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
This office action is in response to the remarks/argument filed on 02/20/2026.
Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-21, 23-26, 28-30 are rejected.
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16, 22, 27 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8, 11-12, 18, 21, 24, 26, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jian Yu et al (US 20230262751 A1) in view of Ali Cagatay Cirik et al (US 20250048447 A1).
Claims 1-30 of the instant application are directed to a method of wireless communication performed by an apparatus of a base station. The method may include transmitting, to the UE, a second message of the random access procedure that indicates information for an uplink grant for a third message of the random access procedure, the
information including an MCS indication and a TPC indication; and receiving, from the UE, one or more repetitions of a PUSCH carrying the third message, where a repetition factor for the one or more repetitions is indicated by at least one of the MCS indication or the TPC indication, the system shown in FIG. 7.
PNG
media_image1.png
498
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Yu reference is concerned with a communication method, whereby a network device includes first indication information in a shared bit in first information. Yu clarifies that the random access response uplink grant RAR UL grant field includes an Msg 3 PUSCH repetition indication field “Number of Repetitions for Msg 3 PUSCH” (see ¶ 0004). The first indication information indicates a quantity of repeated transmissions of a third message Msg 3. The network device sends the first information to a terminal device, the system shown in FIG. 3.
PNG
media_image2.png
342
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The Cirik reference, for its part, is concerned with a wireless communication system that cures the deficiency of Yu by disclosing: receiving, by a UE, a random access response comprising a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) indication, and a Transmit Power Control (TPC) field, the RA response shown in FIG. 24B.
PNG
media_image3.png
352
506
media_image3.png
Greyscale
For Claim 1, Yu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Yu teaches, in FIG. 4, a communication apparatus comprising Processing Unit 402), configured to:
transmit, to a base station, a first message of a random access procedure (Yu teaches, in FIG. 3, step S20: S201. UE sends a random access preamble (random access preamble) to a network device);
receive, from the base station, a second message of the random access procedure that indicates information for an uplink grant for a third message of the random access procedure (Yu teaches, in FIG. 3, step S20: S202, S202. The network device sends a random access response (random access response, RAR) to the UE after detecting the random access preamble. The random access response may also be referred to as a message 2 (Msg2). The random access response includes scheduling information, that is, RAR uplink (UL) grant information, of a message 3. The random access response may further include other information); and
transmit, to the base station, one or more repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) carrying the third message, wherein a repetition factor for the one or more repetitions is indicated by at least one of the MCS indication or the TPC indication (Yu teaches, in ¶ 0084, lines 2-5, that that the Msg 3 can be repeatedly transmitted, considering that in an existing NR protocol, a communication system supports two different types of PUSCH repeated transmission (where the types of repeated transmission include a PUSCH repeated transmission type A (PUSCH repetition Type A) and a PUSCH repeated transmission type B. Yu teaches, in ¶ 0083, lines 2-5, that terminal device determines the quantity of repeated transmissions of the third message based on the first indication information. Yu teaches in ¶ 0115 that For the coverage-limited terminal that selects MCS index values 0 to 7, a most significant bit (MSB) of the terminal is not used to indicate the MCS index value, and therefore may be used to indicate the quantity of repeated transmissions of the Msg 3).
Yu fails to expressly disclose that the second message of the random access procedure includes information including a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indication and a transmit power control (TPC) indication.
However, Cirik, in analogous art, discloses that the second message of the random access procedure includes information including a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indication and a transmit power control (TPC) indication (Cirik teaches, in FIG. 24B, that the a wireless device may receive a random access response, wherein the RAR comprises at least: time/frequency resource allocation for the PUSCH transmission, MCS (e.g., 4 bit), a TPC command for the PUSCH transmission. The wireless device may determine the MCS of the PUSCH transmission, for example, based on the MCS in the RAR UL grant)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Yu with the MCS_+_TPC bearing RA response taught in Cirik. The motivation is to improve coverage of the UE.
For Claim 2, Yu discloses an apparatus, wherein the MCS indication and the TPC indication jointly indicate the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions (Yu teaches, in ¶ 0129, lines 1-5, Joint indication manner 1: If the most significant bit of the MCS field and the least significant bit of the TPC field are used to jointly indicate the quantity of repeated transmissions, during joint indication).
For Claim 8, Yu discloses an apparatus, wherein the MCS indication indicates the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions (Yu teaches, in TABLE 7, that when MCS filed bit is 1, the quantity of repeated transmission is either 4*K or 8*K, where K is the repetition factor).
For Claim 11, Yu discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a base station, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Yu teaches, in FIG. 4, a communication apparatus comprising Processing Unit 402), configured to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), a first message of a random access procedure (Yu teaches, in FIG. 3, step S20: S201. UE sends a random access preamble (random access preamble) to a network device);
transmit, to the UE, a second message of the random access procedure that indicates information for an uplink grant for a third message of the random access procedure (Yu teaches, in FIG. 3, step S20: S202, S202. The network device sends a random access response (random access response, RAR) to the UE after detecting the random access preamble. The random access response may also be referred to as a message 2 (Msg2). The random access response includes scheduling information, that is, RAR uplink (UL) grant information, of a message 3. The random access response may further include other information); and
receive, from the UE, one or more repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) carrying the third message, wherein a repetition factor for the one or more repetitions is indicated by at least one of the MCS indication or the TPC indication (Yu teaches, in ¶ 0084, lines 2-5, that that the Msg 3 can be repeatedly transmitted, considering that in an existing NR protocol, a communication system supports two different types of PUSCH repeated transmission (where the types of repeated transmission include a PUSCH repeated transmission type A (PUSCH repetition Type A) and a PUSCH repeated transmission type B. Yu teaches, in ¶ 0083, lines 2-5, that terminal device determines the quantity of repeated transmissions of the third message based on the first indication information).
Yu fails to expressly disclose that the second message of the random access procedure includes information including a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indication and a transmit power control (TPC) indication.
However, Cirik, in analogous art, discloses that the second message of the random access procedure includes information including a modulation and coding scheme (MCS) indication and a transmit power control (TPC) indication (Cirik teaches, in FIG. 24B, that the a wireless device may receive a random access response, wherein the RAR comprises at least: time/frequency resource allocation for the PUSCH transmission, MCS (e.g., 4 bit), a TPC command for the PUSCH transmission. The wireless device may determine the MCS of the PUSCH transmission, for example, based on the MCS in the RAR UL grant)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Yu with the MCS_+_TPC bearing RA response taught in Cirik. The motivation is to improve coverage of the UE.
For Claim 12, please refer to the rejection of claim 2, above.
For Claim 18, please refer to the rejection of claim 8, above.
For Claim 21, please refer to the rejection of claim 1, above.
For Claim 24, please refer to the rejection of claim 8, above.
For Claim 26, please refer to the rejection of claim 9, above.
For Claim 29, please refer to the rejection of claim 8, above.
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, 14, 17, 19-20, 23, 25, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jian Yu et al (US 20230262751 A1) in view of Ali Cagatay Cirik et al (US 20250048447 A1) as applied to claims 1, 11 or 21, above, and further in view of TAKASHI Yoshimoto et al (US 20200204289 A1).
For Claims 4, 14, 23, 28, Yu teaches to: identify the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions using at least one of a first table that indicates associations between a plurality of MCS indications, and a plurality of repetition factors (Yu teaches, in ¶ 0111, that In uplink grant RAR UL grant information of an existing random access response, a total of 16 MCS index values are included, and are indicated by four bits. Yu shows, in TABLE 7, an association between MCS filed bit, and K, the repetition factor).
Yu and Cirik fail to expressly disclose at least one of a first table that indicates associations between a plurality of MCS indications, and a plurality of MCSs.
However, Yoshimoto, in analogous art, discloses at least one of a first table that indicates associations between a plurality of MCS indications, and a plurality of MCSs (Yoshimoto teaches, in ¶ 0143, that the first MCS table includes at least a first modulation scheme, and an MCS index associated with the first modulation scheme, the first modulation scheme includes QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM, the second MCS table includes at least a second modulation scheme, and the MCS index associated with the second modulation scheme, and the second modulation scheme includes the QPSK, the 16QAM, the 64QAM, and 256QAM.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Yu and Cirik with the plurality of modulation schemes taught in Yoshimoto. The motivation is so that a base station apparatus and a terminal apparatus can select a modulation scheme and schedule radio resources, corresponding to packets having various amounts of data periodically generated with various delays [Yoshimoto: ¶ 0020].
For Claims 7, 17, Yu discloses an apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, from the base station, information that identifies at least one of the first table or the second table (Yu teaches, in ¶ 0111, lines 1-5, that In uplink grant RAR UL grant information of an existing random access response, a total of 16 MCS index values are included, and are indicated by four bits. As the index value increases from 0 to 15, a code rate, spectral efficiency, and the like corresponding to the index value also increase sequentially (where a mapping relationship between an MCS index value and a bit value is shown in Table 1)).
For Claim 9, 19, 25, 30, Yu and Cirik disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception using a table that indicates associations between a plurality of MCS indications, and a plurality of MCSs.
However, Yoshimoto, in analogous art, discloses at least one of a first table that indicates associations between a plurality of MCSs, and a plurality of MCSs (Yoshimoto teaches, in ¶ 0143, that the first MCS table includes at least a first modulation scheme, and an MCS index associated with the first modulation scheme, the first modulation scheme includes QPSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM, the second MCS table includes at least a second modulation scheme, and the MCS index associated with the second modulation scheme, and the second modulation scheme includes the QPSK, the 16QAM, the 64QAM, and 256QAM.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system taught in Yu and Cirik with the plurality of modulation schemes taught in Yoshimoto. The motivation is so that a base station apparatus and a terminal apparatus can select a modulation scheme and schedule radio resources, corresponding to packets having various amounts of data periodically generated with various delays [Yoshimoto: ¶ 0020].
For Claims 10, 20, Yu discloses an apparatus, wherein the plurality of repetition factors includes a subset of a set of possible repetition factors (Yu teaches, in TABLE 2, that If K = 2, the quantity of repeated transmissions is: 2). Examiner notes that 2 is a subset of all possible repetition factors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16, 22, 27 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, 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:
Claims 3, 5-6, 13, 15-16, 22, 27 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations:
“wherein the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions is indicated by the MCS indication if the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions satisfies a threshold, and the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions is indicated by the TPC indication if the repetition factor for the one or more repetitions does not satisfy the threshold” as recited in dependent claims 3, 13, 22, 27.
“wherein a first repetition factor and a second repetition factor, of the plurality of repetition factors, are respectively associated with a same quantity of MCS indications, of the plurality of MCS indications, or a same quantity of TPC indications, of the plurality of TPC indications” as recited in dependent claims 5, 15.
“wherein a first repetition factor and a second repetition factor, of the plurality of repetition factors, are respectively associated with different quantities of MCS indications, of the plurality of MCS indications, or different quantities of TPC indications, of the plurality of TPC indications” as recited in dependent claims 6, 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that YU and CIRIK do not teach “transmit[ting], to the base station, one or more repetitions of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) carrying the third message, wherein a repetition factor for the one or more repetitions is indicated by at least one of the MCS indication or the TPC indication," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added)” (see remarks, pages 12-14).
First, Examiner agrees with Applicant that CIRIK discloses that a RAR uplink grant may include a number of different grants, including MCS and TPC command for PUSCH, and YU discloses that a third message can be repeated based on information indicating a type of repeated transmission (see remarks, page 13).
Second, the Yu reference also teaches, in ¶ 0083, lines 2-5, that terminal device determines the quantity of repeated transmissions of the third message based on the first indication information. To paraphrase, Yu teaches that the terminal device determines the repetition factor (i.e., the quantity of repeated transmissions) based on the first indication information received from the network node. Even though it is plausible to assume that the first indication information may have been provided in a RAR message (i.e., message 2), Examiner decided, instead, to bring the CIRIK reference to expressly teach that limitation, instead of assuming.
Additionally, Yu expressly teaches in ¶ 0115 that For the coverage-limited terminal that selects MCS index values 0 to 7, a most significant bit (MSB) of the terminal is not used to indicate the MCS index value, and therefore may be used to indicate the quantity of repeated transmissions of the Msg 3.
Clearly, it is evident from the above citations that the applied art does, in fact, teach each and every limitation of claim 1. Therefore, Examiner submits that claim 1 is not yet patentable over YU and CIRIK.
Independent claims 11, 21, and 26 recite similar features, and are also not yet patentable for reasons similar to ones articulated for claim 1 above.
Similarly, dependent claims 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 14, 17-20, 23-25, 28-30, are also not yet patentable for depending from rejected base claims, as well as for being rejected on their own merits.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-21, 23-26, 28-30, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Echigo (US 20240283559 A1) is pertinent to a random access channel procedure, whereby UE 200 determines the number of repetitions of PUSCH (Msg3 initial transmission) scheduled by RAR UL grant based on information included in the RAR UL grant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412