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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Claim(s) 6-7, 12, and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on April 30, 2026 for claims 1-5, 8-11, 13-17, and 20.
The Applicant argues, see Page 13 states “Applicant respectfully submits that an examination of claim 3 in alleged Invention I would necessarily include a search of certain features of claim 6 in alleged Invention II. For at least the reasons presented above with respect to claims 3 and 6, Applicant respectfully submits 1) that there would be no serious burden on the Examiner if a restriction is not required; and 2) that the restriction requirement is improper.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the pending restriction requirement of alleged Group I (claims 3-5, 11, and 15-17) and alleged Group II (claims 6, 7, 12, 18, and 19) under 35 U.S.C. § 121.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees since the functions are independent or distinct because they contain non-obvious variations regarding a function to receive a control message (e.g.: an PDCCH order) comprising of a particular field (e.g.: power control field, retransmission count field) for triggering a RACH procedure. For example, in the Applicant's specification describe that the claims of Group I is one embodiment (see Applicant's specification Paragraph(s) [0121]) For example, in the Applicant's specification describe that the claims of Group II is a different embodiment(see Applicant's specification Paragraph(s) [0061], [0062] and [0091]). Also, the examiner reminds applicant’s representative that in MPEP 809 states that "Where an application includes claims to distinct inventions as well as linking claims, restriction can nevertheless be required."
Therefore in order to properly reject the claims, the examiner would have to implement separate searches to find prior art for a UE to receive a control message (e.g.: an PDCCH order) comprising of a particular field (e.g.: power control field, retransmission count field) for triggering a RACH procedure as stated in the claims of the elected and non-elected set of claims of the instant application. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on October 30, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Okumura et al. (EP # 4 672 847 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okumura et al. teach an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Fig(s).12 @ UE and 25 @ 20), comprising:
one or more memories (Fig.25 @ 1002); and
one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001), coupled to the one or more memories (Fig.25 @ 1002), configured to cause the UE (Fig(s).12 @ UE and 25 @ 20) to:
receive a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order that indicates to perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure that is associated with a candidate cell and is not associated with a configured random access response (RAR) (read as “The UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH orderd RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12, 14, and 25; Paragraph [0099])),
the PDCCH order indicating a retransmission state associated with a physical random access channel (PRACH) message that is associated with the candidate cell (read as “The certain information indicating initial transmission or retransmission may be indicated in a certain field included in the PDCCH order (or the DCI).”(Paragraph [0182])); and
transmit the PRACH message that is associated with the candidate cell based at least in part on the retransmission state. (Fig(s).12, 14)
Regarding claim 9, Okumura et al. teach an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (Fig(s).12 and 25 @ 10), comprising:
one or more memories (Fig.25 @ 1002); and
one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001), coupled to the one or more memories (Fig.25 @ 1002), configured to cause the network node (Fig.25 @ 10) to:
transmit a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order associated with performing a random access channel (RACH) procedure that is associated with a candidate cell and is not associated with a configured random access response (RAR) (read as “The UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH orderd RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12; Paragraph [0099])),
the PDCCH order indicating a retransmission state associated with a physical random access channel (PRACH) message that is associated with the candidate cell. (read as “The certain information indicating initial transmission or retransmission may be indicated in a certain field included in the PDCCH order (or the DCI).”(Paragraph [0182]))
Regarding claim 13, Okumura et al. teach a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (Fig(s).12 and 14), comprising:
receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order that indicates to perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure that is associated with a candidate cell and is not associated with a configured random access response (RAR) (read as “The UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH orderd RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12; Paragraph [0099])),
the PDCCH order indicating a retransmission state associated with a physical random access channel (PRACH) message that is associated with the candidate cell (read as “The certain information indicating initial transmission or retransmission may be indicated in a certain field included in the PDCCH order (or the DCI).”(Paragraph [0182])); and
transmitting the PRACH message that is associated with the candidate cell based at least in part on the retransmission state. (Fig(s).12, 14)
Regarding claims 2 and 14, and as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, Okumura et al. teach an apparatus and method (Fig(s).12, 14, and 25 @ 20) wherein the one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001), to cause the UE (Fig(s).12, 14, and 25 @ 20) to receive the PDCCH order (read as PDCCH order (Fig(s).12 and 14)), are configured to cause the UE (Fig(s).12, 14, and 25 @ 20) to:
receive the PDCCH order in downlink control information (DCI) that is based at least in part on a PDCCH order DCI format. (read as “the source cell transmits a RACH indication (PDCCH order) on the PDCCH (for example, including DCI format 1_0) to the UE.”(Fig(s).12, 14 and 25; Paragraph [0096]) For example, “The UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH orderd RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12, 14, and 25; Paragraph [0099]))
Regarding claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Okumura et al. clearly shows and discloses an apparatus (Fig(s).12, 14, and 25 @ 10) wherein the one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001), to cause the network node (Fig(s).12, 14, and 25 @ 10) to transmit the PDCCH order, are configured to cause the network node (Fig(s).12, 14, and 25 @ 10) to:
transmit the PDCCH order in downlink control information (DCI) and based at least in part on a PDCCH order DCI format. (read as “the source cell transmits a RACH indication (PDCCH order) on the PDCCH (for example, including DCI format 1_0) to the UE.”(Fig(s).12, 14 and 25; Paragraph [0096]))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 of this title, 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 8, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura et al. (EP # 4 672 847 A1) in view of Rico Alvarino et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0098358 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 15, and as applied to claims 1, 9, and 13 above, Okumura et al. teach a “UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH ordered RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12, 14, and 25; Paragraph [0099])
However, Okumura et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the PDCCH order includes a power control field that indicates a transmission power level associated with the PRACH message.
Rico Alvarino et al. teach a method wherein the PDCCH order includes a power control field that indicates a transmission power level associated with the PRACH message.(read as “the UE may determine the transmit power based on an indicator received in the first PDCCH order.”(Paragraph [0172]) Also, “the resource allocation information (of the first PDCCH order) may include at least power control information for the PRACH transmission.”(Paragraph [0172]) For example, “The power control information may indicate at least one of a number of allowed attempts (e.g., preambleTransMax) for transmitting/repeating PRACH or an amount of transmission power to use for each PRACH attempt.” (Paragraph [0172]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a PDCCH order indicating power control information as taught by Rico Alvarino et al. with the systems as taught by Okumura et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource management (e.g.: transmission power) by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, and as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, Okumura et al. teach a “UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH ordered RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12, 14, and 25; Paragraph [0099])
Also, Okumura et al. teach a UE (Fig.12, 14, and 25 @ 10) wherein the one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001), to cause the UE to transmit the PRACH message (Fig.12, 14, and 25 @ 10), are configured to cause the UE to:
transmit the PRACH message. (Fig.12 and 14)
However, Okumura et al. fail to explicitly teach transmit the PRACH message based at least in part on using the transmission power level that is indicated by the power control field.
Rico Alvarino et al. teach a method to transmit the PRACH message based at least in part on using the transmission power level that is indicated by the power control field. (read as “the UE may determine the transmit power based on an indicator received in the first PDCCH order.”(Paragraph [0172]) Also, “the resource allocation information (of the first PDCCH order) may include at least power control information for the PRACH transmission.”(Paragraph [0172]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a PDCCH order indicating power control information as taught by Rico Alvarino et al. with the systems as taught by Okumura et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource management (e.g.: transmission power) by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 5 and 17, and as applied to claim 4 and 16 above, Okumura et al. teach a “UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH ordered RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12, 14, and 25; Paragraph [0099])
Also, Okumura et al. teach a UE (Fig.12, 14, and 25 @ 10) wherein the one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001) are further configured to cause the UE (Fig.12, 14, and 25 @ 10) to:
However, Okumura et al. fail to explicitly teach the steps to:
increase, incrementally, a respective transmission power level of each subsequent PRACH retransmission based at least in part on the PDCCH order indicating an enabled retransmission state; and
transmit each subsequent PRACH retransmission using the respective transmission power level based at least in part on the PDCCH order indicating the enabled retransmission state.
Rico Alvarino et al. teach a UE for executing the steps to:
increase, incrementally, a respective transmission power level of each subsequent PRACH retransmission based at least in part on the PDCCH order indicating an enabled retransmission state (read as “the UE may increase the transmission power for each PRACH attempt in accordance with a power ramp that is based in part on the retransmission index of the PRACH.”(Paragraph [0072])); and
transmit each subsequent PRACH retransmission using the respective transmission power level based at least in part on the PDCCH order indicating the enabled retransmission state. (read as “The power control information may indicate at least one of a number of allowed attempts (e.g., preambleTransMax) for transmitting/repeating PRACH or an amount of transmission power to use for each PRACH attempt.” (Paragraph [0172]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a PDCCH order indicating power control information for increasing transmission for a future PRACH retransmission as taught by Rico Alvarino et al. with the systems as taught by Okumura et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource management (e.g.: transmission power) by devices in a communication network.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, and as applied to claim 1 above, Okumura et al. teach a “UE may be configured/indicated with configuration/enabling/activation of a RACH procedure without RAR monitoring (for example, a PDCCH ordered RACH without RAR monitoring) from the base station by RRC/MAC CE/DCI.”(Fig.12, 14, and 25; Paragraph [0099])
Also, Okumura et al. teach a UE (Fig.12, 14, and 25 @ 10) wherein the one or more processors (Fig.25 @ 1001), to cause the UE to transmit the PRACH message (Fig.12, 14, and 25 @ 10), are configured to cause the UE to:
transmit the PRACH message. (Fig.12 and 14)
However, Okumura et al. fail to explicitly teach the step to transmit the PRACH message using an initial transmission power level based at least in part on the PDCCH order indicating a disabled retransmission state.
Rico Alvarino et al. teach a method wherein transmitting the PRACH message further comprises:
transmitting the PRACH message using an initial transmission power level based at least in part on the PDCCH order indicating a disabled retransmission state (read as retransmission index).(read as “The method also includes determining a transmit power for the first PRACH transmission, based on an indicator received in the first PDCCH order or a retransmission index of the first PRACH transmission. ”(Paragraph [0023]))
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the function for generating and transmitting a PDCCH order indicating power control information (e.g.: retransmission index) as taught by Rico Alvarino et al. with the systems as taught by Okumura et al. for the purpose of enhancing resource management (e.g.: transmission power) by devices in a communication network.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
QU et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2016/0007326 A1) teach “… the DCI formats are DCI format 0 and DCI format 1A. In DCI format 1A, the last bit except the CRC bit is a bit of a power command field; in DCI format 0, the last bit except the CRC bit is a padding bit which is 0 by default. It may be specified that the last bit being “0” means the PDCCH signaling is the first signaling, and that the last bit being “1” means the PDCCH signaling is the second signaling. If the last bit indicates a meaning, namely, if the last bit is not a redundant bit or a padding bit or state, the parsing of this field may be restricted, or another field in the PDCCH signaling can be used to express the meaning of this bit, for example, the meaning may be exchanged with the meaning of the power control field in the PDCCH signaling intended for scheduling downlink data.”(Paragraph [0127])
Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # 2018/0192424 A1) teach “… another PDCCH signaling format (DCI format y) is given below, which may reuse the power allocation field to indicate the rotational angles, hence, its signaling overhead is lower.”(Paragraph [0157])
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or early communications from the Examiner should be directed to Salvador E. Rivas whose telephone number is (571) 270-1784. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Un C. Cho can be reached on (571) 272- 7919. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/SALVADOR E RIVAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights