource correspond to different repetition numbers; or at least two random access channel resources in the first random access channel resource correspond to different repetition numbers. In other words, the number of repetitions for msg3 is determined based on random access channel resources. In analogous art, Rastegardoost teaches the first type UE may trigger a random access procedure (e.g., a 4-step RA). The first type UE may transmit a preamble using the random access resources indicated by the RRC message(s). For example, the UE may transmit the preamble via a first RACH occasion from RACH occasions indicated by the parameters. The UE may receive a random access response (RAR) for the preamble. The RAR may comprise an UL grant comprising a PUSCH resource. The RAR may indicate a PUSCH resource for Msg3 transmission. The RAR or a DCI scheduling the RAR may comprise one or more parameters/fields indicating a first parameter/resource for Msg3 PUSCH transmission. The RRC messages may indicate a specific parameter/enhancement/channel/resource for post-Msg3 random access (including Msg3 PUSCH and/or PDCCH scheduling Msg3 retransmission and/or Msg4 PDCCH/PDSCH/PUCCH and/or Msg5 PUSCH) of the UEs of the first type. The specific parameter/enhancement/channel/resource may comprise a Msg3/Msg4 repetition (see Para [0332-0333]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific parameter resources to determine the repetition numbers for msg3 required for the base station to include the number of repetitions in the RAR message (msg2).
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 RICKY QUOC NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-3139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
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.
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464