DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's RCE submission filed on 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on 04/01/2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) were submitted. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the operator “/” in line 1 with transmit/receive . For clarity, it is suggested to change the operator “/” with “word”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 9 recites acronyms such as “RACH”, it is suggested to spell out the specified acronyms in at least the first time it is mentioned in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 9 recites the limitation "wherein RACH occasions within each respective subset". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. it’s unclear whether these RACH occasions are same as “a respective subset of the plurality of RACH occasions” or new RACH occasions . For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 1 and 9 further recite the limitation “the criteria defining a group of the plurality of RACH occasions”. It’s indefinite and unclear whether it’s refereeing a new group of the plurality of RACH occasions or the same respective subset of the plurality of RACH occasions indicated by first information. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret as best understood.
In addition, Claims 1 and 9 further recite the limitation “select one of the plurality of SSBs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim , It’s unclear whether it’s the same as “at least one of plurality of SSBs” indicated by first information or a new one of the plurality of SSBs. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 9 recites the limitation “transmit power in a selected RACH occasion from a respective subset of the plurality of RACH occasions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear whether it’s the same selected RACH occasion from the same respective subset of the plurality of RACH occasions indicated by first information or different or new RACH occasion.
Claims 2-8 and 10- 16 depend on their parent claims 1 and 9 respectively, thus they are also rejected for the same reasoning.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1- 16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record (see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of the action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYAW Z SOE whose telephone number is (571)270-0304. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles C 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KYAW Z SOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights