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 communication is in response to the amendment filed 2/2/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 12, 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rastegardoost et al. “Rastegardoost” WO2022/140450 (submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Rastegardoost teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory (Figure 15 1504) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a terminal device, a random access preamble during a random access procedure (a UE transmits a preamble to the base station during RACH; Paragraph 269, see also paragraph 299 and Figure 23); and
transmit, to the terminal device, a message including an indication, wherein the indication indicates one of:
one random access response that accommodates a bandwidth limitation of the terminal device, wherein the bandwidth limitation of the terminal device being within a wider system bandwidth (the PDSCH sending Msg2MsgB (RAR) uses a smaller bandwidth for RedCap UEs than non-RedCap UEs; Paragraph 272. The smaller bandwidth is the accommodation of a bandwidth limitation for a terminal device), or
multiple random-access responses comprising a first random access response that does not accommodate the bandwidth limitation of the terminal device, and a second random access response that accommodates the bandwidth limitation of the terminal device (the base station may send one RAR to a RedCap UE and a RAR to a non RedCap UE; Paragraphs 270-271. Thus one can see multiple RAR are transmit to the devices based on bandwidth accommodations).
Regarding claim 2, Rastegardoost teaches the message is carried over a physical downlink control channel (Paragraph 272, PDCCH).
Regarding claim 12, Rastegardoost teaches the bandwidth limitation of the device is less than or equal to 5MHz and the system bandwidth is greater than 5MHz (Paragraph 237 teaches the bandwidth for the RedCap devices can be reduced to 5MHz (i.e. bandwidth limitation). As this is a reduced bandwidth, this infers that the system bandwidth is larger than 5MHz).
Regarding claim 13, Rastegardoost teaches the bandwidth limitation of the device is less than 20MHz and the system bandwidth is greater than 20MHz (Paragraph 237 teaches the bandwidth for the RedCap devices can be 5MHz or 10MHz (i.e. less than 20MHz). As this is a reduced bandwidth, this infers that the system bandwidth is larger than 20MHz).
Regarding claim 17, Rastegardoost teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory (Figure 15 1502) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
transmit, to a network node, a random access preamble during a random access procedure (a UE transmits a preamble to the base station during RACH; Paragraph 269, see also paragraph 299 and Figure 23); and
receive, from the network node, a message including an indication, wherein the indication indicates one of:
one random access response that accommodates a bandwidth limitation of the terminal device, wherein the bandwidth limitation of the terminal device being within a wider system bandwidth (the PDSCH sending Msg2MsgB (RAR) uses a smaller bandwidth for RedCap UEs than non-RedCap UEs; Paragraph 272. The smaller bandwidth is the accommodation of a bandwidth limitation for a terminal device), or
multiple random-access responses comprising a first random access response that does not accommodate the bandwidth limitation of the terminal device, and a second random access response that accommodates the bandwidth limitation of the terminal device (the base station may send one RAR to a RedCap UE and a RAR to a non RedCap UE; Paragraphs 270-271. Thus one can see multiple RAR are transmit to the devices based on bandwidth accommodations).
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) 3-11, 14-16, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of Lei et al. “Lei” US 2022/0338265 (submitted in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 3, Rastegardoost teaches the one RAR accommodating the bandwidth limitation is provided with one resource assignment which is distinct of the assignment that does not accommodate the BW limitation (the base station sends Msg2/MsgB on the to the terminals based on being RedCap and non-RedCap. This messaging is for scheduling (i.e. resource assignment). Thus one can see the smaller bandwidth discussed in claim 1 is distinct from a non accommodating BW limitation; Paragraphs 270-272).
Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose the indications are decoded by the device; however, Lei teaches a UE receiving RACH information, sending a preamble to the base station and receiving a RAR which the UE decodes; Step 525 of Figure 5; See also paragraphs 79-80).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 4, Rastegardoost teaches the resource assignment is a portion of an entire resource assignment to accommodate the wider system bandwidth (the scheduling/resource assignment is for accommodating a smaller bandwidth; Paragraph 272. A smaller bandwidth infers there is a larger (i.e. wider) bandwidth in the system, thus the assignment is a portion of the entire bandwidth).
Regarding claim 5, Rastegardoost teaches the second RAR accommodating the BW limitation of the terminal is provided with the one resource assignment, wherein the one resource assignment is distinct of the entire resource assignment that does not accommodate the bandwidth limitations (the base station may send one RAR to a RedCap UE and a RAR to a non RedCap UE; Paragraphs 270-271. Thus one can see multiple RAR are transmit to the devices based on bandwidth accommodations. The scheduling/resource assignment is for accommodating a smaller bandwidth; Paragraph 272. A smaller bandwidth infers there is a larger (i.e. wider) bandwidth in the system, thus the assignment one resource assignment is distinct from other assignments.
Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose the indications are decoded by the device; however, Lei teaches a UE receiving RACH information, sending a preamble to the base station and receiving a RAR which the UE decodes; Step 525 of Figure 5; See also paragraphs 79-80).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 6, Rastegardoost teaches the resource assignment includes resources for a PDSCH (Paragraph 272 teaches PDCCH or PDSCH).
Regarding claim 7, Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose transmitting the second RAR accommodating the BW limitation of the terminal device subsequent to transmitting the first RAR that does not accommodate the BW limitation of the device; however, Lei teaches That a UE receives multiple RARs (i.e. first and second RAR for BW limitations); Paragraphs 72 and 86. Further the UE will receive RARs and differentiate between them (step 520 of Figure 5); Paragraph 79. The UE will only decode the RARs intended for it based on the type; Paragraph 79 wherein the type can be RedCap or non-RedCap; Paragraph 72. Thus one can see multiple RARs are received by the terminal and some and only those intended for the terminal are decoded. This shows that a second RAR can be transmit, which does accommodate the BW limitation after a first RAR that does not).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 8, Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose transmitting the second RAR accommodating the BW limitation of the terminal device subsequent to transmitting the first RAR that does not accommodate the BW limitation of the device; however, Lei teaches That a UE receives multiple RARs (i.e. first and second RAR for BW limitations); Paragraphs 72 and 86. Further the UE will receive RARs and differentiate between them (step 520 of Figure 5); Paragraph 79. The UE will only decode the RARs intended for it based on the type; Paragraph 79 wherein the type can be RedCap or non-RedCap; Paragraph 72. Thus one can see multiple RARs are received by the terminal and some and only those intended for the terminal are decoded. This shows that a second RAR can be transmit, which does accommodate the BW limitation after a first RAR that does not).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 9, Rastegardoost teaches the resource assignments include resources for a PDSCH (Paragraph 272 teaches PDCCH or PDSCH for the RAR messages).
Regarding claim 10, Rastegardoost teaches transmitting to a RA-RNTI associated with the terminal device the RAR information of the bandwidth limitations (Paragraphs 278 and 293 teach RedCap UE association with RA-RNTI), but does not expressly teaches sending both the first and second RAR that accommodate or don’t accommodate the bandwidth limitation. Lei teaches the RAR messages are sent with respect to the RNTI; Paragraphs 79 and 82. Thus this information, some of which is associated with the type of UE and some that isn’t (bandwidth accommodation; Paragraph 72) is thus transmit with respect to the RA-RNTI.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include sending to the RNTI associated with the device both RAR messages as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 11, Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose transmitting the second RAR accommodating the BW limitation of the terminal device subsequent to transmitting the first RAR that does not accommodate the BW limitation of the device; however, Lei teaches That a UE receives multiple RARs (i.e. first and second RAR for BW limitations); Paragraphs 72 and 86. Further the UE will receive RARs and differentiate between them (step 520 of Figure 5); Paragraph 79. The UE will only decode the RARs intended for it based on the type; Paragraph 79 wherein the type can be RedCap or non-RedCap; Paragraph 72. Thus one can see multiple RARs are received by the terminal and some and only those intended for the terminal are decoded. This shows that a second RAR can be transmit, which does accommodate the BW limitation after a first RAR that does not).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 14, Rastegardoost teaches the use of various size bits for sending information; however, Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose the indication is 1 bit. Lei teaches that information indicating the RAR is for the first or second UE type (i.e. indication information) is a spare bit (i.e. 1 bit); Paragraph 125.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include the indication information is 1-bit as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the RAR can provide the indication of the type of UE as taught by Lei; Paragraph 125.
Regarding claim 15, Rastegardoost teaches the indication is provide implicitly by the resource assignment to accommodate the bandwidth of the device (the base station sends Msg2/MsgB to the terminals based on being RedCap and non-RedCap. This messaging is for scheduling (i.e. resource assignment which is implicit). Thus one can see the smaller bandwidth discussed in claim 1 is distinct from a non accommodating BW limitation; Paragraphs 270-272).
Regarding claim 16, Rastegardoost teaches the indication is provide implicitly by the resource assignment that does not accommodate the bandwidth of the device (the base station sends Msg2/MsgB to the terminals based on being RedCap and non-RedCap. This messaging is for scheduling (i.e. resource assignment which is implicit). Thus one can see the smaller bandwidth discussed in claim 1 is distinct from a non accommodating BW limitation; Paragraphs 270-272).
Regarding claim 18, Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose transmitting the second RAR accommodating the BW limitation of the terminal device subsequent to transmitting the first RAR that does not accommodate the BW limitation of the device; however, Lei teaches That a UE receives multiple RARs (i.e. first and second RAR for BW limitations); Paragraphs 72 and 86. Further the UE will receive RARs and differentiate between them (step 520 of Figure 5); Paragraph 79. The UE will only decode the RARs intended for it based on the type; Paragraph 79 wherein the type can be RedCap or non-RedCap; Paragraph 72. Thus one can see multiple RARs are received by the terminal and some and only those intended for the terminal are decoded. This shows that a second RAR can be transmit, which does accommodate the BW limitation after a first RAR that does not).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 19, Rastegardoost teaches the one RAR accommodating the bandwidth limitation is provided with one resource assignment which is distinct of the assignment that does not accommodate the BW limitation (the base station sends Msg2/MsgB on the to the terminals based on being RedCap and non-RedCap. This messaging is for scheduling (i.e. resource assignment). Thus one can see the smaller bandwidth discussed in claim 1 is distinct from a non accommodating BW limitation; Paragraphs 270-272).
Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose the indications are decoded by the device; however, Lei teaches a UE receiving RACH information, sending a preamble to the base station and receiving a RAR which the UE decodes; Step 525 of Figure 5; See also paragraphs 79-80).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 20, Rastegardoost teaches transmitting to a RA-RNTI associated with the terminal device the RAR information of the bandwidth limitations (Paragraphs 278 and 293 teach RedCap UE association with RA-RNTI), but does not expressly teaches sending both the first and second RAR that accommodate or don’t accommodate the bandwidth limitation. Lei teaches the RAR messages are sent with respect to the RNTI; Paragraphs 79 and 82. Thus this information, some of which is associated with the type of UE and some that isn’t (bandwidth accommodation; Paragraph 72) is thus transmit with respect to the RA-RNTI.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include sending to the RNTI associated with the device both RAR messages as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Regarding claim 21, Rastegardoost teaches the one RAR accommodating the bandwidth limitation is provided with one resource assignment which is distinct of the assignment that does not accommodate the BW limitation (the base station sends Msg2/MsgB on the to the terminals based on being RedCap and non-RedCap. This messaging is for scheduling (i.e. resource assignment). Thus one can see the smaller bandwidth discussed in claim 1 is distinct from a non accommodating BW limitation; Paragraphs 270-272).
Rastegardoost does not expressly disclose the indications are decoded by the device; however, Lei teaches a UE receiving RACH information, sending a preamble to the base station and receiving a RAR which the UE decodes; Step 525 of Figure 5; See also paragraphs 79-80).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Rastegardoost to include decoding the received message as taught by Lei.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine if a RAR is to be decoded by the particular UE based on the BWP configuration as taught by Lei; Paragraph 79.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest transmitting a message to a terminal which includes an indication of a RA response accommodating bandwidth or multiple responses with respect to bandwidth accommodation. Applicant argues both RARs are sent to the same terminal device where the prior art teaches sending separate RARs to different types of devices.
The Examiner notes, the Applicant only provided an argument as to why the prior art does not properly read on the second option of the “or” statement. Claim 1 requires either one RAR to be sent accommodating bandwidth or two RAR messages, one not accommodating and one accommodating bandwidth limitations. As the applicant did not argue the prior art with respect to the first option (i.e. sending one RAR), the claims stand properly rejected.
Regarding the argued limitation, the Examiner notes paragraph 270 expressly states a base station may send a first PDSCH including one or more RARs for the first type of wireless device. Thus, one can see, the base station sends multiple RARs to the same device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411