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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-6, 7 and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-5, 7 and 11-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11877322. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the patented claims are part of the corresponding claims of the instant application..
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) 1-4, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin)(US 2022/0225433 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a method performed by a terminal for a wireless communication system, the method comprising: identifying whether a random access type is switched from a 2-step random access to a 4-step random access(abstract; P[0020, 0179], terminal device can determine whether it is allowed to switch from the two-step random access to four-step random access); identifying whether preambles group e and configuration for random access preambles group associated with the PUSCH resource configuration, in case that the random access preambles group corresponding to preamble group B… selects the four-step random access from the preamble group B; P[0091], transmitted on PUSCH channel; [0111] For example, the network device configures Preamble group A and Preamble group B in the two-step random access parameter configuration, and similarly, the network device may also configure Preamble group A and Preamble group B in the four-step random access parameter configuration. Specifically, the terminal device selects the Preamble from the Preamble group A during the two-step random access procedure, and after switching from the two-step random access to the four-step random access, the terminal device may also select the Preamble from the Preamble group A for the four-step random access); and performing a random access preamble transmission for the 4-step random access procedure based on the selected random access preambles group(P[00908], perform the four step random access).
Regarding claim 2, Lin teaches the method of claim[[s]] 1, further comprising: selecting a random access preambles group for the 4-step random access procedure same as selected for the 2-step random access procedure, in case that the random access preambles group
Regarding claim 3, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, in case that the PUSCH resource configuration for the 2-step random access procedure corresponds to a random access preambles group B, the random access preambles group B is selected for the random access preambles group for the 4-step random access procedure(P[0140-0144]; P[0091], transmitted on PUSCH channel).
Regarding claim 4, Lin teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in case that the PUSCH resource configuration for the 2-step random access procedure corresponds to a random access preambles group A, the random access preambles group A is selected for the random access preambles group for the 4-step random access procedure(P[0140, 0145-0147]; P[0091], transmitted on PUSCH channel).
Claims 7-10 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 1-4 respectively.
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) 5-6 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (hereinafter Lin)(US 2022/0225433 A1) in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter Chen)(US 2020/0146069).
Regarding claim 5, Lin teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method, wherein the random access type is switched from the 2-step random access to the 4-step random access based on an expiration of a random access response window for the 2-step random access procedure. However, Chen teaches in an analogous art wherein the random access type is switched from the 2-step random access to the 4-step random access based on an expiration of a random access response window for the 2-step random access procedure(P[0012], RA response time window expires). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method wherein the random access type is switched from the 2-step random access to the 4-step random access based on an expiration of a random access response window for the 2-step random access procedure in order to have improved efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Lin teaches all the particulars of the claim except the method, wherein the random access type is switched from the 2-step random access to the 4-step random access based on an expiration of a contention resolution timer for the 2-step random access procedure. However, Chen teaches in an analogous art wherein the random access type is switched from the 2-step random access to the 4-step random access based on an expiration of a contention resolution timer for the 2-step random access procedure (P[0053], contention resolution timer expires). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the method wherein the random access type is switched from the 2-step random access to the 4-step random access based on an expiration of a contention resolution timer for the 2-step random access procedure in order to have improved efficiency.
Claims 11-12 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claims 5-6 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUTHUSWAMY GANAPATHY MANOHARAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5515. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Alison T Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/MUTHUSWAMY G MANOHARAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights