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 .
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.
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, 7, 10, 13, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0267944) in view of Kim, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0381434; note also 102023005897 [“897”], attached with identical disclosure).
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 20, Li discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising one or more memories and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, which, individually or in any combination, are operable to cause the apparatus to and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising one or more memories and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, which, individually or in any combination, are operable to cause the apparatus to (paragraph 0107) and a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receive a system information block type 1 (SIB1); and (The system of Li discloses that a UE is configured, via the RACH-ConfigCommon IE in received SIB1, with a number of PRACH repetitions to be transmitted, including a selection criterion based on access category or RSSI [paragraphs 0073, 0076, 0003].
transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission based at least in part on one or more of a set of PRACH repetition numbers or selection criteria associated with the set of PRACH repetition numbers (paragraphs 0073, 0076, 0003 – see (a), supra).
Li fails to disclose wherein one or more of the set of PRACH repetition numbers or the selection criteria are based at least in part on whether a configuration associated with one or more of the set of PRACH repetition numbers or the selection criteria is present or absent in the SIB1. In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein one or more of the set of PRACH repetition numbers or the selection criteria are based at least in part on whether a configuration associated with one or more of the set of PRACH repetition numbers or the selection criteria is present or absent in the SIB1. (Kim discloses that a UE may be configured with a list of RSRP thresholds/selection values and associated repetition numbers, but some of the thresholds may be absent/not included when not needed at the upper and lower bounds and in which case the selection is performed base on the absence by using only a lower or upper bound, respectively [paragraphs 0196-0197; note also 897, paragraphs 0293-0294].)
Therefore, since Kim discloses bound exclusion, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the default selection of Kim with the system of Li by not including an upper bound in the case of the highest RSRP value selection criterion and not including a lower bound in the case of the lowest RSRP value selection criterion and making the selection based only on the remaining bound. The motive to combine is to reduce overhead by not configuring values that are not needed.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Li discloses the set of PRACH repetition numbers is explicitly configured for a user equipment (UE) based at least in part on the configuration being present in the SIB1. (As, discussed in the independent claim, supra, in the case of a middle value of the RSRP thresholds/selection value the middle value will have both bounds configured and based on the configuration of both bounds, the UE will have an explicitly configured number of repetitions).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Li as modified by Kim discloses the selection criteria are default selection criteria based at least in part on an absence of explicit configured criteria for the set of PRACH repetition numbers. (In the absence of an upper or lower bound, the system infers a default selection criterion of infinity and zero [or negative infinity if the value is in dB], respectively, as the missing bound [see the independent claim, supra].)
Claim(s) 8, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0267944) in view of Kim, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0381434; note also 102023005897 [“897”], attached with identical disclosure) as applied to claims 1 and 13 and further in view of Su, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2026/0012979)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Li as modified by Kim fails to disclose the set of PRACH repetition numbers is applicable to a first PRACH attempt, and a set of PRACH repetition numbers for a second PRACH attempt includes a larger PRACH repetition number as compared to the set of PRACH repetition numbers for the first PRACH attempt. In the same field of endeavor, Su discloses the set of PRACH repetition numbers is applicable to a first PRACH attempt, and a set of PRACH repetition numbers for a second PRACH attempt includes a larger PRACH repetition number as compared to the set of PRACH repetition numbers for the first PRACH attempt. (The system of Su discloses that after an unsuccessful PRACH connection attempt, the number of PRACH repetitions is increased [paragraph 0006].)
Therefore, since Su discloses PRACH repetition incrementing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the PRACH repetition incrementing of Su with the system of Li by increasing the number of repetitions of the PRACH after an unsuccessful connection attempt. The motive to combine is to improve the probability of the UE connecting after an unsuccessful connection attempt.
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified by Kim fails to disclose the set of PRACH repetition numbers is applicable to a first PRACH attempt, and a set of PRACH repetition numbers for a second PRACH attempt includes a larger PRACH repetition number as compared to the set of PRACH repetition numbers for the first PRACH attempt. In the same field of endeavor, Su discloses the set of PRACH repetition numbers is applicable to a first PRACH attempt, and a set of PRACH repetition numbers for a second PRACH attempt includes a larger PRACH repetition number as compared to the set of PRACH repetition numbers for the first PRACH attempt. (The system of Su discloses that after an unsuccessful PRACH connection attempt, the number of PRACH repetitions is increased until a maximum number is reached [paragraph 0006-0007].)
Therefore, since Su discloses PRACH repetition incrementing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the PRACH repetition incrementing of Su with the system of Li by increasing the number of repetitions of the PRACH after an unsuccessful connection attempt until a maximum number of repetitions is reached. The motive to combine is to improve the probability of the UE connecting after an unsuccessful connection attempt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 11-12 and 14-16 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the set of PRACH repetition numbers is a default set of PRACH repetition numbers based at least in part on the configuration being absent in the SIB1. That is, the system of Li does not explicitly teach a default set of PRACH repetition numbers. In every example of the number of PRACH repetitions, the number is explicitly associated with a COMMON_RACH_INFORMATION_PART_2 and no evidence this element could be inherited from the COMMON_RACH_INFORMATION_PART_1 or GENERIC_RACH_INFORMATION could be located. Furthermore, although inheritance of parameters from generic configurations is generally known, it is difficult to combine such art with a system like that of Li, as the entire purpose of Li is to establish separate groups with different number of repetitions that are associated with specific feature sets and therefore having a default number of repetitions explicitly cuts against this as it is unnecessary in the face of the specifically configured feature sets. Furthermore, no other art teaching this limitation in the context of a system as claimed here could be located. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-6, 15 and 16, the claims depend from claims 2 and 14 and are allowable for at least the reasons stated, supra.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the default selection criteria are based at least in part on criteria for triggering a message 3 (Msg3) repetition request. That is, Kim discloses briefly some interrelation between MSG3 and MSG1 repetition may occur (see for example paragraph 01980 – MSG3 repetition can be a part of the common RACH information that can be inherited by the specific function groups) , but it does not teach or suggest the default selection criteria are based at least in part on criteria for triggering a message 3 (Msg3) repetition request. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose the default selection criteria are based at least in part on a synchronization signal reference signal received power (SS-RSRP) threshold for triggering a PRACH repetition in a first PRACH attempt, and the default selection criteria are further based at least in part on a modification factor after each failed PRACH attempt. That is, the system of Li does suggest that reception power can paly a role in the selection process but this is not related to the default selection criterion. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach, suggest or disclose all elements of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takahashi, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0179759) – disclosing assigning RSRP thresholds for PRACH repetition
Shin, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2025/0167924) -disclosing base station configured PRACH repetition
Lei, et al. (US Pre Grant Publication No. 2024/0381350) – disclosing determining a number of PRACH repetitions
R2-2302888 (Author Unknown, Discussion on Multiple PRACH transmissions, Doc. No. R2-2302888, pages 1-5, 26 April 2023) – disclosing determining multiple PRACH transmissions
R2-2303605 (Author Unknown, Multiple PRACH transmissions, Doc. No. R2- 2303605, pages 1-5, 26 April 2023) – disclosing determining multiple PRACH transmissions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3989. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm 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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at (571) 272-7969. 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 M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466