DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted May 15, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-22 are currently pending (claims 8-22 are withdrawn from consideration).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on May 15, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “search and examination of all currently pending claims would not pose an undue burden” (Remarks, p.2). This is not found persuasive because each group (i.e. Groups I-III) includes unique functions and/or operations not present in the other groups that require significantly different search queries (note the explanation set forth in the written restriction requirement mailed March 16, 2026; p. 2). Additionally, each group includes functionality pertaining to particular patent classifications. For instance, group I would benefit from searches including attention to H04L27/2692 or H04L2027/0095 (preamble design or structure); group II would benefit from searches including attention to H04W72/1294 or H04W72/14 (grant channel or implementation); group III would benefit from searches including attention to H04L1/1812 (HARQ).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
Figures 1-6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, e.g., U.S. Publication Nos. 2019/0313478, 2020/0351070, 2021/0385743; note the respective drawings). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation set forth in claim 5 is required in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 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 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 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
11. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0354437 A1 (hereinafter “Pocovi”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Pocovi, in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2024/0137972 A1 (hereinafter “Abdelghaffar”) or U.S. Publication No. 2023/0388971 A1 (hereinafter “Bergstrom”).
Regarding claim 1: Pocovi teaches a method of wireless communication of a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a configuration of physical random access channel (PRACH) occasions from a base station, the configuration indicating one or more PRACH occasions located in each time unit of a set of time units (see, e.g., [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; random access occasion configuration indicating durations);
determining whether a first PRACH occasion, in a first time unit of the set of time units, is valid in a time domain based on whether the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned (see, e.g., [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; validity is determined based on configuration, which includes time-frequency resource structure); and
transmitting a random access preamble at the first PRACH occasion when the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain and is also valid in a frequency domain (see, e.g., [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; preamble is transmitted based on validity).
Pocovi does not explicitly state wherein the determined validity is based on “whether [a] first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned” and/or wherein the transmission of the preamble occurs when the occasion is “valid in the time domain and… in a frequency domain.” To the extent these features are not inherent to the system of Pocovi (by virtue of the implementation and determined validity of the random access occasions in the flexible duplexing symbols and/or SBFD symbols taught therein), these features are nevertheless taught in Abdelghaffar (see, e.g., figures 2-5, [0054]-[0056], [0108], [0114], [0129]; note the structure of the configured slots and/or periods; note also overlapping teachings with respect to configuration(s) and preamble transmission). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Abdelghaffar, such as the signaling and/or resource configuration, within the system of Pocovi, in order to improve random access opportunities.
Alternatively to Abdelghaffar, the said features are taught by Bergstrom (see, e.g., [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Bergstrom, such as the signaling and/or resource configuration, within the system of Pocovi, in order to support diverse and flexible signaling scenarios.
Regarding claim 2: Pocovi alternatively modified by Abdelghaffar or Bergstrom further teaches wherein each time unit of the set of time units is a slot (see e.g., Pocovi (0039], [0040], [0046]; Abdelghaffar [0131], [0132]; and/or Bergstrom [0194]; slots and/or symbols are configured). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3: Pocovi alternatively modified by Abdelghaffar or Bergstrom further teaches wherein each time unit of the set of time units is a symbol (see e.g., Pocovi (0039], [0040], [0046]; Abdelghaffar [0131], [0132]; and/or Bergstrom [0194]; slots and/or symbols are configured). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4: Pocovi alternatively modified by Abdelghaffar or Bergstrom further teaches wherein determining whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain comprises: determining the first time unit is partitioned (see, e.g., Pocovi [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; Abdelghaffar figures 2-5; and/or Bergstrom [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]; note configured occasion structures). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5: Pocovi alternatively modified by Abdelghaffar or Bergstrom further teaches wherein determining whether the first PRACH occasion is valid in the time domain comprises: determining the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned (see, e.g., Pocovi [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; Abdelghaffar figures 2-5; and/or Bergstrom [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]; note configured occasion structures). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6: Pocovi alternatively modified by Abdelghaffar further teaches receiving an indication of a frequency domain resource allocation for the first PRACH occasion (see, e.g., Pocovi [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; Abdelghaffar [0131], [0132]; and/or Bergstrom [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]; note resource indication); determining whether the frequency domain resource allocation for the first PRACH occasion overlaps with a downlink frequency region in the first time unit; and determining the first PRACH occasion is invalid when the frequency domain resource allocation overlaps with the downlink frequency region in the first time unit (see, e.g., [0036]-[0040]; Abdelghaffar [0105]-[0109]; and/or Bergstrom [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]; validity is determined based on configuration, which includes time-frequency resource structure, and scheduled transmissions). The motivation set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7: Pocovi alternatively modified by Abdelghaffar further teaches receiving a first frequency domain resource allocation applicable for a PRACH occasion in a non-partitioned time unit; receiving a second frequency domain resource allocation applicable for a PRACH occasion in a partitioned time unit; determining a selected frequency domain resource allocation, from the first frequency domain resource allocation and the second frequency domain resource allocation, for the first PRACH occasion based on whether the first time unit is partitioned or non-partitioned (see, e.g., Pocovi [0038]-[0042], [0046]-[0051]; Abdelghaffar [0131], [0132]; and/or Bergstrom [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]; note resource indication); and determining the first PRACH occasion is invalid when the selected frequency domain resource allocation overlaps with the downlink frequency region in the first time unit (see, e.g., [0036]-[0040]; Abdelghaffar [0105]-[0109]; and/or Bergstrom [0009], [0030], [0101]-[0105]; validity is determined based on configuration, which includes time-frequency resource structure, and scheduled transmissions). The motivation set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
Relevant Art
12. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights