DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new reference, Wager, that is relied on in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0254074 (hereinafter Jeon), in view of Wager et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0007268 (hereinafter Wager).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communications (disclosed is a wireless device, according to [0058], Fig. 3 [element 110]), comprising:
one or more memories (the wireless device comprises a memory that stores program code instructions, according to [0071], Fig. 3 [elements 315 and 316]); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being configured to cause the apparatus (the wireless device is controlled by a processor, that is coupled to the wireless device’s memory, and that executes program code instructions that are stored in said memory, according to [0071], Fig. 3 [element 314]) to:
obtain, via first signaling, a plurality of configurations for random access communications (a base station sends, to the wireless device, signaling that comprises a plurality of RACH (random access channel) configurations, according to [0228]); and
Jeon does not expressly disclose causing the apparatus to obtain second signaling that indicates to start a random access procedure, wherein the second signaling includes a first field including an indicator of a first configuration of the plurality of configurations.
Wager discloses causing the apparatus to obtain second signaling that indicates to start a random access procedure, wherein the second signaling includes a first field including an indicator of a first configuration of the plurality of configurations (a wireless device receives signaling from a first network node in the form of a radio resource configuration message that specifies a change to a new configuration towards a second network node, which causes said wireless device to initiate a random access procedure towards second network node, according to [0142]-[0144], Fig. 22 [steps 101, 102, and 103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon with Wager by causing the apparatus to obtain second signaling that indicates to start a random access procedure, wherein the second signaling includes a first field including an indicator of a first configuration of the plurality of configurations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate capacity increases in high traffic locations (Wager: [0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Jeon discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communications (disclosed is a base station, according to [0058], Fig. 3 [element 120A]), comprising:
one or more memories (the base station comprises a memory that stores program code instructions, according to [0058], Fig. 3 [elements 322A and 323A]); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being configured to cause the apparatus (the base station is controlled by a processor, that is coupled to the base station’s memory, and that executes program code instructions that are stored in said memory, according to [0072], Fig. 3 [element 321A]) to:
send, via first signaling, a plurality of configurations for random access communications (the base station sends, to a wireless device, signaling that comprises a plurality of RACH (random access channel) configurations, according to [0228]).
Jeon does not expressly disclose causing the apparatus to send second signaling that indicates to start a random access procedure, wherein the second signaling includes a first field including an indicator of a first configuration of the plurality of configurations.
Wager discloses causing the apparatus to send second signaling that indicates to start a random access procedure, wherein the second signaling includes a first field including an indicator of a first configuration of the plurality of configurations (a wireless device receives signaling from a first network node in the form of a radio resource configuration message that specifies a change to a new configuration towards a second network node, which causes said wireless device to initiate a random access procedure towards second network node, according to [0142]-[0144], Fig. 22 [steps 101, 102, and 103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon with Wager by causing the apparatus to send second signaling that indicates to start a random access procedure, wherein the second signaling includes a first field including an indicator of a first configuration of the plurality of configurations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate capacity increases in high traffic locations (Wager: [0006]).
Claim 17 recites the method (Jeon discloses a method according to which the wireless device operates, according to Abstract, [0228]) according to which the apparatus recited in claim 1 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jeon discloses that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send a message, for the random access procedure, in a first random access occasion associated with the first configuration (the wireless device sends a random access preamble, as part of the random access procedure, that corresponds to the highest priority RACH configuration, according to [0228]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jeon discloses that the plurality of configurations comprise the first configuration and a set of configurations (the plurality of RACH configurations comprises a first RAT configuration and at least one other RAT configuration (a set may consist of only one element [“a set of configurations”]), according to [0228]); and
the indicator of the first configuration comprises one bit indicating the first configuration instead of the set of configurations (the plurality of RAT configurations comprise a RAT configuration associated with a Non-SUL carrier and a RAT configuration associated with an SUL carrier, according to [0228], whereby a 1-bit SUL indicator is used to indicate either a Non-SUL carrier or an SUL carrier, according to [0176]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jeon discloses that the plurality of configurations comprise a second configuration and a set of configurations comprising the first configuration (the plurality of RACH configurations comprises a first RAT configuration (a set may consist of only one element [“a set of configurations”]) and at least one other RAT configuration [“a second configuration”], according to [0228]).
Jeon does not expressly disclose that the second signaling includes a second field including an indicator of the set of configurations.
Wager discloses that the second signaling includes a second field including an indicator of the set of configurations (the signaling from the first network node to the wireless device that prompts the wireless device to switch to a new configuration is a radio resource configuration message (such a message lists available configurations for a node), according to [0142]-[0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon as modified by Wager with Wager such that the second signaling includes a second field including an indicator of the set of configurations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate capacity increases in high traffic locations (Wager: [0006]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jeon discloses that the plurality of configurations comprise a second configuration and a set of configurations comprising the first configuration (the plurality of RACH configurations comprises a first RAT configuration (a set may consist of only one element [“a set of configurations”]) and at least one other RAT configuration [“a second configuration”], according to [0228]);
the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to obtain an indication of a subset of the set of configurations, the subset comprising the first configuration (the wireless device receives the first listed RACH configuration of the plurality of RACH configurations sent from the base station (a set can comprise a single element, and every set is a subset of itself by definition), according to [0228]).
Jeon does not expressly disclose that the second signaling includes a second field including an indicator of the subset.
Wager discloses that the second signaling includes a second field including an indicator of the subset (the signaling from the first network node to the wireless device prompts the wireless device to switch to a particular configuration, according to [0142]-[0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon as modified by Wager with Wager such that the second signaling includes a second field including an indicator of the subset.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate capacity increases in high traffic locations (Wager: [0006]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Jeon discloses that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send a message, for the random access procedure, in a random access occasion associated with the first configuration based on the apparatus supporting one or more features associated with the first configuration (the wireless device sends a random access preamble, as part of the random access procedure, that corresponds to the highest priority RACH configuration, according to [0228], whereby the wireless device supports both SUL carriers and non-SUL carriers, according to [0171]).
Claims 10 and 18 do not differ substantively from claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claims 11 and 19 do not differ substantively from claim 3, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 12 and 20 do not differ substantively from claim 4, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
Claim 13 does not differ substantively from claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Claim 15 does not differ substantively from claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
6. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Wager as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Huang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0363006 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Jeon nor Wager expressly discloses that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send an indication that the apparatus supports the first field in the second signaling.
Huang discloses that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send an indication that the apparatus supports the first field in the second signaling (a WTRU (wireless transmit receive unit informs a network of the capability of said WTRU to support an RACH configuration indication, according to [0186], Table 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon as modified by Wager with Huang such that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send an indication that the apparatus supports the first field in the second signaling.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to support RACH frequency relocation away from interference (Huang: [0180]-[0181]).
Claim 14 does not differ substantively from claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
7. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon in view of Wager as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, further in view of Hathiramani et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0203660 (hereinafter Hathiramani).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Jeon and Wager discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Jeon nor Wager expressly discloses that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send a message, for the random access procedure, in a random access occasion associated with a base configuration of the plurality of configurations based on the apparatus lacking support for one or more features associated with the first configuration.
Hathiramani discloses that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send a message, for the random access procedure, in a random access occasion associated with a base configuration of the plurality of configurations based on the apparatus lacking support for one or more features associated with the first configuration (a beam-specific RACH configuration may be associated with an unsupported beam [“lacking support for one or more features associated with the first configuration”], whereby a common/default RACH configuration [“base configuration”] may be used during a RACH occasion, according to [0119]-[0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jeon as modified by Wager with Hathiramani such that the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to send a message, for the random access procedure, in a random access occasion associated with a base configuration of the plurality of configurations based on the apparatus lacking support for one or more features associated with the first configuration.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the creation of an ordered list of beams for efficient RACH occasion determination (Hathiramani: [0096], [0117]).
Claim 16 does not differ substantively from claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 8.
Conclusion
8. 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 MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights