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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims now require sending both a first and second indication wherein the second indication is with respect to multiple RARs. The specification does not appear to support an apparatus sending both a first and second indication as claimed. The specification makes it clear the indication can only provide one or the other (one RAR or multiple RARs). Figure 3B (302-2) shows a subsequent RAR being sent which could potentially be the “Second indication”; however, the details of what is in this indication are lacking. As can be seen in Figure 3A, 302 clearly teaches the indication of one or multiple RARs; however, there is no support to show a second one of these messages also indicating multiple RARs. These two messages appear to be mutually exclusive. The system would either indicate the use of one RAR or multiple RARs, thus the specification lacks support to show a first and second indication being sent, where one indication is for one RAR and the other indication for multiple RARs.
Further, claim 1 states the UE transmits a first and second random access preamble. There is no support to show a UE performing two random access procedures. Figures 3a and 3B make it clear there is only one preamble being transmit.
Appropriate correction required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. “Rastegardoost” WO2022/140450 (submitted in Applicant’s IDS) in view of Lei et al. “Lei” US 2022/0338265 (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, over a PDCCH a first message including a first indication, wherein the indication indicates 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),
wherein 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);
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);
wherein 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);
wherein the one resource assignment for the one RAR is for PDSCH (Paragraphs 270 and 272);
wherein the first indication is provided 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);
receive, from the terminal device, a second random access preamble during a second (Paragraphs 160-161 and Figure 13A teach a plurality of random access procedures and random access preambles);
transmit to the terminal device, over the PDCCH a second message including a second indication which indicates 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);
the resource assignments include resources for a PDSCH (Paragraph 272 teaches PDCCH or PDSCH for the RAR messages); and
transmit both a radio resource control (RRC) release message and a broadcast signal, both of the RRC release message and the broadcast signal indicating that user equipment with bandwidth limitation less than or equal to 5 megahertz are to interpret each of the following differently: frequency domain resource assignment, time domain resource assignment, virtual resource block (VRB) to physical resource block (PRB) mapping, modulation and coding scheme, and transport block (TB) scaling (Paragraph 250 teaches the time/frequency resource assignment, VRB mapping, MCS and TB scaling. Paragraph 207 teaches that both RRC and broadcast messages can be signaled. Paragraphs 235-237 teaches the bandwidth for the RedCap devices can be reduced to 5MHz (i.e. bandwidth limitation). Thus the signaling (which includes broadcast/RRC messaging) would include this bandwidth limitation of 5MHz as claimed).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant does not provide any specific arguments regarding how the amended limitations overcome the cited art. Most of the claim amendment comes from previous dependent claims. The additional limitations regarding the RRC and interpreting frequency, time, VRB-PRB mapping etc is directly taught by Rastegardoost in Paragraph 250.
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 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
Prosecution Insights