DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 9: the claims recite “the PUSCH” several times in each of the claims. However, it does not appear that each of these citations of “the PUSCH” refer to the same instance of a PUSCH. For example, in claim 1, the phrases “the PUSCH scheduled by using the first DCI format”, “the PUSCH scheduled by using the second DCI format”, and “the PUSCH in a random access procedure” appear to refer to three distinct instances of a PUSCH. That is, the PUSCHs are distinguished by being “scheduled by using” a first or second DCI format or being “in a random access procedure”. The claim should be amended to clarify these inconsistencies.
Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12 depend on one of the above independent claims and are thus similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “receiving unit”, “control unit”, and “transmitting unit” in claim 1 and “transmitting unit” and “receiving unit” in claim 5.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 5: claim limitations “receiving unit”, “control unit”, and “transmitting unit” (claim 1) and “transmitting unit” and “receiving unit” (claim 5) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as indicated above. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions.
In particular, the specification describes these modules in elements Figures 17 and 18 and the corresponding descriptions in [0167]-[0189], for example. These paragraphs describe the function performed by these modules, but do not describe the structure required by 35 U.S.C. 112(f). That is, because the limitations “receiving unit”, “control unit”, and “transmitting unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structure is limited to that described in the specification. However, because the specification does not provide sufficient structure for these modules, the scope of these claim limitations is indefinite.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 depend from claims 1 and 5 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for reasons similar to those stated above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In particular, as noted above, claim limitations “receiving unit”, “control unit”, and “transmitting unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Further, as noted in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the specification describes the function of these modules, but does not provide the required structural support. Thus, in addition to being indefinite (because the scope of the claim is not clear as articulated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection), the claim is similarly rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement. That is, the original disclosure does not provide a written description of the structure of the limitations “receiving unit”, “control unit”, and “transmitting unit”. Therefore, claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 depend from claims 1 and 5 and thus include the above limitations and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for reasons similar to those stated above.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura ’065 et al (US 2025/0089065) in view of Takeda et al (US 2020/0154428).
Regarding claim 1: Matsumura ’065 discloses a terminal comprising:
a receiving unit (see the transmitting/receiving section 220 of Figure 18, for example) configured to
receive, from a base station, system information including information for configuring a transform precoder to be enabled (disclosed throughout; see [0043], which discloses “Switching between DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM is performed by a transform precoder "transformPrecoder" of an uplink shared channel (Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) configuration (PUSCH-Config) with Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling. CP-OFDM is applied when the transform precoder is disabled, and DFT-s-OFDM is applied when the transform precoder is enabled. The waveform switching requires RRC reconfiguration.”; see also [0052], which indicates “Conventional waveform configuration is performed by RRC”; thus via RRC signaling/system information configures the transform precoder as enabled/disabled),
receive on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), from a base station, a first downlink control information (DCI) format used for scheduling of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (disclosed throughout; see [0132]-[0138], for example, which discloses some examples of DCIs received for scheduling a PUSCH; see also [0045]-[0052], for example, which discloses that multiple different DCI formats (including a first DCI format) can be received), and
receive on the PDCCH, from the base station, a second DCI format used for scheduling of the PUSCH (disclosed throughout; see [0132]-[0138], for example, which discloses some examples of DCIs received for scheduling a PUSCH; see also [0045]-[0052] and [0064], for example, which discloses that multiple different DCI formats (including a second DCI format) can be received);
a control unit (see the control section 210 of Figure 18, for example) configured to apply the transform precoder to transmission of the PUSCH scheduled by using the first DCI format based on the information for configuring the transform precoder to be enabled (as disclosed throughout, a first format may be received when “dynamic waveform switching” is disabled; in this case, the “conventional” or “normal” waveform configuration is performed according to the system information/RRC signaling which either enables or disables the transform precoder; see [0043], [0052], and [0061], for example), apply the transform precoder to transmission of the PUSCH scheduled by using the second DCI format based on information indicating whether or not to enable the transform precoder included in the second DCI format (as disclosed throughout; when dynamic waveform switching is enabled, the enabling/disabling of the transform precoder is signaled via a DCI/MAC CE; see [0061]-[0064], for example); and
a transmitting unit (see the transmitting/receiving section 220 of Figure 18, for example) configured to perform transmission of the PUSCH to which the transform precoder is applied (disclosed throughout; see [0209], for example, which discloses a transmitting/receiving section that transmits the PUSCH based on the transform precoding configuration).
Matsumura ’065 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of apply the transform precoder to transmission of the PUSCH in a random access procedure based on the information for configuring the transform precoder to be enabled. However, Takeda discloses a similar system that configures the transform precoder and transmits a PUSCH accordingly. For example, see [0041], which discloses that a PUSCH in a random access procedure (“PUSCH waveform for message 3”) is “configured in or indicated to the user terminal by means of system information”. See also Figure 2, which illustrates the random access (RACH) procedure that uses the message 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura ’065 to include configuration for the waveform (via the transform precoder) of a PUSCH in a random access operation such as a message 3. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable network control over the PUSCH waveform for terminal initiated communication (via random access) in addition to network initiated communication as suggested by Takeda in [0029]-[0031], for example.
Regarding claim 5: Matsumura ’065 discloses a base station comprising:
a transmitting unit (see the transmitting/receiving section 120 of Figure 17, for example) configured to
transmit, to a terminal, system information including information for configuring a transform precoder to be enabled (disclosed throughout; see [0043], which discloses “Switching between DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM is performed by a transform precoder "transformPrecoder" of an uplink shared channel (Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) configuration (PUSCH-Config) with Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling. CP-OFDM is applied when the transform precoder is disabled, and DFT-s-OFDM is applied when the transform precoder is enabled. The waveform switching requires RRC reconfiguration.”; see also [0052], which indicates “Conventional waveform configuration is performed by RRC”; thus via RRC signaling/system information configures the transform precoder as enabled/disabled),
transmit on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), to the terminal, a first downlink control information (DCI) format used for scheduling of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (disclosed throughout; see [0132]-[0138], for example, which discloses some examples of DCIs received for scheduling a PUSCH; see also [0045]-[0052], for example, which discloses that multiple different DCI formats (including a first DCI format) can be received), and
transmit on the PDCCH, to the terminal, a second DCI format used for scheduling of the PUSCH (disclosed throughout; see [0132]-[0138], for example, which discloses some examples of DCIs received for scheduling a PUSCH; see also [0045]-[0052] and [0064], for example, which discloses that multiple different DCI formats (including a second DCI format) can be received); and
a receiving unit (see the transmitting/receiving section 120 of Figure 17, for example) configured to
perform reception of the PUSCH to which the transform precoder is applied based on the information for configuring the transform precoder to be enabled in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by using the first DCI format (as disclosed throughout, a first format may be received when “dynamic waveform switching” is disabled; in this case, the “conventional” or “normal” waveform configuration is performed according to the system information/RRC signaling which either enables or disables the transform precoder; see [0043], [0052], and [0061], for example),
perform reception of the PUSCH to which the transform precoder is applied based on information indicating whether or not to enable the transform precoder included in the second DCI format in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled by using the second DCI format (as disclosed throughout; when dynamic waveform switching is enabled, the enabling/disabling of the transform precoder is signaled via a DCI/MAC CE; see [0061]-[0064], for example).
Matsumura ’065 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of perform reception of the PUSCH to which the transform precoder is applied based on the information for configuring the transform precoder to be enabled in a case that the PUSCH is scheduled in a random access procedure. However, Takeda discloses a similar system that configures the transform precoder and transmits a PUSCH accordingly. For example, see [0041], which discloses that a PUSCH in a random access procedure (“PUSCH waveform for message 3”) is “configured in or indicated to the user terminal by means of system information”. See also Figure 2, which illustrates the random access (RACH) procedure that uses the message 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura ’065 to include configuration for the waveform (via the transform precoder) of a PUSCH in a random access operation such as a message 3. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable network control over the PUSCH waveform for terminal initiated communication (via random access) in addition to network initiated communication as suggested by Takeda in [0029]-[0031], for example.
Regarding claim 9: Matsumura ’065 discloses a method of a terminal comprising steps of:
receiving, from a base station, system information including information for configuring a transform precoder to be enabled (disclosed throughout; see [0043], which discloses “Switching between DFT-s-OFDM and CP-OFDM is performed by a transform precoder "transformPrecoder" of an uplink shared channel (Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) configuration (PUSCH-Config) with Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling. CP-OFDM is applied when the transform precoder is disabled, and DFT-s-OFDM is applied when the transform precoder is enabled. The waveform switching requires RRC reconfiguration.”; see also [0052], which indicates “Conventional waveform configuration is performed by RRC”; thus via RRC signaling/system information configures the transform precoder as enabled/disabled);
receiving on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), from the base station, a first downlink control information (DCI) format used for scheduling of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (disclosed throughout; see [0132]-[0138], for example, which discloses some examples of DCIs received for scheduling a PUSCH; see also [0045]-[0052], for example, which discloses that multiple different DCI formats (including a first DCI format) can be received);
receiving on the PDCCH, from the base station, a second DCI format used for scheduling of the PUSCH (disclosed throughout; see [0132]-[0138], for example, which discloses some examples of DCIs received for scheduling a PUSCH; see also [0045]-[0052] and [0064], for example, which discloses that multiple different DCI formats (including a second DCI format) can be received);
applying the transform precoder to transmission of the PUSCH scheduled by using the first DCI format based on the information for configuring the transform precoder to be enabled (as disclosed throughout, a first format may be received when “dynamic waveform switching” is disabled; in this case, the “conventional” or “normal” waveform configuration is performed according to the system information/RRC signaling which either enables or disables the transform precoder; see [0043], [0052], and [0061], for example),
applying the transform precoder to transmission of the PUSCH scheduled by using the second DCI format based on information indicating whether or not to enable the transform precoder included in the second DCI format (as disclosed throughout; when dynamic waveform switching is enabled, the enabling/disabling of the transform precoder is signaled via a DCI/MAC CE; see [0061]-[0064], for example); and
performing transmission of the PUSCH to which the transform precoder is applied (disclosed throughout; see [0209], for example, which discloses a transmitting/receiving section that transmits the PUSCH based on the transform precoding configuration).
Matsumura ’065 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of applying the transform precoder to transmission of the PUSCH in a random access procedure based on the information for configuring the transform precoder to be enabled. However, Takeda discloses a similar system that configures the transform precoder and transmits a PUSCH accordingly. For example, see [0041], which discloses that a PUSCH in a random access procedure (“PUSCH waveform for message 3”) is “configured in or indicated to the user terminal by means of system information”. See also Figure 2, which illustrates the random access (RACH) procedure that uses the message 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura ’065 to include configuration for the waveform (via the transform precoder) of a PUSCH in a random access operation such as a message 3. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable network control over the PUSCH waveform for terminal initiated communication (via random access) in addition to network initiated communication as suggested by Takeda in [0029]-[0031], for example.
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 11: Matsumura ’065, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 5, and 9 as indicated above. The combination of Matsumura ’065 and Takeda further discloses the limitations of claims 3, 7, and 11 that the PUSCH in the random access procedure is scheduled by using an Uplink (UL) grant included in a random access response (RAR) or a fallback RAR, and is used for transmission of a message 3 (disclosed throughout; see [0041] and Figure 2, for example, which indicate that the PUSCH is used for transmission of a message 3 (“PUSCH waveform for message 3” [0041]) and is scheduled by using a RAR (Figure 2)).
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura ’065 et al (US 2025/0089065) in view of Takeda et al (US 2020/0154428) in view of Matsumura ’411 (US 2022/0322411).
Regarding claims 2, 6, and 10: Matsumura ’065, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 5, and 9 as indicated above. Matsumura ’065 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 2, 6, and 10 that the second DCI format is Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC)-scrambled by C (Cell)-Radio Network Temporary Identifier (RNTI) or Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS)-C-RNTI, or includes a new data identifier set to 1 and is CRC-scrambled by a Configured Scheduling (CS)-RNTI. However, Matsumura ’411 discloses an analogous system including PUSCH scheduling using a DCI. Further, the DCI may be CRC scrambled by an RNTI including a C-RNTI or an MCS-C-RNTI. For example, see [0058], which indicates “In transmission of a PUSCH scheduled by a PDCCH (or DCI) CRC-scrambled by a specific(given) RNTI, a PTRS may be transmitted (or mapped). The specific RNTI may be, for example, an MCS-C-RNTI, a C-RNTI, a CS-RNTI, or an SP-CSI-RNTI”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura ’065 to utilize a DCI that is CRC-scrambled by at least one of an MCS-C-RNTI or C-RNTI as suggested by Matsumura ’411. The rationale for doing so would have been to appropriately control the existence of transmission of a PTRS along with a PUSCH, simplifying the UE operation as suggested by Matsumura ’411 in [0062].
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 12: Matsumura ’065, modified, discloses the limitations of parent claims 1, 5, and 9 as indicated above. Matsumura ’065 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 4, 8, and 12 that the PUSCH in the random access procedure is configured by using information included in the system information, and is used for transmission of a message A. However, Matsumura ’411 discloses a two-step RACH in Figure 8 and [0127]-[0131] that combines message 1 and message 3 from the four-step RACH into message A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura ’065, modified, to utilize a two-step RACH and message A in addition to or instead of the four-step RACH and message 3 using PUSCH as suggested by Matsumura ’411. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the latency for uplink transmission using random access by using fewer than four steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsumura et al (US 2024/0334432) discloses a method for dynamic switching of transform precoder configuration.
Levitsky et al (US 2022/0123983) discloses a dynamic MCS table switching to indicate transform precoder and waveform switching.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 March 3, 2026