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 Amendment
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 12/30/25. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MU (US 2025/0301504) in view of Cozzo et al. (US 2021/0274554).
Regarding claim 1, MU teaches a first network node (terminal) [Fig. 1, item 14] for wireless communication, comprising a processing system configured to:
receive a control message indicating one or more physical random access channel (PRACH) resources (first, second, and third random access resources) to be used for random access of a second network node (network device), each of the one or more PRACH resources being associated with a respective one or more user equipment (UE) types (eRedCap UE/normal terminal/RedCap UE) (see “Step 201, a first random access resource configured by a network device for a first-type terminal is received” [par 69] and “Step (1), a network device is allowed to configure a separate first random access resource for an eRedCap UE, where the first random access resource is different from a third random access resource for a normal terminal and a second random access resource for a RedCap UE” [par 131] which suggests an eRedCap UE receives a configuration that comprises first, second, and third random access resource for access of a network device, each of the random access resources are associated with an eRedCap UE, normal terminal, and RedCap UE);
determine that none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with a first UE type, wherein the first network node is of the first UE type, and wherein the first UE type is an enhanced reduced capability UE type (see “Step (8), based on step (1), when the network device does not configure the separate first random access resource for the eRedCap UE…” [par 138]);
select, in accordance with a ranking for PRACH resource selection when none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with the first UE type, a particular PRACH resource of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message for transmission of a random access preamble to the second network node, wherein the ranking is based on a respective UE type associated with each PRACH resource of the one or more PRACH resources (see “Step (8), based on step (1), when the network device does not configure the separate first random access resource for the eRedCap UE, the eRedCap UE determines whether the second random access resource allocated to the RedCap UE is within the terminal capability range of the eRedCap UE. If it is within the terminal capability range of the eRedCap UE, the eRedCap UE uses the second random access resource of the RedCap UE. Further, if the network device does not configure the separate second random access resource for the RedCap UE, the eRedCap UE determines whether the third random access resource allocated to the normal terminal is within the terminal capability range of the eRedCap UE. If it is within the terminal capability range of the eRedCap UE, the eRedCap UE uses the third random access resource of the normal terminal. If the eRedCap UE determines that there is no random access resource that can be used by the terminal, the eRedCap UE gives up accessing the network device” [par 138] which suggests a “ranking for PRACH selection” because the eRedCap UE first selects the second random access resource, and then selects the third random access resource if the second random access resource is unavailable); and
transmit the random access preamble to the second network node via the selected PRACH resource of the one or more PRACH resources (see par 138, “the eRedCap UE uses the second random access resource” and “the eRedCap UE uses the third random access resource”).
MU does not explicitly teach that the first network node receives a random access response in response to the random access preamble, wherein the random access response comprises a cyclic redundancy check value that is scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier associated with the first UE type. In an analogous prior art reference, Cozzo teaches a first network node (UE) receives a random access response in response (RAR) to the random access preamble (see “The RAR from the network is sent on the DL carrier which can be shared by different types of UEs” [par 96]), wherein the random access response comprises a cyclic redundancy check value that is scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier (RA-RedCap-RNTI) associated with the first UE type (RedCap UE) (see “A type of UEs attempts to detect the DCI format l_0 with CRC scrambled by a corresponding RA RNTI associated with the UE type, with different types of UEs having a corresponding different RA-RNTI. As an example, in a cell RedCap UEs attempt to detect a DCI scrambled by RA-RedCap-RNTI, and Rel-15/16 UEs attempt to detect a DCI format scrambled by RA-RNTI” [par 96] which suggests a UE receives a RAR comprising a CRC scrambled by a RA-RedCap-RNTI which is associated with RedCap UEs). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow the first network node to receive a random access response in response to the random access preamble, wherein the random access response comprises a cyclic redundancy check value that is scrambled by a radio network temporary identifier associated with the first UE type, as taught by Cozzo, in order to differentiate a RAR or DCI intended for different types of UEs.
Regarding claim 2, MU teaches the first network node of claim 1, wherein the ranking prioritizes PRACH resources associated with a second UE type when none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with the first UE type (see par 138, the eRedCap UE “prioritizes” the second random access resource when the network device does not configure separate first random access resource for the eRedCap UE).
Regarding claim 3, MU teaches the first network node of claim 2, wherein the ranking prioritizes a default PRACH resource when none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with the first UE type and none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with the second UE type (see par 138, the eRedCap UE “prioritizes” the third random access resource when the network device does not configure separate first random access resource and the second random access resource for the eRedCap UE).
Regarding claim 4, MU teaches the first network node of claim 2, wherein the ranking prioritizes PRACH resources associated with a third UE type (normal terminal) when none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with the first UE type and none of the one or more PRACH resources included in the control message are associated with the second UE type (see par 138 and 131, the eRedCap UE prioritizes third random access resource for a normal terminal when there is not a first random access resource for an eRedCap UE and a second random access resource for a RedCap UE).
Regarding claim 5, MU teaches the first network node of claim 4, wherein:
the second UE type is a reduced capability UE type (RedCap UE), and the third UE type is an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) UE type (normal terminal) (see “Optionally, the first-type terminal is an eRedCap UE, the second-type terminal is a RedCap UE, and the third-type terminal is a non-Reduced Capability terminal (i.e., a normal terminal). The non-Reduced Capability terminal
is a terminal defined in a 5G NR system, which includes terminals in the 5G NR system other than the eRedCap UE and the RedCap” [par 131] wherein the normal terminal suggests an “eMBB UE type” because an eMBB UE is defined in a 5G NR system).
Regarding claim 6, MU teaches the first network node of claim 1, wherein the enhanced reduced capability UE type corresponds to reduced capabilities with respect to a reduced capability UE type (RedCap UE) and an enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) UE type (normal terminal) (see “Optionally, the first-type terminal is an eRedCap UE, the second-type terminal is a RedCap UE, and the third-type terminal is a non-Reduced Capability terminal (i.e., a normal terminal). The non-Reduced Capability terminal
is a terminal defined in a 5G NR system, which includes terminals in the 5G NR system other than the eRedCap UE and the RedCap” [par 131] wherein the normal terminal suggests an “eMBB UE type” because an eMBB UE is defined in a 5G NR system).
Regarding claim 7, MU teaches the first network node of claim 1, wherein the first UE type is associated with a first maximum bandwidth processing capability (maximum transceiving bandwidth) that is lower than a second maximum bandwidth processing capability associated with enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) UEs (see “The maximum transceiving bandwidth supported by the eRedCap UE is smaller than the maximum transceiving bandwidth supported by the RedCap UE and the maximum transceiving bandwidth supported by the non-Reduced Capability terminal” [par 74]).
Regarding claim 8, MU teaches the first network node of claim 7, wherein the first maximum bandwidth processing capability pertains to one or more combinations of radio frequency bandwidth (terminal bandwidth), baseband bandwidth, or bandwidth for physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) or physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (see “For example, the terminal capability includes a terminal bandwidth, and the terminal bandwidth supported by the first-type terminal is smaller than the terminal bandwidth supported by the second-type terminal and the terminal bandwidth supported by the third-type terminal” [par 72]).
Regarding claim 9, MU teaches the first network node of claim 1, wherein the processing system is configured to: receive a second control message indicating the ranking for the PRACH resource selection (see par 131 and 138, the random access resource configuration received by the eRedCap UE suggests the claimed “first control message” and “second control message” since it comprises PRACH resources and a ranking to select the PRACH resources).
Claim 10 recites similar subject matter as claim 1, but differs by reciting “initial bandwidth part” instead of “PRACH resources”. Claim 9 is therefore rejected on the same basis as claim 1 and the following disclosures “Optionally, the first random access resource includes a first uplink initial BandWidth Part (BWP) configured for the first-type terminal…” [par 77] and “…the network device configures a second uplink initial BWP for a second type terminal” [par 88] and “Optionally, in the case that the network device configures the third uplink initial BWP for the third-type terminal” [par 96] which suggest random access resource may be uplink initial BWP).
Claims 11, 20, and 26 recite subject matter similar to claim 2 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 12, 21, and 27 recite subject matter similar to claim 3 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 13, 22, and 28 recite subject matter similar to claim 4 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 14, 23, and 29 recite subject matter similar to claim 5 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claims 15, 24, and 30 recite subject matter similar to claim 6 and are therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 16 recites subject matter similar to claim 7 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 17 recites subject matter similar to claim 8 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 18 recites subject matter similar to claim 9 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 19 recites subject matter similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Claim 25 recites subject matter similar to claim 10 and is therefore rejected on the same basis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Nam T Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-5970. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at 571-270-0375. 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.
/NAM T HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647