DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 29 June 2026.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 4, 8-9, 12, 17 and 19-20 are amended.
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 .
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 29 June 2026, with respect to the Objections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objections of Claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
Drawing Objections
The Office Action objected to the drawings under 37 CFR § 1.83(a), stating that Figure 1 lacks “descriptive text legends” for certain components and citing MPEP § 608.01(d). See Office Action, p. 3. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP does not require “descriptive text legends.” Rather, 37 CFR § 1.83(a) of MPEP § 608.02(d) recites in part:
MPEP § 608.02(d) further provides the principle from Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911), that “[a]ny structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing.” Neither the regulation nor the MPEP section cited by the Office Action imposes a requirement for “descriptive text legends” adjacent to reference numerals. Rather, 37 CFR § 1.83(a) expressly permits conventional features to be illustrated “in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box),” which is what Figure 1 does.
The MPEP does not require that every element in every drawing is labeled with plain text. A review of MPEP § 608.02(d) and 37 CFR § 1.83(a) reveals that the requirement is to show every feature of the invention specified in the claims—not to provide text labels next to reference numerals. The Office Action has not pointed to any MPEP section or regulation requiring descriptive text legends when reference numerals are already used and adequately identified in the Specification, nor has it provided any reasons why the drawings cannot be understood in their current state. To the contrary, the MPEP indicates that the drawings are to be considered in conjunction with the Specification. See 37 CFR § 1.84(n) (stating that elements “must be adequately identified in the specification”).
Here, every component identified by the Office Action—including IAB node(s) 104, network entities 105, UEs 115, backhaul communication link(s) 120, communication link(s) 125/155/168, core network 130, base station 140, CU 160, midhaul communication links 162, DU 165, fronthaul communication links 168, RU 170, RIC 175, and SMO system 190—is shown in Figure 1 with a reference numeral and is described in detail in the Specification. See, e.g., Specification ¶¶ [0042]-[0051]. The drawings, taken in combination with the corresponding discussion in the Specification, are adequately described and understandable.
Moreover, the Office Action has not provided any reason why the drawings cannot be understood in their current state. The addition of redundant text to Figure 1, which already depicts numerous components, links, and coverage areas, would be counterproductive to figure clarity. Applicant submits that the elements shown in Figure 1 convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art the subject matter depicted, as shown and labeled with reference numerals.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that there is no need to modify the drawings as requested in the Office Action, and requests that the objection to the drawings be withdrawn [Remarks, pages 9-11].
Regarding Claims 1, 19 and 20, the Applicant argues:
(1) Without conceding the merits of the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 USC § 102—and solely to expedite prosecution—Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 19, and 20 to include aspects of allowable dependent claims 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, and 17. For example, independent claim 1 has been amended to recite, in part:
adapt a mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasion based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions, the update to the set of SSB resources, or both, and according to the validation procedure;
Xue has not been shown to the disclose all the features of amended independent claims 1, 19 and 20.
Xue is directed to “validating a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasion defined for 2-step random access channel (RACH) in case of collisions.” Xue, Abstract. For example, at the portions cited by the Office Action, Xue describes that “if an update is received from the network (e.g., BS 204) that may impact RACH,” that “the UE may re-validate the PUSCH occasion for 2-step RACH as described.” Id. ¶ [108]. However, Xue’s discussion of a UE that may “re-validate the PUSCH occasion” has not been shown to disclose “adapt[ing] a mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RARCH occasions, the update to the set of SSB resources, or both, and according to the validation procedure,” as recited in amended independent claim 1. Even if the update of Xue could be considered relevant to the claimed “update to the set of RACH occasions, the update to the set of SSB resources, or both”—which Applicant does not concede—nowhere in the cited portions has Xue been shown to disclose “adapt[ing] a mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions, the update to the set of SSB resources, or both, and according to the validation procedure,” as recited in amended independent claim 1. Thus, the Office Action fails to show Xue to disclose at least the aforementioned features of amended independent claim 1.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, amended independent claim 1 is allowable, including but not limited to over Xue. Amended independent claims 19 and 20 are allowable for at least similar reasons. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the rejection of independent claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 USC § 102 be reconsidered and withdrawn [Remarks, pages 11-13].
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
As per the Objection to the Drawings,
In response to the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP § 608.02(e) Examiner Determines Completeness and Consistency of Drawings. Thus, it is clear in accordance with MPEP which states that the “Examiner”, NOT the Applicant, determines the completeness and consistency of drawings [emphasis added]. In this case, the Examiner has determined that the drawings are incomplete.
The Applicant’s attention is also directed to 37 § C.F.R 1.84 [5(O)] which states "Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the Examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing(s). They should contain as few words as possible.” In this case, the Examiner is clearly requiring the Applicant to include “suitable descriptive legends” that are necessary for the understanding of the drawings since the drawings are incomplete.
Moreover, the Examiner is requiring this application to be in the best presentable and complete form for the public including patent community, who will appreciate the completeness of this application once published or issued. By traversing the objection, the application will remain in an incomplete or unpresentable form.
Therefore, the objections to the drawings stand objected to as set forth in the previous rejection and below. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
As per the first argument,
As indicated below, Xue discloses adapt a mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 7, 20, 64, 82-83 and 108; adapt a mapping/associate between the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasion 711-73) and the set of RACH occasions/(RACH occasion 701-703) based at least in part on the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rules), the update to the set of SSB resources, or both, and according to the validation procedure (see Figure 9, step 918 and paragraphs 79 and 93; and according to the validation procedure/step 918 discloses the first PUSCH occasion is excluded from the RACH resource pool. The invalid PUSCH occasion is not considered in any association between the SSB and 2-step RACH occasion/PUSCH occasion pairs, being excluded from the RACH resource pool).
In other words, Figure 9, step 920 and paragraphs 79, 93 and 108 of Xue disclose the network updates the RACH occasion set and then the UE runs the validation procedure and update the PUSCH and RACH resource pool to reflect to exclude invalid PUSCH or RACH occasions from the pool. The updated PUSCH and RACH resource pool is the adapted mapping. Figure 7 and paragraph 83 of Xue discloses as illustrated by the solid line between RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711, when both RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711 are valid (e.g., not colliding with other RACH or PUSCH occasion), and are both associated with the same SSB 705, RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711 are then considered valid occasion pair for MsgA transmission. RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711 are adapted mapping.
Additionally, Figure 9, step 920 discloses at step 920, the UE may transmit MsgA to the BS using available PUSCH occasions and RACH occasions selected from the updated RACH resource pool.
Therefore, Xue discloses the limitation “adapt a mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of ARCH occasions, the update to the set of SSB resources, or both, and according to the validation procedure”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because there is a lack of descriptive text legends for Figure 1 (i.e. integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node(s) 104; one or more network devices (e.g., network entities 105); one or more UEs 115; backhaul communication link(s) 120; communication link(s) 125, 155 and 168; core network 130; base station 140; central unit (CU) 160; midhaul communication links 162; distributed unit (DU) 165; fronthaul communication links 168; radio unit (RU) 170; RAN Intelligent Controller (RI) 175; Service Management and Orchestration (SMO) system 180). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xue et al (US 2021/0112603 A1), hereinafter Xue [provided in the IDS dated 8/27/2025].
Regarding Claim 1, Xue discloses a user equipment (UE) (see Figure 4 and paragraph 60; a user equipment/UE 400), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see Figure 4 and paragraph 60; one or more memories/(memory 404) storing processor-executable code/instructions 406); and
one or more processors (see Figure 4 and paragraph 60; one or more processors/processor 402) coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 60 and 62; coupled/(direct or indirect communication with each other, for example via one or more buses) with the one or more memories/(memory 404) and individually or collectively operable to execute/executed the code/(instructions 406) to cause the UE/(UE 400) to):
receive first control signaling that indicates a set of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasions, a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions, (see Figure 9, step 902 and paragraphs 88, 90 and 97-98; receive/receive first control signaling/(configuration) that indicates a set of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasions (first PUSCH occasion for a first RACH procedure), a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions (first RACH occasion), a set of synchronization signal block (SSB) resources (see Figure 10, step 1002 and 1004 and paragraphs 97-98; a set of synchronization signal block (SSB) resources/first and second SSB);
receive second control signaling that indicates an update to the set of RACH occasions (see paragraph 108; receive/received second control signaling/(update signaling) that indicates an update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), an update to the set of SSB resources (see paragraph 108; an update/update to the set of SSB resources/SSB to RACH occasion association rule, SSB to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to MsgA occasion association rule, SSB timing/arrangement);
perform a validation procedure to determine whether to invalidate or validate at least a first PUSCH occasion of the set of PUSCH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 6, step 602 and paragraphs 79-81, 90-93, 96-108; perform a validation procedure/validated to determine whether to invalidate/invalid or validate/validated at least a first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion 602) of the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasions 602 and 605) based at least in part on the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), the update to the set of SSB resources (see paragraph 108; the update/update to the set of SSB resources/SSB to RACH occasion association rule, SSB to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to MsgA occasion association rule, SSB timing/arrangement);
adapt a mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 7, 20, 64, 82-83 and 108; adapt a mapping/associate between the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasion 711-73) and the set of RACH occasions/(RACH occasion 701-703) based at least in part on the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rules), and according to the validate procedure (see Figure 9, step 918 and paragraphs 79 and 93; and according to the validate procedure/step 918 discloses the first PUSCH occasion is excluded from the RACH resource pool . The invalid PUSCH occasion is not considered in any association between the SSB and 2-step RACH occasion/PUSCH occasion pairs, being excluded from the RACH resource pool); and
communicate via the set of PUSCH occasions according to the validation procedure (see Figure 9, steps 914, 916, 918 and 920 and paragraphs 93-94, 100-107; communicate/transmit via the set of PUSCH occasions/(available PUSCH occasions) according to the validation procedure/At step 914, if a collision is found, nbmethod 900 proceeds to step 916 to determine that the first PUSCH occasion is invalid, and then the first PUSCH occasion is excluded from the RACH resource pool at step 918).
Regarding Claim 3, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of RACH occasions comprises adding a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion(see paragraphs 92-93 and 108; wherein the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/(first and second RACH occasion) comprises adding/(updating RACH occasion) a first RACH occasion/(RACH occasion) that overlaps/overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion/first PUSCH occasion), and wherein, to perform the validation procedure (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 101, 105-106; to perform the validation procedure/invalid RACH occasion is invalid), the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 60 and 62; the one or more processors/(processor 402) are individually or collectively operable to execute/executed the code/(instructions 406) to cause the UE/UE 400) to:
invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on adding the first RACH occasion (see Figures 6 and 9 and paragraphs 79, 81 and 92-93; invalidate/invalid the first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion) based at least in part on adding/(updating RACH occasion association rules to change collision) the first RACH occasion/first RACH occasion).
Regarding Claim 4, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
maintain the mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on adding the first RACH occasion and invalidating the first PUSCH occasion (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 79, 83, 85, 89, 100, 107; maintain/(solid line from RO1 701 and PO1 711 as shown in Figure 7) the mapping/associated between the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasions 711, 712, 713) and the set of RACH occasions/(RARCH occasions 701, 702, 703) based at least in part on adding/(At step 904, the UE may receive configuration of a second RACH occasion for a second RACH procedure. For example, the UE may also receive RACH/PUSCH occasion for the 4-step RACH) the first RACH occasion/(RACH occasion 603 or 605) and invalidating the first PUSCH occasion/(A PUSCH occasion 602 for 2-step RACH is then validated with the 4-step RACH occasion 605 and the 2-step RACH occasion 603. The PUSCH occasion 602 is invalid if it collides with either RACH occasion 603 or 605. The invalid PUSCH occasion is not considered in any association between the SSB and 2-step RACH occasion/PUSCH occasion pairs, e.g., being excluded from the RACH resource pool) Note: For example, as illustrated by the solid line between RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711, when both RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711 are valid (e.g., not colliding with other RACH or PUSCH occasion), and are both associated with the same SSB 705, RACH occasion 701 and PUSCH occasion 711 are then considered valid occasion pair for MsgA transmission. For another example, if either a PUSCH occasion (e.g., 712) or a RACH occasion (e.g., 703) is invalid, e.g., invalidated with SSB 705 or the downlink pattern in TDD, or colliding with another RACH occasion, as shown by the dashed line between occasions 702 and 712, 703 and 713, respectively, the invalid PUSCH occasion 712 or the invalid RACH occasion 703 are to be excluded from the RACH resource pool, and thus will not be used to form the transmission occasion pair with RACH).
Regarding Claim 5, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
adapt a mapping between a second set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions (see Figures 6 and 8 and Figure 9, step 920 and paragraphs 9-10, 86 and 93; adapt/updated a mapping/association between a second set of PUSCH occasions/updated RACH resource pool) based at least in part on adding the first RACH occasion and invalidating the first PUSCH occasion (see Figure 9, step 904 and paragraphs 79, 89 and 108; based at least in part on adding/update the first RACH occasion/(receiving configuration of a second RACH occasion for a second RACH procedure) and invalidating the first PUSCH occasion/the PUSCH occasion 602 is invalid if it collides with either RACH occasion 603 or 605).
Regarding Claim 19, Xue discloses a method for wireless communications (see paragraph 7; a method/method for wireless/wireless communications/communication) at a user equipment (UE) (see Figure 4 and paragraph 60; a user equipment/UE 400), comprising:
receiving first control signaling that indicates a set of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasions, a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions (see Figure 9, step 902 and paragraphs 88, 90 and 97-98; receiving/receive first control signaling/(configuration) that indicates a set of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasions (first PUSCH occasion for a first RACH procedure), a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions (first RACH occasion), a set of synchronization signal block (SSB) resources (see Figure 10, step 1002 and 1004 and paragraphs 97-98; a set of synchronization signal block (SSB) resources/first and second SSB);
receiving second control signaling that indicates an update to the set of RACH occasions (see paragraph 108; receiving/received second control signaling/(update signaling) that indicates an update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), an update to the set of SSB resources (see paragraph 108; an update/update to the set of SSB resources/SSB to RACH occasion association rule, SSB to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to MsgA occasion association rule, SSB timing/arrangement);
performing a validation procedure to determine whether to invalidate or validate at least a first PUSCH occasion of the set of PUSCH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 6, step 602 and paragraphs 79-81, 90-93, 96-108; performing a validation procedure/validated to determine whether to invalidate/invalid or validate/validated at least a first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion 602) of the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasions 602 and 605) based at least in part on the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), the update to the set of SSB resources (see paragraph 108; the update/update to the set of SSB resources/SSB to RACH occasion association rule, SSB to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to MsgA occasion association rule, SSB timing/arrangement); and
communicating via the set of PUSCH occasions according to the validation procedure (see Figure 9, steps 914, 916, 918 and 920 and paragraphs 93-94, 100-107; communicating/transmit via the set of PUSCH occasions/(available PUSCH occasions) according to the validation procedure/At step 914, if a collision is found, method 900 proceeds to step 916 to determine that the first PUSCH occasion is invalid, and then the first PUSCH occasion is excluded from the RACH resource pool at step 918).
Regarding Claim 20, Xue discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code (see Figure 7 and paragraph 143; a non-transitory/(non-transitory) computer-readable/(machine-readable) medium/medium storing/storage code/instructions) for wireless communications (see Figure 1 and paragraph 32; for wireless communications/wireless communication system 100), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 143 and 147; the code/code comprising instructions/instructions executable/executable by one or more processors/processor 1114) to:
receive first control signaling that indicates a set of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasions, a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions, a set of synchronization signal block (SSB) resources (see Figure 9, step 902 and paragraphs 88, 90 and 97-98; receive/receive first control signaling/(configuration) that indicates a set of physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) occasions (first PUSCH occasion for a first RACH procedure), a set of random access channel (RACH) occasions (first RACH occasion);
receive second control signaling that indicates an update to the set of RACH occasions (see paragraph 108; receive/received second control signaling/(update signaling) that indicates an update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), an update to the set of SSB resources (see paragraph 108; an update/update to the set of SSB resources/SSB to RACH occasion association rule, SSB to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to MsgA occasion association rule, SSB timing/arrangement);
perform a validation procedure to determine whether to invalidate or validate at least a first PUSCH occasion of the set of PUSCH occasions based at least in part on the update to the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 6, step 602 and paragraphs 79-81, 90-93, 96-108; perform a validation procedure/validated to determine whether to invalidate/invalid or validate/validated at least a first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion 602) of the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasions 602 and 605) based at least in part on the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), the update to the set of SSB resources (see paragraph 108; the update/update to the set of SSB resources/SSB to RACH occasion association rule, SSB to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to MsgA occasion association rule, SSB timing/arrangement); and
communicate via the set of PUSCH occasions according to the validation procedure (see Figure 9, steps 914, 916, 918 and 920 and paragraphs 93-94, 100-107; communicate/transmit via the set of PUSCH occasions/(available PUSCH occasions) according to the validation procedure/At step 914, if a collision is found, method 900 proceeds to step 916 to determine that the first PUSCH occasion is invalid, and then the first PUSCH occasion is excluded from the RACH resource pool at step 918).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Christoffersson et al (WO 2021/064223 A1), hereinafter Christoffersson.
Regarding Claim 2, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of RACH occasions comprises adding a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion (see paragraphs 92-93 and 108; wherein the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/(first and second RACH occasion) comprises adding/(updating RACH occasion association rules to change collision) a first RACH occasion/(RACH occasion) that overlaps/overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion/first PUSCH occasion), and wherein, to perform the validation procedure (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 101, 105-106; to perform the validation procedure/invalid RACH occasion is invalid), the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 60 and 62; the one or more processors/(processor 402) are individually or collectively operable to execute/executed the code/(instructions 406) to cause the UE/UE 400) to:
validate the first PUSCH occasion (see paragraphs 79-83, 90-94 and 96-108; validate/re-validate the first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion) Note: Paragraph 108 discloses when the network sends an update for RACH or SSB associations, the UE re-validates the PUSCH occasion).
Although Xue discloses the update to the set of RACH occasions comprises adding a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion as set forth above,
Xue does not explicitly disclose “drop the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions” or “validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on dropping the first RACH occasion”.
However, Christoffersson discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
drop the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions (see page 19, lines 6-37; drop the first RACH occasion/(prioritized subset of RACH occasions which means non prioritized RACH occasions are excluded) from the set of RACH occasions/RACH occasions); and
validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on dropping the first RACH occasion (see page 9, lines 31-36 and page 19, lines 6-37; validate/valid the first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion) based at least in part on dropping/(excluding low priority RACH occasion) the first RACH occasion/RACH occasion).
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 “drop the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions” or “validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on dropping the first RACH occasion” as taught by Christoffersson in the system of Xue to reduce latency (see page 2, line 33 of Christoffersson).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of Molavian Jazi et al (US 11,310,836 B2), hereinafter Molavian Jazi, and further in view of Vivo et al (“Discussion on Channel Structure for 2-step RACH”, hereinafter Vivo NPL [provided in the IDS dated 8/27/2025].
Regarding Claim 6, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of RACH occasions (see paragraph 108; wherein the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule) comprises removing (see paragraph 83; comprises removing/excluding), from the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 7 and paragraph 83; from the set of RACH occasions/RO 1, 2, 3 as shown in Figure 7), a first RACH occasion (see Figure 7 and paragraph 83; a first RACH occasion/RACH occasion),
and wherein, to perform the validation procedure (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 101, 105-106; to perform the validation procedure/invalid RACH occasion is invalid), the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 60 and 62; the one or more processors/(processor 402) are individually or collectively operable to execute/executed the code/(instructions 406) to cause the UE/UE 400).
Although Xue discloses update to the set of RACH occasions comprises removing, from the set of RACH occasions a RACH occasion as set forth above,
Xue does not explicitly disclose “removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion”.
However, Molavian Jazi discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of RACH occasions comprises removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first UL transmission (see Figure 22, steps 2230 and 2270 and column 50, lines 29-65; removing/dropping, from the set of RACH occasions/PRACK, a first RACH occasion/PRACH that overlaps/overlaps in time with the first UL transmission/UL transmission).
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 “removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion” as taught by Molavian Jazi in the system of Xue to enhance transmission of a PRACH preamble for UEs (see column 1, lines 21 and 36-37 of Molavian Jazi).
Although the combination of Xue and Molavian Jazi discloses removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion as set forth above,
The combination of Xue and Molavian Jazi does not explicitly disclose “invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions”.
However, Vivo NPL discloses the UE, configured to:
invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions (see Section 2.2.1 Validation Rule, Option 2; invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions/UE transits msgA PUSCH using the valid occasion when the corresponding PUSCH occasion is valid).
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 “invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions” as taught by Vivo NPL in the combined system of Xue and Molavian Jazi to reduce latency (see Section 2.2.1 Validation Rule, for Option 2 of Vivo NPL)
Regarding Claim 7, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of RACH occasions (see paragraph 108; wherein the update/update to the set of RACH occasions/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule) comprises removing (see paragraph 83; comprises removing/excluding), from the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 7 and paragraph 83; from the set of RACH occasions/RO 1, 2, 3 as shown in Figure 7), a first RACH occasion (see Figure 7 and paragraph 83; a first RACH occasion/RACH occasion),
and wherein, to perform the validation procedure (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 101, 105-106; to perform the validation procedure/invalid RACH occasion is invalid), the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 60 and 62; the one or more processors/(processor 402) are individually or collectively operable to execute/executed the code/(instructions 406) to cause the UE/UE 400).
Although Xue discloses update to the set of RACH occasions comprises removing, from the set of RACH occasions a RACH occasion as set forth above,
Xue does not explicitly disclose “removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion”.
However, Molavian Jazi discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of RACH occasions comprises removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first UL transmission (see Figure 22, steps 2230 and 2270 and column 50, lines 29-65; removing/dropping, from the set of RACH occasions/PRACK, a first RACH occasion/PRACH that overlaps/overlaps in time with the first UL transmission/UL transmission).
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 “removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion” as taught by Molavian Jazi in the system of Xue to enhance transmission of a PRACH preamble for UEs (see column 1, lines 21 and 36-37 of Molavian Jazi).
Although the combination of Xue and Molavian Jazi discloses removing, from the set of RACH occasions, a first RACH occasion that overlaps in time with the first PUSCH occasion as set forth above,
The combination of Xue and Molavian Jazi does not explicitly disclose “invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions”.
However, Vivo NPL discloses the UE,
validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions (see Section 2.2.1 Validation Rule, Option 2; invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions/UE transits msgA PUSCH using the valid occasion when the corresponding PUSCH occasion is valid).
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 “validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion from the set of RACH occasions” as taught by Vivo NPL in the combined system of Xue and Molavian Jazi to reduce latency (see Section 2.2.1 Validation Rule, for Option 2 of Vivo NPL).
Regarding Claim 8, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
maintain the mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 85 and 105; maintain/(solid line from RO1 701 and PO1 711 as shown in Figure 7) the mapping/association between the set of PUSCH occasions/(PO1 711) and the set of RACH occasions/RO1 701) based at least in part on invalidating the first PUSCH occasion (see Figure 6 and Figure 9, steps 906, 914-918 and paragraph 79; based at least in part on invalidating the first PUSCH occasion/PUSCH occasion 602 is invalid if it collides with RACH occasion 603 or 605).
Regarding Claim 9, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
adapt the mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 7 and paragraph 83; adapt the mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions (see Figure 9, steps 918 and 920 and paragraph 93; adapt/updated the mapping/association between the set of PUSCH occasions/(PUSCH occasions) and the set of RACH occasions/RACH occasions) based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion and validating the first PUSCH occasion (see paragraph 108; based at least in part on removing the first RACH occasion/(and update to SSB to RACH occasion association rule or TDD uplink-downlink pattern are all associated with removing) and validating the first PUSCH occasion (see Figure 9, steps 906 and 914-915 and paragraph 90; and validating the first PUSCH occasion/if no collision is found, method 900 proceeds to step 915 to transmit to the BS MsgA using the first PUSCH occasion), wherein adapting the mapping comprises removal of one or more PUSCH occasions from the set of PUSCH occasions (see Figure 7 and 9, steps 918 and 920 and Figure 10, step 1010 and paragraphs 93 and 101; adapt/updated the mapping/association comprises removal/exclude of one or more PUSCH occasions/(first PUSCH occasion) from the set of PUSCH occasions/PUSCH occasions 711, 712, 713).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of ZTE et al (“FL Summary #2 of Channel Structure for Two-step RACH”), hereinafter ZTE NPL [provided in the IDS dated 8/27/2025].
Regarding Claim 10, Although Xue discloses the UE as set forth above,
Xue does not explicitly disclose “wherein the update to the set of SSB resources comprises adding a first SSB resource, the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource,”.
However, ZTE NPL discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of SSB resources comprises adding a first SSB resource (see page 26, Appendix B: Companies proposals related to channel structure, proposal 21; wherein the update to the set of SSB resources comprises adding a first SSB resource/preambles corresponding to different SSBs or Ros can be mapped to the same PUSCH resource unit), the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource (see Section 2.1.4 Validation rule of msgA PUSCH, proposal 3; the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource/starts at least Ngap,2 symbols after the associated RACH occasion).
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 update to the set of SSB resources comprises adding a first SSB resource, the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource” as taught by ZTE NPL in the system of Xue to increase the amount of configuration signaling (see page 25, Appendix B: Companies proposals related to channel structure, Observation 1 of ZTE NPL).
Regarding Claim 11, Xue discloses the UE, wherein, to perform the validation procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
invalidate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on adding the first SSB resource (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 93 and 108; invalidate/invalidated the first PUSCH occasion/(step 916 to determine that the first PUSCH occasion is invalid) based at least in part on adding/(update to SSB timing/arrangement, the UE may re-validate the PUSCH occasion for 2-step RACH following the updated rules) the first SSB resource/SSB 705).
Regarding Claim 12, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
adapt the mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions (see Figures 6-8 and Figure 9, steps 918-920 and Figure 11, step 1114 and paragraphs 7, 82, 86, 93, 106 and 108; adapt/update the mapping/association between the set of PUSCH occasions/(PO1 711, PO2 712, PO3 713) and the set of RACH occasions/RO1 701, RO2 702, RO3 703) based at least in part on adding the first SSB resource and invalidating the first PUSCH occasion (see paragraphs 83 and 108; based at least in part on adding the first SSB resource/(SSB 705) and invalidating/invalidated the first PUSCH occasion/PUSCH occasion 712).
Regarding Claim 14, Although Xue discloses the UE as set forth above,
Xue does not explicitly disclose “wherein the update to the set of SSB resources comprises removing a first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources, the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource,”.
However, ZTE NPL discloses the UE, wherein the update to the set of SSB resources comprises removing a first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources (see page 26, Appendix B: Companies proposals related to channel structure, proposal 21; wherein the update to the set of SSB resources comprises removing a first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources/preambles corresponding to different SSBs or Ros can be mapped to the same PUSCH resource unit), the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource (see Section 2.1.4 Validation rule of msgA PUSCH, proposal 3; the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource/starts at least Ngap,2 symbols after the associated RACH occasion).
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 update to the set of SSB resources comprises adding a first SSB resource, the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource” as taught by ZTE NPL in the system of Xue to increase the amount of configuration signaling (see page 25, Appendix B: Companies proposals related to channel structure, Observation 1 of ZTE NPL).
Regarding Claim 15, Xue discloses the UE, wherein, to perform the validation procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
invalidate the PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 101 and 108; invalidate the PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing/excluded the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources/If no association between the PUSCH occasion and RACH occasion, using the association rule defined by network, can be established for a valid RACH occasion or a valid PUSCH occasion, the PUSCH occasion or the RACH occasion is excluded from the 2-step RACH resource pool).
Regarding Claim 16, Xue discloses the UE, wherein, to perform the validation procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on removing the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 83, 90 and 108; validate/re-validate the first PUSCH occasion/(first PUSCH occasion) based at least in part on removing/(exclude or updating the SSB timing/arrangement) the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources/SSB resources).
Regarding Claim 17, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
maintain the mapping between the set of PUSCH occasions and the set of RACH occasions based at least in part on removing the first SSB resource and validating the first PUSCH occasion (see Figure 7 and paragraphs 9, 79, 83, 85, 89-90, 94, 107-108, maintain/(solid line from RO1 701 and PO1 711 as shown in Figure 7) the mapping/associated between the set of PUSCH occasions/( PUSCH occasions 711, 712, 713) and the set of RACH occasions/(RACH occasions 701, 702, 703) based at least in part on removing/excluded the first SSB resource/(SSB 705) and validating the first PUSCH occasion/if no collision is found, method 900 proceeds to step 915 to transmit to the BS MsgA using the first PUSCH occasion).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of ZTE NPL [provided in the IDS dated 8/27/2025], and further in view of ETSI 3GPP TS 38.213 et al (“5G; NR; Physical Layer Procedures for Control”), hereinafter 3GPP NPL.
Regarding Claim 13, Xue discloses the UE, wherein, to perform the validation procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
exclude the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources (see Figure 7 and paragraph 83; exclude/excluded the first PUSCH resource/(invalid PUSCH occasion 712 or invalid RACH occasion 703) from the RACH resource pool/RACH resource pool).
Although the combination of Xue and ZTE NPL discloses excluding the first PUSCH from the RACH resource pool as set forth above,
The combination of Xue and ZTE NPL does not explicitly disclose “exclude the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources” or “validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on excluding the first SSB resource”.
However, 3GPP NPL discloses the UE, wherein, to perform the validation procedure, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
exclude the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources (see page 10, Section 4.1 Cell Search, 2nd paragraph from bottom and page 45, Section 8.1A PUSCH for Type-2 random access procedure; exclude the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources/The UE assumes that one or more SS/PBCH blocks indicated by ssb-PositionsInBurst may be transmitted within the discovery burst transmission window and have candidate SS/PBCH blocks indexes corresponding to SS/PBCH block indexes provided by ssb-PositionsInBurst. If MSB k is set to 0, the UE assumes the SS/PBCH blocks are not transmitted. Additionally, A PUSCH occasion is valid if it does not overlap in time and frequency with any valid PRACH occasion associated with either a Type-1 random access procedure or a Type-2 random access procedure. Additionally, for unpaired spectrum and for SS/PBCH blocks with indexes provided by ssb-PositionsInBurst in SIB1 or by ServingCellConfigCommon); and
validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on excluding the first SSB resource (see page 45, Section 8.1A PUSCH for Type-2 random access procedure; validate/valid the first PUSCH occasion/(PUSCH occasion) based at least in part on excluding/(excluded by setting bit to 0) the first SSB resource/ssb-PostionInBurst bit is set to 0 as disclosed in page 10, Section 4.1 Cell Search, 2nd paragraph from bottom).
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 “exclude the first SSB resource from the set of SSB resources” or “validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on excluding the first SSB resource” as taught by 3GPP NPL in the combined system of Xue and ZTE NPL to provide a determination of whether a PUSCH occasion is valid (see page 45, Section 8.1A PUSCH for Type-2 random access procedure of 3GPP NPL).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xue in view of ZTE NPL.
Regarding Claim 18, Xue discloses the UE, wherein the second control signaling indicates a priority of the first PUSCH occasion (see paragraph 108; wherein the second control signaling/(update signaling) indicates priority of the first PUSCH occasion/RACH including 2-step RACH occasion to PUSCH occasion association rule, SSB to RACH occasion association rule), and, to perform the validation procedure (see Figure 6, step 602 and paragraphs 79-81, 90-93, 96-108; to perform a validation procedure/validated), the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 60 and 62; the one or more processors/(processor 402) are individually or collectively operable to execute/executed the code/(instructions 406) to cause the UE/UE 400).
Although Xue discloses the UE as set forth above,
Xue dos not explicitly disclose “validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on the priority of the first PUSCH occasion being greater than or equal to a priority associated with the update to the set of RACH occasions”.
However, ZTE NPL discloses the UE,
validate the first PUSCH occasion based at least in part on the priority of the first PUSCH occasion being greater than or equal to a priority associated with the update to the set of RACH occasions (see Section 2.1.4 Validation Rule of MsgA PUSCH, Nokia ; validate/validation the first PUSCH occasion/(PUCH occasion) based at least in part on the priority/priority of the first PUSCH occasion being greater than/(existing 4-step PRACH occasion should take priority) to a priority/priority associated with the update to the set of RACH occasions/prioritizing PRACH).
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 update to the set of SSB resources comprises adding a first SSB resource, the first PUSCH occasion is within a threshold quantity of symbols from the first SSB resource” as taught by ZTE NPL in the system of Xue to increase the amount of configuration signaling (see page 25, Appendix B: Companies proposals related to channel structure, Observation 1 of ZTE NPL).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jeon et al (WO 2022/011033 A1) Validation of Preconfigured Resource In Inactive State. Specifically, see paragraphs 138-172.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LATRESA A McCALLUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4pm.
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 N MOORE can be reached at 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 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.
/L.A.M/ Examiner, Art Unit 2469 /Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights