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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 38-43 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10 December 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 25-37 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2024/0306209 A1) in view of Belleschi et al. (US 2023/0007686 A1).
Regarding claim 25, Liu appears to disclose an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including program code; wherein the at least one memory and the program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (Fig. 17, [0252], [0255]-[0257]):
receive information of group definition and random access configuration for each group ([0035]-[0036], Fig. 1 step 101, [0038]-[0041] disclosing the user equipment receives random access resource pool configurations for different network slices);
determine a group based on the information of group definition (Fig. 1, step 102, [0042]-[0043], [0045] disclosing based on the slice information of target network slices, the UE determines the first random access resource);
make a first random access attempt using a random access configuration for the determined group (Fig. 1, 103, [0044] disclosing random access is initiated on the first random access resource);
determine whether the first random access attempt is successful ([0138]-[0140], [0154] disclosing the UE reports random access failure when the total number of initiating random access failures reaches the maximum number of random accesses (i.e., random access was not successful)).
Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi discloses transmit a random access report when the first random access attempt is successful (Fig. 2A, 2B, [0017], [0166] disclosing a RACH report is sent to the access node in response to a successful random access procedure).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 26, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the information of group definition comprises at least one of: slice information; a type of the apparatus; one or more capabilities of the apparatus; quality of service priority; one or more bandwidth parts; and information identifying the group ([0035]-[0036], [0043], [0045]).
Regarding claim 27, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein determining the group based on the information of group definition comprises determining the group based on slice information initiating a connection ([0035]-[0036], [0043], [0045]).
Regarding claim 28, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein resources allocated by random access configuration are different for each group ([0035]-[0036], [0043], [0045]).
Regarding claim 29, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
select a random access occasion based on random access configuration for the group (Fig. 1. Step 102, [0042], [0005]), and
transmit the first random access attempt in the random access occasion (Fig. 1, step 103, [0044]).
Regarding claim 30, Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
start a random access logging timer upon the first random access attempt ([0152]), and
stop the random access logging timer after a successful random access attempt or a new random access in a new cell is initiated by the apparatus ([0152]).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 31, Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 30, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
log a timer value after each failed random access attempt ([0149], [0156]).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 32, Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein logging the timer value comprises logging the timer value with a preamble selected for that attempt (Fig. 2A, Fig. 2B, [0017], perRAAttemptinfolist; [0172] disclosing the perRAAttemptinfolist comprising a list of preambles).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 33, Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein logging the timer value comprises at least one of:
logging the timer value when a second message is not received by the apparatus within a random access response window ([0149], [0156]), or
logging the timer value when a fourth message is not received by the apparatus within a contention resolution window after transmission of a third message ([0150], [0156]).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 34, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the random access resources are with respect to a slice type ([0003] slices for different service requirements; [0035]-[0036], [0043], [0045] configured RACH resources for particular slices). Liu does not disclose the following; however, Liu in view of Belleschi suggest wherein logging the timer value comprises logging the timer value with respect to a slice type ([0183] disclosing information in the RACH report regarding the status of the configured RACH resources (i.e. the configured resources for particular slices of Liu)).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 35, Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the random access report comprises the logged timer values ([0156]).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 36, Liu does not disclose the following; however, Belleschi appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 30, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
log a timer value for a successful random access attempt ([0152]).
It would have been obvious to provide the random access report in the invention of Liu as taught by Belleschi because the motivation is provided by Belleschi that a random access procedure in licensed communication may succeed or result in RLF/handover/connection setup or resume failure and providing such random access reports can improve 4-step and 2-step random access resource allocation and increase the connection establishment success if the UE ([0130-[0131]).
Regarding claim 37, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the random access report comprises a type of the apparatus ([0154] disclosing the RACH report is provided by the UE which implicitly is an indication that a UE is the type of apparatus which sent the RACH report).
Regarding claim 45, Liu appears to disclose the apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the apparatus comprises or is comprised by a user equipment ([0154] disclosing the RACH report is provided by the UE).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, “examiner has not fairly established that Liu and Belleschi are combinable. Such assertions are not persuasive. Examiner has provided well-reasoned statements in support of the combination of the references in the disputed claim rejection.
Applicant appears to argue Liu does not disclose group definition and random access configuration for each group. The assertion merely contradicts examiner’s findings without providing evidence or reasoning in support of the assertion. Such assertions without evidence are not persuasive. Further, the term “group definition” is broad and generic and it is reasonable to interpret “slice” as “group definition” and different slices as different groups. In the grounds of rejection, examiner notes that Liu discloses random access resource pools (i.e., random access configuration) for different network slices (i.e., for different groups). (Fig. 1, step 101, [0038]-[0041]).
Applicant argues Liu does not disclose determining a group based on the information of group definition. These features are broad and generic and it is reasonable to interpret different slices as different groups. Liu discloses, based on the slice information, the UE determines the random access resource. Applicant appears to ignore the facts cited by examiner and the straightforward mapping of the prior art to the claim limitations as evidenced by the statement, “Examiner seems to refer to a group as both a network slice and a random access resource.” It is not clear how applicant reaches this conclusion when the cited prior art discloses a random access configuration of resource pools which should be readily apparent to the reader of the Office action corresponds to the claim features “random access configuration”. Thus, it should be readily apparent to the reader of the Office action the feature “slice” in Liu corresponds to the claim feature “group definition”. Such lack of understanding by applicant does not amount to examiner error.
Applicant argues that examiner has not established how the cited portions of Belleschi , “relates to the claimed feature to transmit a random access report when the first random access attempt (i.e., using a random access configuration for the determined group) is successful (emphasis original). In response to said argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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 Joseph A Bednash whose telephone number is (571)270-7500. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM - 4:30 PM M-F.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/JOSEPH A BEDNASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights