DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 30 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 15, 17-25, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earnshaw et al. (US Pub. 20140044108 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. 20190320467 A1).
For claims 1, 10, 23, and 29, Earnshaw discloses a first network entity for wireless communication, comprising:
a processing system configured to:
receive, from a second network entity, configuration information indicating multiple physical random access channel (PRACH) preamble configurations that are associated with respective cyclic shifts (Figures 6-7, page 6, par. [0037], "There are 64 preambles available in each cell. The set of 64 preamble sequences in a cell is found by including first, in the order of increasing cyclic shift, all the available cyclic shifts of a root Zadoff-Chu sequence with the logical index RACH ROOT SEQUENCE, where RACH ROOT SEQUENCE is broadcasted as part of the System Information. Additional preamble sequences, in case 64 preambles cannot be generated from a single root Zadoff-Chu sequence, are obtained from the root sequences with the consecutive logical indexes until all the 64 sequences are found."); and
transmit, to the second network entity, a random access communication that includes a PRACH preamble in accordance with a PRACH preamble configuration of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations, the PRACH preamble configuration being selected based on timing information of the first network entity (page 8, par. [0043] -[0044], "A time-advanced PRACH preamble may be used in a cell with larger radius while using a smaller minimum cyclic shift and smaller number of source root ZC sequences...; Similarly, if all UEs can correctly estimate their respective OTA RTD (over the air round-trip delay)and transmit their PRACH preambles using an initial time advance derived from their respective OTA_RTD, a PRACH preamble format with a small CP portion may be used for the initial access regardless of the cell radius, since a PRACH preamble format with a CP shorter than the cell's maxRTD may be configured in this scenario. Thus, in some implementations, with a time-advanced preamble transmission, cell-center UEs may choose preamble format O and cell-edge UEs may choose preamble format 2 so that the UE transmit power may be further conserved for cell-center UEs." and pages 1-2, par. [0020], "Based, at least in part, on the received broadcast signal, the user equipment may transmit a random access preamble to the base station in accordance with the UE determined initial time advance. The DE-determined time advance used in the preamble transmission may result in the preambles from different UEs to arrive substantially synchronously at the serving base station. By having a UE determine an initial time advance prior to the transmission of a random access preamble to the base station, the length of the cyclic prefix may be minimized or otherwise reduced and still be sufficient to cover the residual time delays of the time-advanced preambles for different UEs.").
But Earnshaw doesn’t explicitly discloses the PRACH preamble configuration being selected from the multiple PRACH preamble configurations based on a confidence level associated with timing information of the first network entity;
However, Freda discloses the PRACH preamble configuration being selected from the multiple PRACH preamble configurations based on a confidence level (reliability value) associated with timing information of the first network entity [0004] (Page 30, Claim 7);
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data parameters used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Earnshaw with Freda to ensure different configuration based on various mobile parameters can be used to improve performance based on the needs of the mobile system.
Claim 10 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses transmit configuration information…; receive a random access communication…. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 23 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a first network entity. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 29 differs from claim 10 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses method of wireless communication performed by a first network entity. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 11, Earnshaw discloses a largest cyclic shift of the respective cyclic shifts is based on a cell size of a cell that the second network entity is configured to support (Table 3, page 8, par. [0043]).
For claims 3 and 12, Earnshaw discloses a smallest cyclic shift of the respective cyclic shifts is based on a delay spread of a communication channel via which the first network entity and the second network entity are configured to communicate (Table 3, page 8, par. [0043]).
For claim 6, Earnshaw discloses the configuration information indicates availabilities of a downlink reference signal for respective PRACH preamble configurations of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations, wherein the timing information indicates an availability of a last detected downlink reference signal, and wherein the PRACH preamble configuration is selected based on the PRACH preamble configuration being associated with the availability (Figures 8A-8B, page 8, par. [0044] -[0045]).
For claim 7, Earnshaw discloses the timing information includes estimated timing advance information (Figures 8A-8B, page 8, par. [0044] -[0045]).
For claim 8, Earnshaw discloses the PRACH preamble configuration is selected based on granularity of the timing information (Figures 8A-8B, page 8, par. [0044] -[0045]).
For claim 9, Earnshaw discloses the PRACH preamble configuration is selected based on the PRACH preamble configuration being associated with a largest cyclic shift of the respective cyclic shifts and based on the timing information indicating that no estimated timing advance information is available (Figures 8A-8B, page 8, par. [0044] -[0045]).
For claims 14 and 24, Earnshaw discloses the configuration information indicates that the multiple PRACH preamble configurations include respective quantities of PRACH preambles (page 6, par. [0037]), and wherein the respective quantities of PRACH preambles are based on system information (page 6, par. [0037]).
For claims 15 and 25, Earnshaw discloses the system information indicates a quantity of network entities, including the first network entity, that are configured to be supported via a cell associated with the second network entity (page 6, par. [0037]).
For claims 17 and 27, Earnshaw discloses the configuration information indicates that the multiple PRACH preamble configurations include respective sets of one or more preamble roots (Figure 7, pages 6-7, par. [0037]-[0039]).
For claims 18 and 28, Earnshaw discloses a quantity of PRACH preambles allocated for each preamble root is different for each of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations (Figure 7, pages 6-7, par. [0037]-[0039]).
For claim 19, Earnshaw discloses the quantity of PRACH preambles allocated for each preamble root is based on the respective cyclic shifts (Figure 7, pages 6-7, par. [0037]-[0039]).
For claim 20, Earnshaw discloses the configuration information indicates a preamble root that is associated with each of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations, and wherein the multiple PRACH preamble configurations indicate the respective cyclic shifts for the preamble root (Figure 7, pages 6-7, par. [0037]-[0039]).
For claim 21, Earnshaw discloses the configuration information indicates a preamble root that is associated with each of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations, and wherein the multiple PRACH preamble configurations indicate respective cyclic shift starting locations for the preamble root (Figure 7, pages 6-7, par. [0037]-[0039]).
For claim 22, Earnshaw discloses the configuration information indicates a preamble root that is associated with each of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations, and wherein the multiple PRACH preamble configurations indicate respective quantities of PRACH preambles for the preamble root (Figure 7, pages 6-7, par. [0037]-[0039]).
Claims 4, 5, 13, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earnshaw et al. (US Pub. 20140044108 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. 20190320467 A1) in further view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20190074922 A1).
For claims 4, 13, and 30, Earnshaw, as modified by Freda, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Earnshaw, as modified by Freda, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by the Lee.
Lee discloses the configuration information indicates confidence levels for respective PRACH preamble configurations of the multiple PRACH preamble configurations (Figure 7, and pages 6-7, par. [0130]-[0153]),
wherein the timing information indicates a confidence level, and wherein the PRACH preamble configuration is selected based on the PRACH preamble configuration being associated with the confidence level (Figure 7, and pages 6-7, par. [0130]-[0153]).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data parameters used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Earnshaw, and Freda with Lee to ensure various mobile parameters can be used to improve performance of the mobile system.
For claim 5, Earnshaw, as modified by Freda, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Earnshaw, as modified by Freda, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by the Lee.
Lee discloses confidence level is a function of at least one of:
an availability of a last detected downlink reference signal, a timing of the last detected downlink reference signal, movement information of the first network entity, or a timing error associated with the timing information (Figure 7, and pages 6-7, par. [0130]-[0153]).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data parameters used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Earnshaw, and Freda with Lee to ensure various mobile parameters can be used to improve performance of the mobile system.
Claims 16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Earnshaw et al. (US Pub. 20140044108 A1) in view of Freda et al. (US Pub. 20190320467 A1) in further view of Mahalingam et al. (US Pub. 20210029658 A1).
For claims 16 and 26, Earnshaw, as modified by Freda, discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But Earnshaw, as modified by Freda, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by the Mahalingam.
Mahalingam discloses the configuration information indicates that the multiple PRACH preamble configurations are associated with respective random access channel (RACH) occasions (Figure 3, page 8, par. [0098]-[0101]).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing data configuration used in a mobile system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Earnshaw, and Freda with Mahalingam to ensure different configuration information can be used to improve efficiency of the mobile system.
@Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights