DEATAILED 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 .
This communication is response to claims filed on 07/10/26.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14-16, 19 & 21-27 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 15 & 19 are amended.
Claims 2, 8-9, 13, 17-18 & 20 are canceled.
6. Claims 21-27 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 07/10/26, regarding the 102 & 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8. Regarding claim 1: The applicants argue on page 9, “Applicant respectfully submits that NAZANIN does not disclose each and every feature recited in amended claim 1. For example, NAZANIN does not disclose receive a random-access channel response (RAR) message in an RAR window of the RACH procedure, wherein the RAR window is included in a set of RAR windows for monitoring for the RAR message, and wherein the RAR window starts after an end of transmission of a last repetition of the set of repetitions as recited in amended claim 1 (emphasis added).”
9. The examiner respectfully disagrees since the main reference Nazanin clearly discloses wherein the RAR window starts after an end of transmission of a last repetition of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0211; the wireless device starts with an RAR window to monitor for RARs after a last transmission/repetition when configured with preamble and/or PUSCH repetitions).
10. The applicants argue on pages 10-11, “As such, paragraph 0211 of NAZANIN discloses that one of the RAR windows that the wireless
device uses to monitor for one or more of the RARs can start after a last transmission/reception
occasion. Paragraph 0211 of NAZANIN then continues to state that "reduced latency of the RA
procedure" results where the RAR or RARs may be able to be transmitted earlier than a last
transmission/repetition occasion, "such that the RAR window may start earlier than the last
transmission/repetition occasion" (emphasis added).
However, NAZANIN does not disclose "wherein the RAR window starts after an end of
transmission of a last repetition of the set of repetitions," as recited by claim 1, as amended
(emphasis added). NAZANIN describes that a wireless device "may start an RAR window to
monitor for one or more RARs after a last transmission/repetition" in the case of "preamble
and/or PUSCH repetitions" (emphasis added). And NAZANIN discloses that its preferred
approach is to start an RAR window earlier than a last transmission/repetition occasion to reduce
latency. NAZANIN does not disclose the specific element recited by amended claim 1
(emphasis added): "the RAR window starts after an end of transmission of a last repetition of
the set of repetitions." NAZANIN merely describes different times that a RAR window may
start in the case of repetitions. For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over NAZANIN.”
11. The examiner respectfully disagrees since as acknowledged by applicant, Para. 0211 of Nazanin expressly discloses that, when the wireless device is configured with preamble and/or PUSCH repetitions, the wireless devices may stat an RAR window to monitor for one or more RARS “after a last transmission/repetition” Thus, Nazanin clearly teaches am embodiment in which the RAR window begins only after the last transmission/repetition.
12. Further, Applicant’s reliance on the subsequent disclosure in para. 0211 that the RAR window may alternatively start earlier than the last transmission/repetition occasion does not negate the preceding embodiment.
13. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Nazanin.
14. Independent claims 12 & 19 recite similar feature and are under 35 U.S.C. 102 by Nazanin.
15. Claims 3-7, 10-11, 14-16 & 21-27 are also rejected since they are dependent upon rejected independent claim set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
16. 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.
17. Claims 1, 4, 6, 12, 15, 19, 22, 24-25 & 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nazanin et al. (hereinafter referred as Nazanin) European Patent Application No. EP 3 780 871 A1 (as disclosed in the IDS).
Regarding claims 1 & 19: Nazanin discloses a user equipment (UE) (See FIG. 15A; a wireless device 1502) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (See FIG. 15A; a wireless device 1502 includes memory 1514); and
one or more processors (See FIG. 15A; a wireless device 1502 includes processing system 1508), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
transmit a set of repetitions of a preamble message, wherein the preamble message is a portion of a first random access channel (RACH) message of a RACH procedure (See Para. 0037-0039, 0196 & 0205; The wireless device performs multiple transmissions of a preamble for a quantity/number of MsgA PRACH repetitions as part of a two-step RACH procedure ); and
receive a random access channel response (RAR) message in an RAR window of the RACH procedure, wherein the RAR window is for monitoring for the RAR message (See Para. 0204; The wireless device may not monitor for RAR in other window(s), for example, after the wireless device detects a first RAR from one of the monitored RAR windows. The wireless device may (still) monitor for RAR in other RAR window(s). The wireless device may continue to monitor the RAR window for multiple MsgA transmission within a MsgA occasion burst, for example, at least until either the wireless device detects an RAR message that corresponds to its MsgA such that a successful 2-step RACH may be achieved (e.g., success RAR); or the wireless device detects an RAR that corresponds to correct information of preamble and PRACH radio resource, such that a fallback to 4-step RACH is available; or the end of the RAR window is reached), and
wherein the RAR window starts after an end of transmission of a last repetition of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0211; the wireless device starts with an RAR window to monitor for RARs after a last transmission/repetition when configured with preamble and/or PUSCH repetitions).
Regarding claim 4: Nazanin discloses UE, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine whether to start the RAR window before the transmission of the last repetition of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0204; the wireless device may start to attempt to receive the RAR message within the RAR window, for example, based on the first successful MsgA occasion (e.g., successful LBT in NR-U). The wireless device may send (e.g., transmit) MsgA in other MsgA occasions within the MsgA occasion burst, for example, before the RAR window ends. The base station may send (e.g., transmit) one RAR in one RAR occasion within the single RAR window, or send (e.g., transmit) multiple RAR messages in multiple RAR occasions within the single RAR window).
Regarding claim 6: Nazanin discloses UE, wherein the RAR window includes a single RAR window that starts after the set of repetitions (See Para. 0204-0205; the wireless device may start to attempt to receive the RAR message within the RAR window, for example, based on the first successful MsgA occasion (e.g., successful LBT in NR-U). The wireless device may send (e.g., transmit) MsgA in other MsgA occasions within the MsgA occasion burst, for example, before the RAR window ends).
Regarding claim 12: Nazanin discloses a network node (See FIG. 15A; a base station 1504) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories (See FIG. 15A; a base station 1504) includes a memory 1514); and one or more processors (See FIG. 15A; a base station 1504 includes Processing system 1508), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive at least one repetition, of a set of repetitions of a preamble message, wherein the preamble message is a portion of a first random access channel (RACH) message of a RACH procedure (See Para. 0037-0039, 0196 & 0205; A RACH may occupy one or more time domain resources (e.g., subframes/slots) for random access preamble transmissions. The RACH may occupy, for example, one or more consecutive subframes/slots for a quantity/number of PRACH repetitions for preamble transmission and The wireless device may perform multiple transmissions of a preamble for a quantity/number of MsgA PRACH repetitions as part of a two-step RACH procedure); and
transmit a random-access channel response (RAR) message in an RAR window of the RACH procedure, wherein the RAR window is for transmitting the RAR message (See Para. 0204; The wireless device may not monitor for RAR in other window(s), for example, after the wireless device detects a first RAR from one of the monitored RAR windows. The wireless device may (still) monitor for RAR in other RAR window(s). The wireless device may continue to monitor the RAR window for multiple MsgA transmission within a MsgA occasion burst, for example, at least until either the wireless device detects an RAR message that corresponds to its MsgA such that a successful 2-step RACH may be achieved (e.g., success RAR); or the wireless device detects an RAR that corresponds to correct information of preamble and PRACH radio resource, such that a fallback to 4-step RACH is available; or the end of the RAR window is reached), and
wherein the RAR window starts after an end transmission of a last repetition of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0211; the wireless device starts with an RAR window to monitor for RARs after a last transmission/repetition when configured with preamble and/or PUSCH repetitions).
Regarding claim 15: Nazanin discloses a network node, wherein the set of RAR windows includes a single RAR window that starts after transmission of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0204; the wireless device may start to attempt to receive the RAR message within the RAR window, for example, based on the first successful MsgA occasion (e.g., successful LBT in NR-U). The wireless device may send (e.g., transmit) MsgA in other MsgA occasions within the MsgA occasion burst, for example, before the RAR window ends).
Regarding claim 22: Nazanin discloses the UE, wherein the RAR window comprises a single RAR window starting after the set of repetitions of the preamble message (See Para. 0202, 0204 & 0211).
Regarding claim 24: Nazanin discloses a network node, wherein the RAR window comprises a single RAR window starting after the set of repetitions of the preamble message (See Para. 0202 & 0211).
Regarding claim 25: Nazanin discloses a network node, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: wait until resources for transmitting each repetition of the preamble message have elapsed before transmitting the RAR message in the RAR window (See Para. 0204 & 0211).
Regarding claim 27: Nazanin discloses the method, further comprising: determining whether to start the RAR window before the transmission of the last repetition of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0211).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
18. 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.
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.
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.
19. Claims 7 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazanin, in view of Mahmoud et al. (hereinafter referred as Mahmoud) International Publication No. WO 2021/155059 A1 (as disclosed in the IDS).
Regarding claims 7 & 16: Nazanin discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with an exception of wherein a length of the single RAR window covers a response to any repetition of the set of repetitions.
However, Mahmoud from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein a length of the single RAR window covers a response to any repetition of the set of repetitions (See Para. 0121-0122; a RAR window of the window configuration 405-b has a window length 435. In some cases, the window length 435 may be associated with an initial (e.g., a default) window length of a RAR window that was indicated by the system information from the base station 105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein a length of the single RAR window covers a response to any repetition of the set of repetitions as taught by Mahmoud in the system of Nazanin in order to successfully decode the combined instances of control information and identify a location for receiving the RAR (See abstract; line 7).
20. Claims 21 & 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazanin, in view of Johan et al. (hereinafter referred as Johan) International Publication No. WO 2022/029304 A1.
Regarding claims 21 & 23: Nazanin discloses all the limitations with the exception of wherein the RAR window occurs in a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after the end of the last repetition of set of repetitions.
However, Johan from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the RAR window occurs in a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after the end of the last repetition of set of repetitions (See page 55; RAR response window starts at the first PDCCH occasions following completion of the PRACH transmission, specifically at the earliest configured PDCCH/CORESET occasion occurring after the last symbol of the corresponding PRACH occasions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RAR window occurs in a first physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) occasion occurring after the end of the last repetition of set of repetitions as taught by Johan in the system of Nazanin for improving the link budget include repetition of the transmissions (See related application; lines 6-7).
21. Claims 3 & 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazanin, in view of Ly et al. (hereinafter referred as Ly) US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0227550 A1.
Regarding claims 3 & 26: Nazanin discloses all the limitations with the exception of wherein the RACH procedure is associated with a bandwidth part for which resources are allocatable for at least frequency division duplexing (FDD) half-duplex (HD) type UEs.
However, Ly from the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the RACH procedure is associated with a bandwidth part for which resources are allocatable for at least frequency division duplexing (FDD) half-duplex (HD) type UEs (See Para. 0001, 0037-0038).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the RACH procedure is associated with a bandwidth part for which resources are allocatable for at least frequency division duplexing (FDD) half-duplex (HD) type UEs as taught by Johan in the system of Nazanin to determines whether the at least one flexible slot is an uplink slot or a downlink slot based on a DCI (See abstract; lines 4-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
22. Claims 5, 10-11 & 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
23. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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.
24. The prior art of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A. Sengupta et al. 2025/0175289 A1 (Title: Codeword-based random access channel communications) (See Abstract, Para. 0012 & 0037-0038).
B. Patchava et al. 2025/0358855 A1 (Title: RO design for PRACH repetition) (See abstract, Para. 0006 & 00813-0016).
C. Shibaike et al. 2025/0351185 A1 (Title: Terminal and communication method) (See FIG. 1, Para. 0046, 0050 & 0160).
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEWALE A AMBAYE whose telephone number is (571)270-1076. The examiner can normally be reached on M.F 6a.m.-2p.m..
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571)272-3085. 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.
/MEWALE A AMBAYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights