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 .
DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to the communication received March 13th, 2026. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 10-15, 17-18, 32-24, 26, 29-30 have been amended. Claims 1-30 have been entered and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the non-statutory double patenting since the claims are still directed to the same subject matter of US Patent 12,484,000.
Applicant argues, “However, transmitting PRACH preambles during distinct occasions does not teach or suggest "transmit[ting] a burst of a plurality of multiple physical random access channel (PRACH) signals," as recited by amended independent Claim 1. Zhang also describes that a second distinct RACH occasion is selected by the wireless device, when the occasion satisfies a performance threshold. See id. 1 [0035]. For example, Zhang discusses that "[t]he wireless device 102 can determine a future RACH occasion on which to transmit a preamble to the gNodeB." Id. 1 [0025]. Other portions of Zhang discuss how "the wireless device 102 selects a second RACH occasion 402 nearest in time to the first RACH occasion 402 and for which the signal performance metric of the SS block index value associated with the second RACH occasion 402 satisfies the performance threshold." Id. 1 [0035]. Thus, Zhang describes transmitting PRACH preambles at distinct and separate occasions with SS blocks that satisfy a performance threshold. which does not teach or suggest that the UE "transmit[s] a burst of a plurality of multiple physical random access channel (PRACH) signals", as claimed.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Zhang et al. discloses the wireless device 102 can repeatedly send the PRACH preamble to the gNodeB 112 with increasing transmit power levels until receiving a response from the gNodeB 112. At 106, the wireless device 102 receives a random access response (RAR) message from the gNodeB 112 indicating that the cellular wireless network received the PRACH preamble (paragraph 0025) and by sending multiple PRACH preamble transmissions in different RACH occasions 402 (and associated with different SS blocks 200 and therefore different transmit beams) , the wireless device 102 improves both latency (PRACH preambles transmitted sooner than when only one RACH occasion 402 is used) and transmit diversity (different transmit beams and RACH occasions 402 used) to improve successful performance of a RACH procedure with the gNodeB 112 of the cellular wireless network (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0033 [Figure 4 shows a burst]).
The rejection of the claims is respectfully maintained.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 14, 21, 29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 12, 19, 23, 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12/484,000. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are directed to transmission of multiple PRACH signals at different power levels, receiving a response, and transmitting a random access request based on the received response.
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, 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-15, 19-20, 21-22, 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2024148514) in view of Wilhelmsson et al. (2024/0147387).
Regarding claims 1, 14, 21, 29, Zhang et al. discloses a user equipment (UE) (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0017 [wireless device]), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see Figure 7 and paragraph 0037 The ROM 722 can store programs, utilities or processes to be executed in a non-volatile manner. The RAM 720 can provide volatile data storage, and stores instructions related to the operation of the computing device 700]); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (see Figure 7 [the computing device 700 can include one or more processors 702 that
represent microprocessors or controllers for controlling the overall operation of computing device
700 coupled to the RAM, ROM, and Storage Device]): transmit a burst of a plurality of multiple physical random access channel (PRACH) signals at a plurality of power levels during a time period (see Figures 1, 4 and paragraphs 0025, 0033 [The wireless device 102 can repeatedly send the PRACH preamble to the gNodeB 112 with increasing transmit power levels until receiving a response from the gNodeB 112]); receive, in response to transmission of the burst, a response message indicating one or more PRACH signals of the plurality of PRACH signals (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0025 [At 106, the wireless device 102 receives a random access response (RAR) message from the gNodeB 112 indicating that the cellular wireless network received the PRACH preamble]); and transmit a random access request message at a first power level of the plurality of power levels according to the one or more PRACH signals detected during the time period (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0025 [the wireless device transmits an uplink message, designated "message 3", to the gNodeB 112, and at 110, the gNodeB 25 112 responds with a downlink message, designated "message 4", inherent message 3 is transmitted at the same power level as the PRACH signal that was received]).
Zhang et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple power levels are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected from within a power range defined for the burst.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. suggests wherein the plurality power levels are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected from within a power range defined for the multiple PRACH signals (paragraph 0098 [ the used transmission power is selected randomly for a set of RA attempts. In an exemplary embodiment, each STA randomly selects its power level from a set of power levels. The set of power levels can be directly signaled as a set of levels (e.g., TX_pow1, TX_pow2, TX_pow3, . . . ). In a non-limiting alternative embodiment, the power levels are signaled as a minimum and a maximum transmit (or target receive) power level along with a step size to be used for generating a set of power levels spanning the minimum and maximum values]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize PRACH signals could be transmitted at random power levels in order to increase the likelihood of reception faster.
Regarding claims 2, 15, 22, 30, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 14, 21, 29.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. further discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a lower bound and an upper bound associated with the power range defined for the burst (paragraph 0098 [The set of power levels can be directly signaled as a set of levels (e.g., TX_pow1, TX_pow2, TX_pow3, . . . )]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize PRACH signals could be transmitted at random power levels in order to increase the likelihood of reception faster since if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful (paragraph 0081, Wilhelmsson et al.).
Regarding claims 8, 19, 27, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 14, 21.
Zhang et al. further discloses wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a first set of time resources (paragraph 0027 [Exemplary random access configuration parameters include physical RACH (PRACH) preamble patterns and time/frequency resources for RACH occasions, allowable PRACH preamble transmit power levels]), frequency resources, or spatial resources associated with the power range.
Regarding claims 9, 20, 28, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 8, 19, 27.
Zhang et al. further discloses wherein the first set of time resources, frequency resources, or spatial resources is different from a second set of time resources (see Figure 5A [different sets of RACH occasions]), frequency resources, or spatial resources associated with an additional power range.
Regarding claim 10, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 1.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. further suggests wherein the plurality of power levels are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected according to a uniform randomness within the power range defined for the burst (paragraph 0081 [each of the STAs selects its power level randomly for each RA transmission, rather than using the fixed power level all the time; if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful, suggesting there is no weight associated with each possible selected power level]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize PRACH signals could be transmitted at random power levels in order to increase the likelihood of reception faster since if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful (paragraph 0081, Wilhelmsson et al.).
Regarding claim 11, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 1.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. further suggests wherein the plurality of power levels are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected according to a uniform randomness ill be successful, suggesting there is no weight associated with each possible selected power level]) within a defined set of discrete power levels within the power range defined for the burst (paragraph 0098 [the power levels are signaled as a minimum and a maximum transmit (or target receive) power level along with a step size to be used for generating a set of power levels spanning the minimum and maximum values]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize PRACH signals could be transmitted at random power levels in order to increase the likelihood of reception faster since if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful (paragraph 0081, Wilhelmsson et al.).
Regarding claim 12, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 1.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. further suggests wherein the plurality of power levels are randomly or pseudo-randomly selected according to a random or pseudorandom permutation (paragraph 0081 [each of the STAs selects its power level randomly for each RA transmission, rather than using the fixed power level all the time; if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful, suggesting there is no weight associated with each possible selected power level]) of a defined set of discrete power levels within the power range defined for the burst (paragraph 0098 [the power levels are signaled as a minimum and a maximum transmit (or target receive) power level along with a step size to be used for generating a set of power levels spanning the minimum and maximum values]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize PRACH signals could be transmitted at random power levels in order to increase the likelihood of reception faster since if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful (paragraph 0081, Wilhelmsson et al.).
Regarding claim 13, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claim 1.
However, Wilhelmsson et al. further suggests wherein the multiple power levels comprises a first set of discrete power levels that is randomly or pseudo-randomly selected from multiple sets of discrete power levels within the power range defined for the multiple PRACH signals (paragraph 0023 [selecting the first transmit power level from the plurality of fixed power levels]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize PRACH signals could be transmitted at random power levels in order to increase the likelihood of reception faster since if instead the power is selected randomly at every attempt there is a chance that the two STAs will select different power levels such that one of them will be successful (paragraph 0081, Wilhelmsson et al.).
Claim(s) 6-7, 17-18, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2024148514) in view of Wilhelmsson et al. (2024/0147387) as applied to claims 1, 14, 21 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2016/0316490).
Regarding claims 6, 17, 26, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 14, 21, but do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of power levels are different from a plurality of previous power levels associated with a previous time period, and wherein the burst is transmitted based at least in part on a failure to receive a previous response message during the previous time period.
However, Wang et al. suggests wherein the multiple power levels are different from multiple previous power levels associated with a previous time period and the multiple PRACH signals is transmitted based at least in part on a failure to receive a previous response message detected during the previous time period (paragraphs 0029, 0055, 0058, 0079 [maximum number of attempts; a first random access attempt may be made at a first power level (which may include one or more redundant transmissions of the random access message according to coverage enhancement techniques), followed by a second random access attempt made at a second higher power level (assuming no RAR is received), and so on until a maximum transmit power level is reached. A scenario may include a maximum of three power levels of random access transmissions, and in some examples different numbers of redundant transmissions may be provided for the different power levels; determining a subsequent set of initial transmission power levels that is the same as or different from the set of initial transmission power levels and is based at least in part on a prior successful RACH message transmission suggesting a prior set of power levels received a response and the new set did not (i.e., reverting to an original successful subset)]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize multiple subsets of power levels could be used to transmit the PRACH preambles in order to establish a connection.
Regarding claims 7, 18, the references as combined above disclose all the recited subject matter in claims 6, 17 above.
Wang et al. further discloses wherein the plurality of power levels are higher than each of the plurality previous power levels (paragraph 0029, 0082 [determining a subsequent set of initial transmission power levels that is the same as or different from the set of initial transmission power levels; the base station 105-a may provide a subsequent set of possible initial power levels for later access attempts by the UE 115-a which may be adjusted to, for example, initial power levels of 0 dBm, 5 dBm, and 10 dBm; the base station 105-a may provide a subsequent set of possible initial power levels for later access attempts by the UE 115-a which may be adjusted to, for example, initial power levels of 5 dBm and 15 dBm]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize multiple subsets of power levels could be used to transmit the PRACH preambles in order to establish a connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 16, 23-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, 23, the references as combined above do not disclose or make obvious: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: perform a first open loop power control computation based at least in part on a first downlink pathloss parameter to obtain a lower bound associated with the power range defined for the burst; and perform a second open loop power control computation based at least in part on a second downlink pathloss parameter to obtain an upper bound associated with the power range defined for the burst.
Regarding claim 4, 24, the references as combined above do not disclose or make obvious: wherein, to transmit burst at the plurality of power levels, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: randomly or pseudo-randomly select, for each PRACH signal of the plurality of PRACH signals, an offset value such that a power level of the plurality of power levels is based at least in part on a sum of an open loop power control value and the offset value.
Regarding claims 5, 16, 25, the references as combined above do not disclose or make obvious: wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of a range for the offset value, wherein a lower bound of the range for the offset value is zero and an upper bound of the range for the offset value is based at least in part on a power headroom of the UE associated with PRACH transmission.
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 CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm.
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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights