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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-16 have been amended. Claim 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Herein, all claims with conditional limitations (e.g. or clauses) are interpreted as the claim requiring only one of the conditions to be met by the prior art.
With regards to Applicant’s amendments and remarks, they have been fully considered but they are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented below and necessitated by the amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zewail et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0007434; hereinafter Zewail) in view of Kundu et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0225422; hereinafter Kundu).
Regarding claim 1 Zewail discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a random access channel (RACH) signaling (paragraphs 0053, 0068; the base station may transmit, and the UE may receive, one or more synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) and random access configuration information); and determining, by the wireless communication device, whether a time-division duplex (TDD) common configuration is received at the wireless communication device (paragraph 0069; UE determines TDD common configuration present or absent).
Zewail fails to disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access, discloses responsive to receiving the TDD common configuration, determining, by the wireless communication device, whether a RACH occasion (RO) of the RACH signaling is invalid if at least one symbol of the RO is in a physical RACH (PRACH) slot that is after a first PRACH slot (fig. 3, paragraph 0029; wherein the ROs are shifted by a gap, and the ones that cross the slot boundary are considered invalid). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 2 Zewail discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining, by the wireless communication device, whether the RO is valid if the TDD common configuration is received; or determining, by the wireless communication device, whether the RO is valid, if no TDD common configuration is received (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined for TDD configuration present or absent).
Regarding claim 3 Zewail discloses the method of claim 2, and the method comprises: determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and each symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is an UL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is invalid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and any symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is a DL symbol; determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Zewail fails to explicitly disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access occasion validity, discloses wherein when the RO straddles a PRACH slot boundary between the first PRACH slot and a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot (figure 3, wherein at least one RO symbol overlaps with a consecutive slot). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 4 Zewail discloses the method of claim 2, wherein when the RO is located beyond the first PRACH slot in a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot, and the method comprises: determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; or
determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is invalid if at least one of: a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last SS/PBCH block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or determining, by the wireless communication device, that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Regarding claim 5 Zewail discloses a method comprising: transmitting, by a wireless communication node to a wireless communication device, a random access channel (RACH) signaling (paragraphs 0053, 0068; the base station may transmit, and the UE may receive, one or more synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) and random access configuration information); wherein the wireless communication device determines whether a RACH occasion (RO) is valid if a time-division duplex (TDD) common configuration is received, or wherein the wireless communication device determines whether the RO is valid if no TDD common configuration is received (paragraph 0069; UE determines TDD common configuration present or absent, and RO validity is determined according to the configuration).
Zewail fails to disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access, discloses responsive to receiving the TDD common configuration, determining, by the wireless communication device, whether a RACH occasion (RO) of the RACH signaling is invalid if at least one symbol of the RO is in a physical RACH (PRACH) slot that is after a first PRACH slot (fig. 3, paragraph 0029; wherein the ROs are shifted by a gap, and the ones that cross the slot boundary are considered invalid). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 6 Zewail discloses the method of claim 5, wherein: the wireless communication device determines whether the RO is valid if the TDD common configuration is received; or the wireless communication device determines whether the RO is valid, if no TDD common configuration is received (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined for TDD configuration present or absent).
Regarding claim 7 Zewail discloses the method of claim 6, and the method comprises: the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and each symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is an UL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and any symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is a DL symbol; the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Zewail fails to explicitly disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access occasion validity, discloses wherein when the RO straddles a PRACH slot boundary between the first PRACH slot and a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot (figure 3, wherein the at least one symbol of an RO overlaps with the following RACH slot). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 8 Zewail discloses the method of claim 6, wherein when the RO is located beyond the first PRACH slot in a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot: the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid if at least one of: a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last SS/PBCH block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Regarding claim 9 Zewail discloses a wireless communication device, comprising: at least one processor configured to: receive, via a receiver from a wireless communication node, a random access channel (RACH) signaling (paragraphs 0053, 0068; the base station may transmit, and the UE may receive, one or more synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) and random access configuration information); and determine whether a time-division duplex (TDD) common configuration is received at the wireless communication device (paragraph 0069; UE determines TDD common configuration present or absent).
Zewail fails to disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access, discloses responsive to receiving the TDD common configuration, determining, by the wireless communication device, whether a RACH occasion (RO) of the RACH signaling is invalid if at least one symbol of the RO is in a physical RACH (PRACH) slot that is after a first PRACH slot (fig. 3, paragraph 0029; wherein the ROs are shifted by a gap, and the ones that cross the slot boundary are considered invalid). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 10 Zewail discloses the wireless communication device of claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine whether the RO is valid if the TDD common configuration is received; or determine whether the RO is valid, if no TDD common configuration is received (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined for TDD configuration present or absent).
Regarding claim 11 Zewail discloses the wireless communication device of claim 10, at least one processor is configured to: determine that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and each symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is an UL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; determine that the RO is invalid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and any symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is a DL symbol; determine that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or determine that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Zewail fails to explicitly disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access occasion validity, discloses wherein when the RO straddles a PRACH slot boundary between the first PRACH slot and a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot (figure 3, wherein the at least one symbol of RO overlaps with the following RACH slot). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 12 Zewail discloses the wireless communication device of claim 10, wherein when the RO is located beyond the first PRACH slot in a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot, the at least one processor is configured to: determine that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; or determine that the RO is invalid if at least one of: a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last SS/PBCH block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or determine that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; validity determined); or determine that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Regarding claim 13 Zewail discloses a wireless communication node, comprising: at least one processor configured to: transmit, via a transmitter to a wireless communication device, a random access channel (RACH) signaling (paragraphs 0053, 0068; the base station may transmit, and the UE may receive, one or more synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) and random access configuration information); wherein the wireless communication device determines whether a RACH occasion (RO) is valid if a time-division duplex (TDD) common configuration is received, or wherein the wireless communication device determines whether the RO is valid if no TDD common configuration is received (paragraph 0069; UE determines TDD common configuration present or absent, and RO validity is determined according to the configuration).
Zewail fails to disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access, discloses responsive to receiving the TDD common configuration, determining, by the wireless communication device, whether a RACH occasion (RO) of the RACH signaling is invalid if at least one symbol of the RO is in a physical RACH (PRACH) slot that is after a first PRACH slot (fig. 3, paragraph 0029; wherein the ROs are shifted by a gap, and the ones that cross the slot boundary are considered invalid). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 14 Zewail discloses the wireless communication node of claim 13, wherein: the wireless communication device determines whether the RO is valid if the TDD common configuration is received; or the wireless communication device determines whether the RO is valid, if no TDD common configuration is received (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined for TDD configuration present or absent).
Regarding claim 15 Zewail discloses the wireless communication node of claim 14, the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and each symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is an UL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the RO has a first symbol in the first PRACH slot and any symbol occupied by the RO in the second PRACH slot is a DL symbol; the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Zewail fails to explicitly disclose but Kundu, in the same field of endeavor related to random access occasion validity, discloses wherein when the RO straddles a PRACH slot boundary between the first PRACH slot and a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot (figure 3, wherein at least one symbol of an RO overlaps with the following RACH slot). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Zewail with the teachings of Kundu, in order to improve system efficiency (Kundu: paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 16 Zewail discloses the wireless communication node of claim 14, wherein when the RO is located beyond the first PRACH slot in a second PRACH slot following the first PRACH slot: the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid if at least one of: the second PRACH slot is an uplink (UL) slot or each symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is an UL symbol (paragraph 0069; for a RO located in a second slot, it is valid if it occurs during symbols designated for uplink); or a first symbol of the RO is at least Ngap symbols after a last downlink (DL) symbol, and at least Ngap symbols after a last synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block symbol, where Ngap is an integer value greater than or equal to 0; or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid if at least one of: a first symbol of the RO is less than Ngap symbols after a last DL symbol, or less than Ngap symbols after a last SS/PBCH block symbol (paragraph 0082; if the quantity of symbols between the ending symbol of the last received SSB and the starting symbol associated with the PRACH occasion is less than the time gap value, then the UE 120 may determine that the PRACH occasion is not valid); or the second PRACH slot is a DL slot or any symbol occupied by the RO in the second slot is a DL symbol; or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is valid (paragraph 0069; RO validity determined); or the wireless communication device determines that the RO is invalid (paragraphs 0082-0083; not valid ROs determined).
Regarding claim 17 Zewail discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor and a receiver to perform the method of claim 1 (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 18 Zewail discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor and a receiver to perform the method of claim 2 (paragraph 0008).
Regarding claim 19 Zewail discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor and a transmitter to perform the method of claim 5 (paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 20 Zewail discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor and a transmitter to perform the method of claim 6 (paragraph 0009).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent Application Publication 2023/0171813 to Zheng et al. – which discloses obtaining configuration information of a physical random access channel (PRACH); where the configuration information includes a first configuration value, and the first configuration value is used to indicate a configuration number of PRACH slots in each target time domain granularity; determining distribution of the PRACH slots in the target time domain granularity according to the configuration information; and determining validity of PRACH occasions in the PRACH slots.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/
Examiner
Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights