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 ACTION
a. Claims 1-26 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA :
- claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, 20-22, 25, and 26 are amended
b. This is a final action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 12/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, 21, 22, and 26 previously objected for informalities, claims 1, 5-9, 13-17, 21, 22, and 26 have been amended according to the examiner's recommendation and thus the previous objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding Independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 22 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, Applicant's arguments, see “Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, "the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD" (emphasis added). Independent claims 9, 17 and 22 have been amended to recite features similar to the above-emphasized features of Claim 1. Agarwal fails to disclose or suggest the features of Claims 1, 9, 17 and 22.” on page 11, filed on 12/17/2025, with respect to Agarwal et al. US Pub 2017/0374686 (hereinafter “Agarwal”), have been fully considered but are moot, over the limitations of “the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD”. Said limitations are newly added to the amended Claims 1, 9, 17, and 22 and have been addressed in instant office action, as shown in section 35 USC 103 rejection below, with newly identified prior art teaching from newly found reference , in combination with previously applied reference Agarwal, thus rendering said Applicant’s arguments moot.
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 16-18, 20, 22-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al. US Pub 2017/0374686 (hereinafter “Agarwal”), and in view of Rastegardoost et al. US Pub 20220210806, claiming provisional application 63132883 priority 2020-12-31 (hereinafter “Rastegardoost”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal discloses a network node (i.e. “network access device 205” in Fig. 2) configured to communicate with a wireless device (WD) (i.e. “UE 115-a” in Fig. 2), the network node comprising:
a radio interface (“at least one transceiver (represented by transceiver(s) 1050)” in Fig. 10; [0141]) configured to:
receive a physical random access channel (PRACH) message (“At 210, a message including a random access preamble may be transmitted on a random access channel (RACH) of an uplink.” [0073]; Fig. 2) from the WD (i.e. “UE 115-a” in Fig. 2);
transmit at least one random access response (RAR) message, the at least one RAR message being responsive to the received PRACH message from the WD (“At 215, and in response to detecting the random access preamble transmitted at 210, the network access device 205 may transmit a random access response (RAR) message.” [0074]; Fig. 2) and configured to provide at least a first grant and a second grant (“transmit a random access response message including the identified number of uplink grants” [0028]), the first grant configured to grant uplink resources to a WD on a first slice (“the UE may select an uplink grant for transmission of a first scheduled UL transmission based at least in part on a service used by the UE, or a service requirement of the UE, or a QoS requirement of the UE, or an access priority of the UE, or different slices, or an amount of data in a transmit buffer of the UE, or a maximum channel bandwidth supported by the UE, or a feature set supported by the UE, or combinations thereof.” [0098]), the second grant configured to grant uplink resources to a WD on a second slice (“the network access device (or other network node) may associate at least two of the uplink grants (i.e. first and second grants) associated with a preamble sequence with different feature sets (with each feature set including at least one feature) (i.e. different slices), or with different maximum channel bandwidths, or with different payload sizes, or with different sets of (one or more) services, or with different service requirements, or with different QoS profiles, or with different access priorities, or with combinations thereof.” [0097]); and
Agarwal does not specifically teach the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD.
In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD (“a non-RedCap UE may determine a first TBS of a first Msg 3 PUSCH based on a RAR UL grant”) and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD (i.e. “A RedCap UE may determine a second TBS for a second Msg3 PUSCH transmission based on the RAR UL grant”; “An indication of a UE type/capability via a Msg 3 PUSCH without prior knowledge at a base station may require some enhancements in determining content(s) (e.g., transport block, UCI or DM-RS sequence) for a Msg 3 PUSCH. Based on some embodiments, a non-RedCap UE may determine a first TBS of a first Msg 3 PUSCH based on a RAR UL grant. A RedCap UE may determine a second TBS for a second Msg3 PUSCH transmission based on the RAR UL grant and at least a first parameter (e.g., pre-defined and/or configured by RRC/SIB/MIB message and/or indicated by Msg2 PDCCH/PDSCH). For example, one or more TBS scaling values may be defined/configured/indicated for RedCap Msg3 PUSCH transmission. For example, a first MCS table (e.g., lower modulation order and/or coding rate compared to legacy/normal/non-RedCap UEs) may be defined/configured/indicated for RedCap Msg3 PUSCH transmission.” [0282]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, to include Rastegardoost’s method for indicating of a UE type/capability, in order to allocate appropriate resources based on UE type (Rastegardoost [0282]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Rastegardoost’s method for indicating of a UE type/capability into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the network node of Claim 1,
Agarwal further discloses wherein one of the first slice and the second slice is of a higher priority than the other of the first slice and the second slice (“the UE may select an uplink grant for transmission of a first scheduled UL transmission based at least in part on a service used by the UE, or a service requirement of the UE, or a QoS requirement of the UE, or an access priority of the UE, or different slices, or an amount of data in a transmit buffer of the UE, or a maximum channel bandwidth supported by the UE, or a feature set supported by the UE, or combinations thereof.” [0098] and furthermore “at least two uplink grants with different feature sets, or different maximum channel bandwidths, or different payload sizes, or different sets of services, or different service requirements, or different QoS profiles, or different access priorities, or different slices, or combinations thereof.” [0130]).
Regarding claim 3
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the network node of Claim 1,
Agarwal further discloses wherein the first grant and the second grant are included in one RAR message (“receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble” [0006]).
Regarding claim 8
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the network node of Claim 1,
Agarwal further discloses further comprising processing circuitry (“The network access device 205-a may include a processor 1010” [0141]; Fig. 10) configured to define a random access-radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) that identifies the RAR message (“In some examples, the RAR message may be transmitted on a downlink shared channel (DL-SCH), using a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) as a physical ID.” [0074]).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended)
A method implemented in a network node configured to communicate with a wireless device (WD), the method comprising:
receiving a physical random access channel (PRACH) message from the WD;
transmitting at least one random access response (RAR) message, the at least one RAR message being responsive to the received PRACH message from the WD and configured to provide at least a first grant and a second grant, the first grant configured to grant uplink resources to a WD on a first slice, the second grant configured to grant uplink resources to a WD on a second slice; and
the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 9 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 9 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 10
The method of Claim 9, wherein one of the first slice and the second slice is of a higher priority than the other of the first slice and the second slice.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 10 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 2. Therefore method claim 10 corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Regarding claim 11
The method of Claim 9, wherein the first grant and the second grant are included in one RAR message.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 11 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 3. Therefore method claim 11 corresponds to apparatus claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 3 rejection above.
Regarding claim 16 (Currently Amended)
The method of Claim 9, further comprising defining a random access-radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) that identifies the RAR message.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 16 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 8. Therefore method claim 16 corresponds to apparatus claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 8 rejection above.
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal discloses a wireless device (WD) (i.e. “UE 115-a” in Fig. 2), configured to communicate with a network node (i.e. “network access device 205” in Fig. 2), the WD comprising:
a radio interface (“at least one transceiver (represented by transceiver(s) 930),” [0135]; Fig. 9) configured to receive in a random access response (RAR) message (“At 215, and in response to detecting the random access preamble transmitted at 210, the network access device 205 may transmit a random access response (RAR) message.” [0074]; Fig. 2),
the RAR message being in response to a physical random access channel (PRACH) message (“At 210, a message including a random access preamble may be transmitted on a random access channel (RACH) of an uplink.” [0073]; Fig. 2) sent by the WD (i.e. “UE 115-a” in Fig. 2); and
processing circuitry (“processor 910” in Fig. 9; [0135]) in communication with the radio interface and configured to identify a grant in the RAR message corresponding to one of a first slice and a second slice (“the UE may select an uplink grant for transmission of a first scheduled UL transmission based at least in part on a service used by the UE, or a service requirement of the UE, or a QoS requirement of the UE, or an access priority of the UE, or different slices, or an amount of data in a transmit buffer of the UE, or a maximum channel bandwidth supported by the UE, or a feature set supported by the UE, or combinations thereof.” [0098]).
Agarwal does not specifically teach the RAR message being configured to provide at least a first grant and a second grant, the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD.
In an analogous art, Rastegardoost discloses the RAR message (“RAR UL grant”) being configured to provide at least a first grant and a second grant, the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD (“a non-RedCap UE may determine a first TBS of a first Msg 3 PUSCH based on a RAR UL grant”) and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD (i.e. “A RedCap UE may determine a second TBS for a second Msg3 PUSCH transmission based on the RAR UL grant”; “An indication of a UE type/capability via a Msg 3 PUSCH without prior knowledge at a base station may require some enhancements in determining content(s) (e.g., transport block, UCI or DM-RS sequence) for a Msg 3 PUSCH. Based on some embodiments, a non-RedCap UE may determine a first TBS of a first Msg 3 PUSCH based on a RAR UL grant. A RedCap UE may determine a second TBS for a second Msg3 PUSCH transmission based on the RAR UL grant and at least a first parameter (e.g., pre-defined and/or configured by RRC/SIB/MIB message and/or indicated by Msg2 PDCCH/PDSCH). For example, one or more TBS scaling values may be defined/configured/indicated for RedCap Msg3 PUSCH transmission. For example, a first MCS table (e.g., lower modulation order and/or coding rate compared to legacy/normal/non-RedCap UEs) may be defined/configured/indicated for RedCap Msg3 PUSCH transmission.” [0282]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, to include Rastegardoost’s method for indicating of a UE type/capability, in order to allocate appropriate resources based on UE type (Rastegardoost [0282]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Rastegardoost’s method for indicating of a UE type/capability into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 18
The WD of Claim 17, wherein one of the first slice and the second slice is of a higher priority than the other of the first slice and the second slice.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 18 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 2. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to apparatus claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 2 rejection above.
Regarding claim 20 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the WD of Claim 17,
Agarwal further discloses wherein the first grant in the RAR message corresponding to the first slice is indicated in a preamble, the preamble indicating the second grant (“the network access device (or other network node) may associate at least two of the uplink grants (i.e. first and second grants) associated with a preamble sequence with different feature sets (with each feature set including at least one feature) (i.e. different slices), or with different maximum channel bandwidths, or with different payload sizes, or with different sets of (one or more) services, or with different service requirements, or with different QoS profiles, or with different access priorities, or with combinations thereof.” [0097]).
Regarding claim 22 (Currently Amended)
A method implemented in a wireless device (WD), the method comprising:
receiving a random access response (RAR) message, the RAR message being configured to provide at least a first grant and a second grant, the first grant being configured for utilization by a legacy WD and the second grant is configured for utilization by a non-legacy WD, the RAR message being in response to a physical random access channel (PRACH) message sent by the WD; and
identifying the first grant or the second grant in the RAR message corresponding to one of a first slice and a second slice.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 22 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 17. Therefore method claim 22 corresponds to apparatus claim 17 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 17 rejection above.
Regarding claim 23
The method of Claim 22, wherein one of the first slice and the second slice is of a higher priority than the other of the first slice and the second slice.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 23 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 18. Therefore method claim 23 corresponds to apparatus claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 18 rejection above.
Regarding claim 25 (Currently Amended)
The method of Claim 22, wherein the first grant in the RAR message corresponding to the first slice is indicated in a preamble, the preamble indicating the second grant.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 25 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 20. Therefore method claim 25 corresponds to apparatus claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 20 rejection above.
Claims 4-5, 7, 12-13, 15, 19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, in view of Rastegardoost, and further in view of Yi et al. US Pub 2022/0210743 (hereinafter “Yi”).
Regarding claim 4
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the network node of Claim 1,
Agarwal further discloses wherein an RAR message includes a preamble, the preamble indicating whether a grant provided by the RAR message (“receiving a random access preamble, and transmitting a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble” [0016]) is one of:
Agarwal discloses slices with different priorities (“at least two of the uplink grants associated with a preamble sequence with different feature sets (with each feature set including at least one feature), or with different maximum channel bandwidths, or with different payload sizes, or with different sets of (one or more) services, or with different service requirements, or with different QoS profiles, or with different access priorities, or with combinations thereof.” [0097]) but Agarwal and Rastegardoost do not specifically teach For a WD on a low priority slice only; and for a WD on either one of a low priority slice and a high priority slice.
In an analogous art, Yi discloses for a WD on a low priority slice only; and for a WD on either one of a low priority slice and a high priority slice (“Enhanced priority rules take into account that a first uplink channel may be associated with a high priority/a first service and a second uplink channel may be associated with a low priority (e.g. a second service, no priority level)… “For example, implementation of enhanced priority rules improves uplink data/control transmission for high/low priority information by assigning a lower priority to PRACH on a SCell compared with uplink data/control transmission for high/low priority information.” [0395]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, as modified by Rastegardoost, to include Yi’s method for prioritizing different services, in order to improve QoS experience for PUSCH, PUCCH and PRACH traffic and procedures (Yi [0395]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Yi’s method for prioritizing different service into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal, as modified by Yi, previously discloses the network node of Claim 4,
Yi further discloses wherein the radio interface is further configured to respond with the first grant only, when the preamble falls within a first PRACH transmission occasion, and to respond with both the first grant and the second grant when the preamble falls within a second PRACH transmission occasion (“the UE may determine a PRACH occasion from one or more PRACH occasions corresponding to a selected CSI-RS. A UE may transmit, to a base station, a selected random access preamble via a selected PRACH occasions. A UE may determine a transmit power for a transmission of a selected random access preamble at least based on an initial preamble power and a power-ramping factor. A UE may determine a RA-RNTI associated with a selected PRACH occasions in which a selected random access preamble is transmitted.” [0280]).
Regarding claim 7 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the network node of Claim 1,
Agarwal does not specifically teach wherein the second grant is included in downlink control information (DCI).
In an analogous art, Yi discloses wherein the second grant is included in downlink control information (DCI) (“The DCI 517 on PDCCH 515 may indicate at least one of following: one or more downlink assignments and/or one or more uplink scheduling grants” [0222]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, as modified by Rastegardoost, to include Yi’s method for prioritizing different services, in order to improve QoS experience for PUSCH, PUCCH and PRACH traffic and procedures (Yi [0395]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Yi’s method for prioritizing different service into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12
The method of Claim 9, wherein an RAR message includes a preamble, the preamble indicating whether a grant provided by the RAR message is one of:
For a WD on a low priority slice only; and
for a WD on either one of a low priority slice and a high priority slice.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 12 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 4. Therefore method claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 4 rejection above.
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended)
The method of Claim 12, further comprising responding with the first grant only, when the preamble falls within a first PRACH transmission occasion, and responding with both the first grant and the second grant when the preamble falls within a second PRACH transmission occasion.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 13 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 5. Therefore method claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended)
The method of Claim 9, wherein the second grant is included in downlink control information (DCI).
The scope and subject matter of method claim 15 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 7. Therefore method claim 15 corresponds to apparatus claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 19
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the WD of Claim 17,
Agarwal does not specifically teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to monitor one of a plurality of search spaces for an RAR message transmission corresponding to one of the first slice and the second slice, each search space corresponding to a slice.
In an analogous art, Yi discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to monitor one of a plurality of search spaces for an RAR message transmission corresponding to one of the first slice and the second slice (“In an example, a wireless device may monitor a UE-specific search space. In an example, a UE specific DCI may correspond to an RNTI configured for the wireless device.” [0242]), each search space corresponding to a slice (“The base station may use a first PRACH format for the first service (i.e. first slice) and use a second PRACH format for the second service (i.e. second slice). For example, the first PRACH format may be a long PRACH format to support a large coverage. For example, the second PRACH format may be a short PRACH format to support a low latency PRACH transmission. The base station may indicate a which PRACH format to use in PRACH transmission in the PDCCH order command… For example, the base station may have a DCI field to indicate a PRACH format in the PRACH transmission. For example, the base station may use a first search space to schedule the PDCCH order based on the first PRACH format (i.e. first search space corresponding to first slice). The base station may use a second search space to schedule the PDCCH order based on the second PRACH format (i.e. second search space corresponding to second slice).” [0440]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, to include Yi’s method for prioritizing different services, in order to improve QoS experience for PUSCH, PUCCH and PRACH traffic and procedures (Yi [0395]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Yi’s method for prioritizing different service into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 24
The method of Claim 22, further comprising monitoring one of a plurality of search spaces for an RAR message transmission corresponding to one of the first slice and the second slice, each search space corresponding to a slice.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 24 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 19. Therefore method claim 24 corresponds to apparatus claim 19 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 19 rejection above.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, in view of Rastegardoost, and further in view of Bergquist et al. US Pub 2020/0120709 (hereinafter “Bergquist”).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the network node of Claim 1,
Agarwal and Rastegardoost do not specifically teach wherein the second grant is added to a same medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) as the first grant, the second grant being placed as a last RAR message of the MAC PDU.
In an analogous art, Bergquist discloses a method of concatenating multiple MAC RARs into same MAC PDU wherein the second grant (i.e. included in RAR) is added to a same medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) as the first grant, the second grant being placed as a last RAR message of the MAC PDU (“A network node, e.g. the gNB, that momentarily detects more than one random access preamble may select to separate its responses in more than one Medium Access Control Physical Data Unit (MAC PDU), or it may select to concatenate its responses into one and the same MAC PDU, see FIG. 2 which illustrates an example of such a concatenated MAC PDU comprising MAC RARs.” [0010] and furthermore “The RAR comprises a Temporary Cell Radio Network Temporary Identifier (C-RNTI), a Timing Advance (TA) value and a grant for the UE to send a message 3 Msg3 in the uplink (UL) e.g. to the network node.” [0008]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, as modified by Rastegardoost, to include Bergquist’s method for handling of Random Access (RA) messages, in order to efficiently support random access procedures (Bergquist [0010]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Bergquist’s method for handling of Random Access (RA) messages into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended)
The method of Claim 9, wherein the second grant is added to a same medium access control (MAC) packet data unit (PDU) as the first grant, the second grant being placed as a last RAR message of the MAC PDU.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 14 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 6. Therefore method claim 14 corresponds to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, in view of Rastegardoost, and further in view of Murray et al. US Pub 2017/0367120 (hereinafter “Murray”).
Regarding claim 21 (Currently Amended)
Agarwal, as modified by Rastegardoost, previously discloses the WD of Claim 17,
Agarwal and Rastegardoost do not specifically teach wherein the radio interface is further configured to listen for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission addressed to a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA- RNTI) to identify the RAR message.
In an analogous art, Murray discloses wherein the radio interface (“As shown in FIG. 1B, the example WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122” [0151]; Fig. 1B) is further configured to listen for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission addressed to a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA- RNTI) to identify the RAR message (“In step 2 of the random access procedure, the UE monitors the DL control channel, e.g., PDCCH, for Random Access Responses (RARs). The UE monitors the PDCCH for RARs identified with RA-RNTIs corresponding to the PRACH resources used to transmit the random access preambles.” [0451]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble, modified by Rastegardoost, to include Murray’s method for determining a random access preamble and a physical random access channel (PRACH) resource, in order to perform random access in a network (Murray [0007]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Murray’s method for determining a random access preamble and a physical random access channel (PRACH) resource into Agarwal’s method for receiving a random access response message that includes a plurality of uplink grants associated with the random access preamble since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 26 (Currently Amended)
The method of Claim 22, further comprising listening for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) transmission addressed to a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA-RNTI) to identify the RAR message.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 26 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 21. Therefore method claim 26 corresponds to apparatus claim 21 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 21 rejection above.
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 CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411