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 .
Claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-22 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendment filed 05/27/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-14, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al (US 2019/0215872 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches an apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
transmit an early data transmission (EDT) communication (Park: Fig. 16:1, [0472], [0510], [0828] EDT request transmitted); and
receive a response communication that is addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI), the multicast C-RNTI comprising: a temporary C-RNTI (Park: Fig. 16:2, [0836]-[0840], eNodeB transmit RAR to multiple UEs/multicast in msg2 comprising TC-RNTI),
the response communication indicating: an unsuccessful content resolution of the EDT communication, and an indication to continue monitoring a downlink communication channel using the multicast C-RNTI (Park: Fig. 16; after unsuccessful contention resolution, UE0 and UE2 restarts the RA procedure).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches wherein the response communication comprises a retransmission grant for the EDT communication, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: retransmit the EDT communication using the retransmission grant and without performing a content resolution failure procedure (Park: Fig. 16; after unsuccessful contention resolution, UE0 and UE2 restarts the RA procedure; the RA procedure comprise obtain UL grant as shown in Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 12, Park teaches wherein the EDT communication includes a content resolution identifier (ID) linked to a user equipment (UE) that is associated with the apparatus, and wherein the response communication that indicates the unsuccessful contention resolution does not include the content resolution ID that is linked to the UE (Park: Fig. 16; [0798]).
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to receive the response communication that indicates the unsuccessful content resolution of the EDT communication, are configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource collision indicator that specifies that the EDT communication is associated with the unsuccessful content resolution (Park: Fig. 16; [0787], UE0 and UE2 with unsuccessful contention resolution).
Regarding claim 21, Park teaches wherein the response communication comprises a msg4 of a four-step random access channel (RACH) procedure or a msgB of a two-step RACH procedure (Park: Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 22, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: monitor a downlink communication channel using the multicast C-RNTI to detect a grant scheduling a retransmission of the EDT communication (Park: Fig. 16).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US 2019/0215872 A1) in view of Myrberg et al (US 2026/0059463 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an apparatus configured for wireless communications comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
transmit an early data transmission (EDT) communication (Park: Fig. 16:1, [0472], [0510], [0828] EDT request transmitted); and
receive a response communication that indicates: a successful content resolution of the EDT communication, and a UE-specific C-RNTI (Park: Fig. 16:4, [0411]-[0415], UE receives TC-RNTI and a successful response from the eNodeB about contention resolution).
Park does not explicitly disclose the response is addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and indicates a UE-specific cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) C-RNTI that is assigned to the apparatus and is different from the multicast C-RNTI.
Myrberg teaches response addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and indicates a UE-specific cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) C-RNTI that is assigned to the apparatus and is different from the multicast C-RNTI (Myrberg: [0131], [0149], DCI/response addressed to an RNTI that is common to multiple UEs/multicast RNTI and the UE perform uplink transmission using its assigned C-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Park wherein the response is addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and indicates a UE-specific cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) C-RNTI that is assigned to the apparatus and is different from the multicast C-RNTI as disclosed by Myrberg to provide a system for timing alignment during rando access(Myrberg: Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches an apparatus configured for wireless communications, comprising: one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions; and one or more processors, configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:
receive a first early data transmission (EDT) communication from a first user equipment (UE) and a second EDT communication from a second UE (Park: Fig. 16:1, [0472], [0510], [0828] multiple UEs transmit EDT request) and
transmit, based at least in part on decoding the first EDT, a first response communication that is directed to the first UE and indicates: a successful content resolution of the first EDT communication, and a UE-specific C-RNTI (Park: Fig. 16:4, [0411]-[0415], UE receives TC-RNTI and a successful response from the eNodeB about contention resolution).
Park does not explicitly disclose the response is addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and indicates a UE-specific cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) C-RNTI that is assigned to the apparatus and is different from the multicast C-RNTI.
Myrberg teaches response addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and indicates a UE-specific cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) C-RNTI that is assigned to the apparatus and is different from the multicast C-RNTI (Myrberg: [0131], [0149], DCI/response addressed to an RNTI that is common to multiple UEs/multicast RNTI and the UE perform uplink transmission using its assigned C-RNTI).
It would have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Park wherein the response is addressed to a multicast cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) and indicates a UE-specific cell radio network temporary identifier (C-RNTI) C-RNTI that is assigned to the apparatus and is different from the multicast C-RNTI as disclosed by Myrberg to provide a system for timing alignment during rando access(Myrberg: Abstract).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: communicate in a wireless network using the UE-specific C-RNTI based at least in part on the successful content resolution of the EDT communication (Park: Fig. 16:4, [0411]-[0415], UE receives TC-RNTI and a successful response from the eNodeB about contention resolution).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: discard, based at least in part on the response communication indicating the successful content resolution of the EDT communication, use of the multicast C-RNTI for physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) monitoring (Park: Fig. 16; after successful contention resolution, only UE1 among the multiple UEs send Ack and use C-RNTI).
Regarding claims 5, 13 and 18, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to transmit the EDT communication, are configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit the EDT communication as part of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the apparatus to receive the response communication, are configured to cause the apparatus to: receive the response communication as at least part of the RACH procedure (Park: Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches wherein the response communication indicates the UE-specific C-RNTI in: a radio resource control (RRC) communication, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or downlink control information (DCI) (Park: Fig. 16:2; [0540]-[0542] msg2 in DCI).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches wherein the indication of the UE-specific C-RNTI is an absolute C-RNTI (Park: Fig. 16:4, [0411]-[0415], UE receives TC-RNTI and a successful response from the eNodeB about contention resolution).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches wherein the indication of the UE-specific C-RNTI is a delta C-RNTI that is based at least in part on a multicast C-RNTI used to address the response communication (Park: Fig. 16:4, [0411]-[0415], UE receives TC-RNTI and a successful response from the eNodeB about contention resolution; TC-RNTI/multicast then used as UE-specific C-RNTI as shown on Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit a capability indication that specifies support for a UE-specific C-RNTI assignment for EDT (Park: [0448], [0811]-[0812]).
Regarding claim 19, Park teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: transmit, based at least in part on failing to decode the second EDT communication, a second response communication that is addressed to a multicast C-RNTI and indicates: an unsuccessful content resolution of the second EDT communication, and an indication to continue monitoring a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) using the multicast C-RNTI (Park: Fig. 16; after unsuccessful contention resolution, UE0 and UE2 restarts the RA procedure).
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches wherein the second response communication comprises a retransmission grant for the EDT communication (Park: Fig. 16; after unsuccessful contention resolution, UE0 and UE2 restarts the RA procedure; the RA procedure comprise obtain UL grant as shown in Fig. 16).
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 KODZOVI ACOLATSE whose telephone number is (571)270-1999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10 am to 6pm.
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, Avellino Joseph can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights