DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 in the reply filed on 29 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2, 6, 21-22, 26-28, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Goyal et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0284373 (hereinafter Goyal).
Regarding claim 1, Goyal discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (disclosed is a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, according to [0059], Fig. 6 [element 10]), comprising:
one or more memories (the UE comprises a volatile memory and a non-volatile memory, according to [0064], Fig. 6 [elements 40 and 42]); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (the UE comprises a processor that is coupled to the volatile memory and the non-volatile memory, according to [0064], Fig. 6 [element 20]), configured to:
receive, from a serving cell, a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order initiating a random access procedure in a candidate cell (the UE receives, from the source DU (distributed unit), a PDCCH order that triggers a random access procedure for a target DU (which is also referred to as a candidate DU), according to [0021], Fig. 1 [steps 15, 19, and 20]);
determine a timing delay associated with a timing difference between the serving cell and the candidate cell (the UE acquires the timing advance (TA) for the candidate DU, via the coordination of the source DU and the target DU, by receiving said TA value in a MAC CE cell switch command, according to [0021], Fig. 1 [step 18]); and
transmit a physical random access channel (PRACH) communication to the candidate cell in accordance with the PDCCH order and the timing delay (in response to the PDCCH order and using the received TA, the UE transmits a PRACH signal to the target DU, according to [0021], Fig. 1 [step 19]).
Claim 21 recites the method (disclosed is a method according to which the UE operates, according to [0019], Fig. 1) according to which the UE recited in claim 1 operates, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Claim 27 recites the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising one or more instructions, that when executed by one or more processors of the UE (the UE comprises a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that are executed in order to perform the functions of said UE, according to [0068]), cause the UE to perform the method recited in claim 21, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 21.
Regarding claim 2, Goyal discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the timing difference is associated with downlink transmission timing difference or a downlink reception timing difference between the serving cell and the candidate cell (the timing advance is obtained via a coordinated effort of the source DU and the candidate DU (the timing advance, by definition refers to the transmission and/or reception timing difference), according to [0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Goyal discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a random access response message from the candidate cell in accordance with the timing delay (a RAR (random access response) message is received by the UE from the target DU in accordance with the TA, according to [0042], Fig. 1 [step 20]).
Claims 22 and 28 do not differ substantively from claim 2, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Claims 26 and 32 do not differ substantively from claim 6, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 6.
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, 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 3-4, 23-24, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal as applied to claims 1, 21, and 27 above, in view of You et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0141074 (hereinafter You).
Regarding claim 3, Goyal discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Goyal discloses that the PRACH communication is transmitted to the candidate cell in accordance with a latency (the PRACH transmission is sent to the target DU in accordance with the TA, according to [0042]).
Goyal does not expressly disclose that the latency is based at least in part on a fixed time delay, a bandwidth part switching delta, the timing delay, and a switching time.
You discloses that the latency is based at least in part on a fixed time delay, a bandwidth part switching delta, the timing delay, and a switching time (a PRACH is transmitted after a time since the last symbol of a PDCCH order was received, whereby said time is the sum of (1) a time duration allocated for PUSCH preparation time and processing capability [“fixed time delay”], (2) a BWP (bandwidth part) switching delta [“bandwidth part switching delta”, “switching time”], and (3) a delta delay [“timing delay”], according to [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goyal with You such that the latency is based at least in part on a fixed time delay, a bandwidth part switching delta, the timing delay, and a switching time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accommodate services, terminals, and UEs that are sensitive to reliability and latency (You: [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Goyal discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Goyal does not expressly disclose that the PRACH communication is transmitted in a PRACH occasion for which a time between a last symbol of the PDCCH order and a first symbol of the PRACH communication is larger than or equal to a latency that is based at least in part on the timing difference between the serving cell and the candidate cell.
You discloses that the PRACH communication is transmitted in a PRACH occasion for which a time between a last symbol of the PDCCH order and a first symbol of the PRACH communication is larger than or equal to a latency that is based at least in part on the timing difference between the serving cell and the candidate cell (the first symbol of a PRACH transmission is separated from the last symbol of a PDCCH order by a time that is equal to or longer than a sum of times that includes a timing difference, according to [0150]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goyal with You such that the PRACH communication is transmitted in a PRACH occasion for which a time between a last symbol of the PDCCH order and a first symbol of the PRACH communication is larger than or equal to a latency that is based at least in part on the timing difference between the serving cell and the candidate cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to accommodate services, terminals, and UEs that are sensitive to reliability and latency (You: [0002]).
Claims 23 and 29 do not differ substantively from claim 3, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 3.
Claims 24 and 30 do not differ substantively from claim 4, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 4.
10. Claims 5, 25, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goyal as applied to claims 1, 21, and 27 above, in view of Comsa et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0207040 (hereinafter Comsa).
Regarding claim 5, Goyal discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Goyal does not expressly disclose that the one or more processors are further configured to receive a random access response message from the serving cell in accordance with the timing delay.
Comsa discloses that the one or more processors are further configured to receive a random access response message from the serving cell in accordance with the timing delay (a source eNB transmits a RAR to a WTRU during an adjusted RAR window, according to [0198]-[0200]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Goyal with Comsa such that the one or more processors are further configured to receive a random access response message from the serving cell in accordance with the timing delay.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid and mitigate interference (Comsa: [0005]-[0007]).
Claims 25 and 31 do not differ substantively from claim 5, and are therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 5.
Conclusion
11. 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