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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 17 and 23, page 10 of the Remarks Applicants argues: “Alfarhan does not disclose “determining the selected beam based on an interpretation of the indication of the selected beam, wherein the interpretation of the indication of the selected beam is based on transmission of the first PRACH transmission and one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using the plurality of beams” because Alfarhan does not disclose that the UE determines a selected beam based on an interpretation of the MSG2 response, wherein the interpretation is based on transmission of the first PRACH transmission and one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using the plurality of beams.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is directed to p. [0132]-[0133] of the reference:
[0132] In some implementations, the gNB (or other receiver-gNB may be used for example throughout) may signal the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 206 explicitly or implicitly. In some implementations, the RAR may indicate the RO or the Tx beam or beams used to decode the preamble, which in some implementations, the WTRU may use to transmit Msg3 206. In some implementations, the RAR may indicate whether the WTRU uses one or more of the indicated beams for msg3 206 repetition or sweeps through one or more configured or indicated beams. In some implementations, the gNB may signal the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 206 implicitly, e.g. based on: a random access preamble identity (RAPID) indicated in RAR (e.g. if different preamble indices are used), RA-RNTI (e.g. if the different msg1 202 reps are on different RNTI Ros), and/or the timing of RAR reception (e.g., slot used to receive RAR, time offset between Msg1 202 and Msg2, or the associated SSB).
[0133] In some implementations, the WTRU may determine the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 206 explicitly or implicitly. RAR may indicate the RO or the Tx beam(s) used to decode the preamble, which the WTRU may use to transmit Msg3 206. RAR may indicate whether the WTRU uses the indicated beams for msg3 206 repetition or sweeps through one or more configured or indicated spatial filters. The WTRU may determine the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 206 implicitly, e.g. based on: RAPID indicated in RAR (e.g. if different preamble indices are used), RA-RNTI (e.g. if the different msg1 202 reps are on different RNTI Ros), and/or the timing of RAR reception (e.g. slot used to receive RAR, time offset between Msg1 202 and Msg2, or the associated SSB). The WTRU may also determine the strongest Tx beam from a field of the DCI indicating the RAR or a field of the random access grant carried in the RAR.
Thus, the reference is clearly teaching the amended limitations recited in claims 1, 9, 17 and 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 21-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alfarhan et al (hereinafter “Alfarhan”), US Pub. No. 2025/0142624 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Alfarhan discloses devices, methods, and systems for coverage extension (fig. 1A, system 100), wherein each UE (fig. 1B, UE 102) comprises: a memory (fig. 1B, non-removable memory 130); and at least one processor coupled to the memory (processor 118 coupled to the memory 130), wherein the at least one processor is configured to transmit, to a first network node, a first physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission and one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using a plurality of beams (p. [0003]: a WTRU may transmit a RACH Message 1 (e.g., Msg1 or a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble) and one or more repetitions of RACH Message 1; [0004]: The WTRU may transmit the RACH Msg 1 by repeating transmission of msg1 on the associated RACH resources of the UL beams); receiving, from the first network node, a response to the first PRACH transmission comprising an indication of a selected beam of the plurality of beams (fig. 2, p. [0130]-[0133], [0140]-[0141]: the UE receives the Msg2 (e.g. random access response- RAR) an indication of the Tx beam/ RACH occasions (ROs) to use in Msg3); determining the selected beam based on an interpretation of the indication of the selected beam and, wherein the interpretation of the indication of the selected beam is based on transmission of the first PRACH transmission and one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using the plurality of beams ([0132]: the gNB may signal the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 206 explicitly or implicitly. In some implementations, the RAR may indicate the RO or the Tx beam or beams used to decode the preamble, which in some implementations, the WTRU may use to transmit Msg3 206. In some implementations, the RAR may indicate whether the WTRU uses one or more of the indicated beams for msg3 206 repetition or sweeps through one or more configured or indicated beams; [0133]: the WTRU may determine the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 explicitly or implicitly. RAR may indicate the RO or the Tx beam(s) used to decode the preamble, which the WTRU may uses to transmit Msg3. RAR may indicate whether the WTRU uses the indicated beams for msg3 repetition); and transmitting one or more message three (Msg3) transmissions to the first network node using the selected beam (fig. 2, UE transmits uplink Msg3 to the RAN).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 24, Alfarhan discloses wherein the response comprises at least one of: a message two (Msg2) transmission; or a Msg2 physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission (fig. 2, p. [0130]-[0133], [0140]-[0141]: the UE receives the Msg2 (e.g. random access response- RAR) an indication of the Tx beam/ RACH occasions (ROs) to use in Msg3).
Regarding claims 5, 13, 21 and 28, Alfarhan discloses wherein the indication of the selected beam comprises a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) of the response ([0129]-[0131]: among a plurality of signaled grants associated with monitored RA-RNTI or RA-RNTIs, the UE may select the grant such that the WTRU has more opportunities for repetition transmission in the selected grant; [0190]: UE may be configured with an association between a range of RA-RNTIs and RAR reception occasion(s). The association between synchronization signal block (SSB) and RAR reception occasion and/or an association between Tx beam and RAR reception occasion may be configured by broadcast or dedicated signaling)
Regarding claims 6, 14, 22 and 29, Alfarhan discloses wherein the indication of the selected beam comprises a location of one or more control channel elements (CCEs) of the response inside a control resource set (CORESET) of the response ([0087]: an implicit indication by a property such as DCI format, DCI size, CORESET or search space, aggregation level, identity of first control channel resource (e.g., index of first CCE) for a DCI, e.g., where the mapping between the property and the value may be signaled by RRC or MAC).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 30, Alfarhan discloses wherein the indication of the selected beam comprises an index of a first CCE of the response ([0131]: the WTRU may determine an SSB and/or spatial filter associated with each grant signaled in each RAR, either implicitly (e.g., from a property of the scheduling information) or explicitly (e.g., from an indication in the DCI or the contents of the RAR).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Alfarhan discloses the system further comprising: receiving an indication of a mapping of one or more CCE indexes to one or more PRACH opportunities (ROs) ([0087]: An indication by DCI may include one or more the following: an explicit indication by a DCI field or by RNTI used to mask CRC of the PDCCH; and/or an implicit indication by a property such as DCI format, DCI size, Coreset or search space, aggregation level, identity of first control channel resource (e.g., index of first CCE) for a DCI, e.g., where the mapping between the property and the value may be signaled by RRC or MAC).
Regarding claims 17 and 23, Alfarhan discloses network nodes in the system (fig. 1C eNodeB-B 160; fig. 1D gNb 180) comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, wherein the at least one processor (each of gNb or eNode-B inherently comprises at least memory coupled to at least one processor) is configured to: receive, from a user equipment (UE), a first physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission and one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using a plurality of beams (fig. 2, p. [0003]: a WTRU may transmit a RACH Message 1 (e.g., Msg1 or a physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble) and one or more repetitions of RACH Message 1; [0004]: The WTRU may transmit the RACH Msg 1 by repeating transmission of msg1 on the associated RACH resources of the UL beams); select a beam of the plurality of beams; determine an indication of the selected beam of the plurality of beams based on receipt of the first PRACH transmission and the one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using the plurality of beams; and transmit, to the UE, a response to the first PRACH transmission comprising the determined indication of the selected beam of the plurality of beams (fig. 2, [0007], [0080] and [0123]-[0129]: the UE receives multiple grant RARs from the network node in response to the Msg1); wherein the indication of the selected beam is configured to be interpreted by the UE to correspond to the selected beam, and wherein the interpretation of the indication is based on transmission of the first PRACH transmission and one or more repetitions of the first PRACH transmission using the plurality of beams by the UE ([0132]: the gNB may signal the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 206 explicitly or implicitly. In some implementations, the RAR may indicate the RO or the Tx beam or beams used to decode the preamble, which in some implementations, the WTRU may use to transmit Msg3 206. In some implementations, the RAR may indicate whether the WTRU uses one or more of the indicated beams for msg3 206 repetition or sweeps through one or more configured or indicated beams; [0133]: the WTRU may determine the strongest Tx beam/RO in Msg2 to use in Msg3 explicitly or implicitly. RAR may indicate the RO or the Tx beam(s) used to decode the preamble, which the WTRU may uses to transmit Msg3. RAR may indicate whether the WTRU uses the indicated beams for msg3 repetition).
Regarding claims 18 and 25, Alfarhan discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the UE, one or more message three (Msg3) transmissions using the selected beam (see fig. 2, Msg3).
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 3, 11, 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alfarhan as shown above.
Regarding claims 3, 11, 19 and 26, Alfarhan does not disclose the indication of the selected beam comprises a first bitfield of the response indicating the selected beam. Examiner takes official notice that this feature is well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the well-known feature into Alfarhan’s system in order to identify a selected beam for processing random access procedure as an option of designer’s choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, 20 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI D HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am-18:30pm.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at (571) 272-3988. 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.
THAI HOANG D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/THAI DINH HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights