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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, 21, and 29 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
LEI does not disclose "receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) message indicating initiation of a random access procedure, the PDCCH message conveying downlink control information (DCI) having a dedicated format with a set of fields for indicating one or more parameters associated with the initiation of the random access procedure," as recited in claim 1.
LEI and JEON do not disclose "wherein a supplementary link is configured on a carrier frequency different from a primary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity, and wherein one or more random access resources associated with uplink or downlink communication of the random access procedure are configured on the supplementary link,” as recited in claim 3.
The Examiner’s Response
Applicant asserts “LEI does not disclose "receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) message indicating initiation of a random access procedure, the PDCCH message conveying downlink control information (DCI) having a dedicated format with a set of fields for indicating one or more parameters associated with the initiation of the random access procedure,”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
LEI teaches " PDCCH message conveying downlink control information (DCI) having a dedicated format " . LEI [0046] teaches “reference number 305 .... UE 120 may receive, downlink control information (DCI) for PDCCH ...The DCI for PDCCH-ordered CFRA in New Radio (NR) may have a DCI format of 1_0.”
Applicant asserts “LEI and JEON do not disclose "wherein a supplementary link is configured on a carrier frequency different from a primary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity, and wherein one or more random access resources associated with uplink or downlink communication of the random access procedure are configured on the supplementary link”. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Jeon [0339] and [0466] further explain "one or more random access resources ... are configured on the supplementary link" ([0339] Carrier aggregation between a licensed band PCell ...and an SCell ... may be supported... Dual connectivity between various licensed band PCells ... and PSCells ... may be supported. And [0466] PDCCH order triggering a (contention free or contention based) random access procedure may comprise one or more parameters indicating at least one of at least one preamble (e.g., preamble index), one or more PRACH resources (e.g., PRACH mask index), an SUL indicator, and/or a BWP indicator. A wireless device receiving a PDCCH order may send (e.g., transmit) at least one preamble via one or more PRACH resources of a BWP indicated by a BWP indicator of a carrier indicated by an SUL indicator, for example, for a random access procedure).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 11, 21 and 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US11723067B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system in both has the same components:
receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) message indicating initiation of a random access procedure, the PDCCH message conveying downlink control information (DCI) having a dedicated format with a set of fields for indicating one or more parameters associated with the initiation of the random access procedure; (claim 1 and claim 4)
and transmit, triggered by receiving the PDCCH message, a first random access message of the random access procedure, the first random access message being associated with the one or more parameters. (claim 1 and claim 4)
Dependent claims are rejected as being depend on rejected claims
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (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, 5 , 7-8 , 10-11, 15, 17-18, 20-21, 25, 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei (US 20210022180 A1), hereinafter Lei .
Regarding to claim 1,
Lei teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to ([0008] UE for wireless communication may include memory and one or more processors coupled to the memory. [0025] These apparatuses … in the accompanying drawings by various blocks, modules, components, circuits, steps, processes, algorithms, and/or the like (collectively referred to as “elements”) ... elements may be implemented using hardware, software... );
receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) message indicating initiation of a random access procedure, the PDCCH message conveying downlink control information (DCI) having a dedicated format with a set of fields for indicating one or more parameters associated with the initiation of the random access procedure (fig. 2) and ([0006] user equipment (UE), may include receiving, via a first cell, downlink control information for physical downlink control channel ordered contention-free random access, wherein the downlink control information indicates a timing advance group of a second cell and one or more parameters associated with a random access message ... [0046] UE 120 may receive, downlink control information (DCI) for PDCCH ... DCI for PDCCH... may have a DCI format of 1_0) ; and
transmit, triggered by receiving the PDCCH message, a first random access message of the random access procedure, the first random access message being associated with the one or more parameters ([0006] transmitting the random access message via the second cell according to the one or more parameters and a timing advance value determined based at least in part on the timing advance group of the second cell).
Regarding to claim 5, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei further teaches wherein a secondary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity is configured with a first set of resources associated with receiving a random access response message or a contention resolution message of the random access procedure ([0048] reference number 325, the base station 110 may transmit a random access response (... random access response message) ... include ...contention resolution information. [0071] UE 120 may use the value of the FDRA field (e.g., the frequency domain RIV) to identify a set of frequency domain resources on which the RA payload is to be transmitted on the second carrier. and [0073] DCI may indicate a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) for transmission of the RA message on the second cell);
and wherein the secondary cell is configured with a second set of resources for transmitting an uplink control channel or data channel communication in connection with the random access procedure ([0051] UE 120 may determine resources (e.g., the RO and/or the PRU group) for transmission of the random access message based at least in part on the SSB. For example, an SSB index of the best SSB measured by the UE 120 may correspond to a set of uplink resources for transmission of the random access message in CBRA. and [0053-0054] A UE 120 may use a timing advance value for an uplink carrier to transmit an uplink communication on the uplink carrier with a timing that results in synchronization of transmission time intervals (TTIs) with a base station 110, to reduce inter-TTI interference. ...In some cases (e.g., in dual connectivity and/or carrier aggregation), cross-carrier scheduling may be supported, where a first carrier (e.g., on a first cell) carries control information to schedule communications on a second carrier (e.g., on a second cell)).
Regarding to claim 7, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei further teaches wherein the one or more parameters include a parameter relating to at least one of: a UE-specific or common search space set configuration, a UE-specific or group-common radio network temporary identifier configuration, a downlink control information payload configuration ([0047] the base station 110 may transmit, to the UE 120 and via the first cell, DCI for PDCCH-ordered CFRA.... DCI may include one or more parameters associated with a random access message .... parameters may relate to a random access payload to be transmitted by the UE 120), a priority indicator for the random access procedure, a random access procedure type indicator, a carrier indicator, a link type indicator, a downlink or uplink reference signal indicator, a power control parameter, a resource indicator for a sequence, a time or frequency occasion of a preamble, or a resource allocation indicator for a data channel in a time or frequency domain.
Regarding to claim 8, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei further teaches wherein the PDCCH message is received on a supplementary link or a non-supplementary link of a primary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity ([0054] (e.g., in dual connectivity and/or carrier aggregation), cross-carrier scheduling may be supported, where a first carrier (e.g., on a first cell) carries control information to schedule communications on a second carrier (e.g., on a second cell).... Some techniques and apparatuses described herein enable cross-TAG scheduling for PDCCH-ordered CFRA).
Regarding to claim 10, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei further teaches wherein the PDCCH message is received from a scheduling secondary cell or a scheduling primary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity ([0054] (e.g., in dual connectivity and/or carrier aggregation), cross-carrier scheduling may be supported, where a first carrier (e.g., on a first cell) carries control information to schedule communications on a second carrier (e.g., on a second cell).... Some techniques and apparatuses described herein enable cross-TAG scheduling for PDCCH-ordered CFRA).
Claims [11, 15, 17, 18 and 20] “node”, [21, 25, 27 and 28] “UE method” and [29] “node method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [1, 5, 7, 8 and 10] apparatus, where Lei teaches both device and method for network node and UE ([0025] and [0029]).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 12, 22 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Agiwal (US 20220272758 A1), hereinafter Agiwal.
Regarding to claim 2, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei does not explicitly teach wherein the random access procedure is a 4-step random access procedure or a 2-step random access procedure, wherein the random access procedure is initiated on a primary cell or a secondary cell, wherein the PDCCH triggers the random access procedure of one or more UEs, and wherein the random access procedure is a contention-based random access procedure or a contention-free random access procedure.
Agiwal teaches wherein the random access procedure is a 4-step random access procedure or a 2-step random access procedure, wherein the random access procedure is initiated on a primary cell or a secondary cell, wherein the PDCCH triggers the random access procedure of one or more UEs, and wherein the random access procedure is a contention-based random access procedure or a contention-free random access procedure ([0009] a method performed by a terminal including: ... selecting a second random access preambles group for a contention-based 4-step random access procedure. [0039] PDCCH can be used to for ... Notifying one or more UEs of the slot format; .... Transmission of one or more TPC commands for sounding reference signal (SRS) transmissions by one or more UEs; Initiating a random access procedure).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Agiwal to the teaching of Lei. The motivation for such an addition would be to efficiently enhance random access procedure ([0011] Agiwal).
Claims [12] “node”, [22] “UE method” and [30] “node method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [2] apparatus, where Lei teaches both device and method for network node and UE ([0025] and [0029]).
Claims 3-4, 13-14 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Jeon (US 20200053799 A1), hereinafter Jeon
Regarding to claim 3, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei does not explicitly teach wherein a supplementary link is configured on a carrier frequency different from a primary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity, and wherein one or more random access resources associated with uplink or downlink communication of the random access procedure are configured on the supplementary link.
Jeon teaches wherein a supplementary link is configured on a carrier frequency different from a primary cell associated with carrier aggregation or multiple connectivity, and wherein one or more random access resources associated with uplink or downlink communication of the random access procedure are configured on the supplementary link ([0339] Carrier aggregation between a licensed band PCell ...and an SCell ... may be supported... Dual connectivity between various licensed band PCells ... and PSCells ... may be supported. And [0466] PDCCH order triggering a (contention free or contention based) random access procedure may comprise one or more parameters indicating at least one of at least one preamble (e.g., preamble index), one or more PRACH resources (e.g., PRACH mask index), an SUL indicator, and/or a BWP indicator. A wireless device receiving a PDCCH order may send (e.g., transmit) at least one preamble via one or more PRACH resources of a BWP indicated by a BWP indicator of a carrier indicated by an SUL indicator, for example, for a random access procedure. ... [0492] ...The supplementary uplink carrier may be configured on a second unlicensed frequency band different from the first unlicensed frequency band. The wireless device may send (e.g., to the base station) a preamble via the supplementary uplink carrier).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Jeon to the teaching of Lei. The motivation for such an addition would be to increase scheduling flexibility ([0275] Jeon).
Regarding to claim 4, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit, on an uplink control channel or a data channel, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback as a response to receiving a random access response message or contention resolution message associated with the random access procedure, wherein the uplink control channel or data channel is configured on: a cell for which the UE initiates the random access procedure, or a cell that is configured with a valid uplink control resource associated with a HARQ procedure and that is different from the cell for which the UE initiates the random access procedure.
Jeon teaches wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are further configured to cause the UE to: transmit, on an uplink control channel or a data channel, a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback as a response to receiving a random access response message or contention resolution message associated with the random access procedure ([0266] A base station may send (e.g., transmit) DCI ... DCI may.... , request(s) for an SRS, uplink power control commands for one or more cells, one or more timing information (e.g., TB transmission/reception timing, HARQ feedback timing, etc.)); wherein the uplink control channel or data channel is configured on: a cell for which the UE initiates the random access procedure ([0441] the wireless device (e.g., MAC entity of the wireless device) may ... initialize or reinitialize the configured uplink grant for this serving cell to start in the associated PUSCH duration and to recur) or a cell that is configured with a valid uplink control resource associated with a HARQ procedure and that is different from the cell for which the UE initiates the random access procedure ([0371] wireless device may select an uplink carrier (e.g., NUL and/or SUL) for a random access procedure. and [0365] The wireless device (e.g., a MAC entity of a wireless device) may deliver the configured uplink grant, and the associated HARQ information to the HARQ entity and [0372] .... the wireless device (e.g., MAC entity of the wireless device) is configured with one or more SCells, the network may activate and/or deactivate the configured SCells ...).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Jeon to the teaching of Lei. The motivation for such an addition would be to increase scheduling flexibility ([0275] Jeon).
Claims [13-14] “node” and [23-24] “UE method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [3-4] apparatus, where Lei teaches both device and method for network node and UE ([0025] and [0029]).
Claims 6, 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Manabe (JP2018037718A), hereinafter Manabe.
Regarding to claim 6, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei does not explicitly teach wherein a plurality of communications on a secondary cell, in connection with the random access procedure, share a common set of beam parameters configured for the secondary cell.
Manabe teaches wherein a plurality of communications on a secondary cell, in connection with the random access procedure, share a common set of beam parameters configured for the secondary cell (page 4, A secondary cell (SCell) is configured to form a pair of a PCell and a serving cell according to the UE capability (capability). On the downlink, the carrier corresponding to SCell is a downlink secondary component carrier (DL SCC). In the uplink, the carrier corresponding to SCell is an uplink secondary component carrier (UL SCC); and page 14, Alternatively, a plurality of destinations may be divided into several groups and the group (transmission data TD 2) may be separated from the transmission data TD 1. According to this, it is possible to make beam parameters common to each group. For example, the wireless device 902 transmits information for identifying the presence or absence of a signal addressed to itself by each communication terminal 202 using PDCCH (Physical Downlink Control Channel). This PDCCH is transmitted in common to a plurality of communication terminals 202. In this case, PDCCH can be transmitted with one beam by setting the PDCCH as one group. According to this, interference between beams can be reduced and communication quality can be improved).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Manabe to the teaching of Lei. The motivation for such an addition would be to improve communication quality (page 14 Manabe).
Claims [16] “node” and [26] “UE method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim [2] apparatus, where Lei teaches both device and method for network node and UE ([0025] and [0029]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei in view of Song (US 20120093128 A1), hereinafter Song.
Regarding to claim 9, Lei teaches the UE of claim 1,
Lei does not explicitly teach wherein the PDCCH message is received from a source cell or transmit and receive point (TRP) associated with a mobility procedure.
Song teaches wherein the PDCCH message is received from a source cell or transmit and receive point (TRP) associated with a mobility procedure ([0051-0052] The message indicates that "the UE has received the Handover Command", where the Handover Command may be included in the RRC connection reconfiguration message and sent.... For the target cell, when the UL Grant transmission indication message is received from the source cell, an uplink transmission resource is sent to the UE through the PDCCH).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Song to the teaching of Lei. The motivation for such an addition would be to shorten a handover delay of a control plane and an interrupt delay of user plane data ([0006] Song).
Claim [19] “node” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim [9] apparatus, where Lei teaches both device and method for network node and UE ([0025] and [0029]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6178. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (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, Ayman A Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/VAN TA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights