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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application does not claim priorities from any domestic application or to any foreign application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following claims fail to clearly link or associate the disclosed structure, material, or acts to the function recited in a claim invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph:
Claims 7, 10, and 12, each of these claims recites limitation(s) using “means for, step for, or generic placeholder” to perform various tasks as follow:
“means for performing [a random access procedure] …” (claim 7 line 3 and 6)
“means for incrementing [a failure counter] …" (claim 10 line 1-2)
“means for resetting [a failure counter] …” (claim 12 line 1-2)
These limitations pass the 3-prong analysis set forth in MPEP 2181, hence they are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. However, the specification fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material, or acts for each of these limitations. Applicant has provided no means for ascertaining the requisite structure, material, or acts for performing these tasks anywhere in the specification. Hence, examiner has concluded that the specification is silent as to any corresponding structure, material, or acts for these means-plus-function.
NOTE (from examiner in Office Action mailed on 04/15/2026): paragraph 51 of the Specification states that “...the UE 120 may include means for receiving, means for performing, means for incrementing, means for resetting, and means for transmitting. Such means may include one or more components of the UE 120 described in connection with FIG. 2”. However, figure 2 does not appear to point out which component is for each of the means-plus-function above. Rather, figure 2 appears to be a generic diagram of a system. Examiner respectfully requests for clarification, in particular, which component of fig. 2 corresponding to each of the means-plus-function above, provided no new matter is introduced.
NOTE (from current Remarks filed on 06/24/2026): applicant states that “Paragraph [0051] further states, "Such means may include one or more components of the UE 120 described in connection with FIG. 2." Paragraph [0050] states, "The controller/processor 280 of the UE 120, and/or any other component(s) of FIG. 2 may perform one or more techniques associated with SUL/NUL switching for an initial connection request." Paragraphs [0092]-[0094] identify example UE components for receiving the SUL configuration and performing the random access procedure as "antenna 252, DEMOD/MOD 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, controller/processor 280, memory 282, and/or the like." Paragraphs [0073]-[0074], [0077], and [0083]-[0087] describe incrementing and resetting the failure counter. Accordingly, the corresponding structure includes at least the UE 120, antenna 252, DEMOD/MOD 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, controller/processor 280, memory 282, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, and equivalents thereof.” All of the sections identified above (e.g. para. 51, 50, 92-94, fig. 2, etc.) are carefully reviewed. However, none of these sections identifies which component of fig. 2 (or those listed above) corresponding to each of the means-plus-functions. For example, para. 50 generally discloses the controller/processor 280 and its function. Similarly, para. 92-94 generally mention steps of fig. 9. But none of these paragraphs discloses a means that performs its specific function (means-plus-function) as in the rejected claims. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Claims 8-9 and 11, these claims are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected base claim 7.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be a means (or step) plus function limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO et al. (US 20210352741 A1, cited in IDS, hereinafter MO), in view of Cirik et al. (US 20220022250 A1, cited in IDS, hereinafter Cirik).
Regarding claim 1, MO teaches a method of wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), comprising (MO, in general, see both figures 3-4 and many of their corresponding paragraphs including, but not limited to, para. 33-84 disclosing Scenario 1 and Scenario 2):
performing a random access procedure for an initial connection setup on a first type of uplink carrier in response to a downlink pathloss meeting a signal strength threshold for selecting the first type of uplink carrier (MO, see at least para. 39 and 42 along with para. 44-46, e.g. step 32 and step 33, note that para. 44, 45, and 46, in part, disclose that “...step 32 can be implemented in the following manner: when the threshold information and the channel measurement information satisfy a first preset condition, determining the second type of uplink carrier as the target carrier; where the first preset condition includes at least one of: channel quality indicated by quality parameter information of a path loss reference signal of a target downlink carrier is less than a first threshold,... The quality parameter information includes: at least one of reference signal received power (RSRP), reference signal received quality (RSRQ),... A parameter item in the first channel measurement information is greater than or equal to a second threshold;... Parameter items in the first channel measurement information and the second channel measurement information include: at least one of RSRQ,...”, in other words, RSRP and/or RSRQ can be used for path loss relative to their respective thresholds);
and
performing the random access procedure for a subsequent connection setup request on a second type of uplink carrier in response to the downlink pathloss continuing to meet the signal strength threshold for selecting the first type of uplink carrier and a quantity of connection setup request failures on the first type of uplink carrier exceeding a failure threshold (MO, see at least para. 73-75 along with para. 84-85, e.g. steps 41-42 in view of step 33 above, note that para. 84 discloses that, “...If the terminal selects the uplink carrier in the unlicensed band for the random access process, the terminal sets a first counter. If the random process is not completed, and the terminal selects the uplink carrier in the unlicensed band to continue the random access process and the first counter is equal to the fourth threshold, the terminal switches to the SUL carrier to perform a (subsequent) random access process...”, and para. 85 discloses that “...3. a parameter item in the first channel measurement information related to the first type of uplink carrier is greater than or equal to a second threshold...”, also note that the same quality condition of para. 85 is continuing to meet as it is in para. 46).
MO does not explicitly teach receiving a configuration for a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier.
Cirik teaches receiving a configuration for a supplementary uplink (SUL) carrier (Cirik, in general, see sections including paragraphs 455-492 in view of random access procedure disclosed in fig. 12; in particular, see at least para. 456-457, “...A base station may transmit, to a wireless device, one or more RRC messages comprising configuration parameters for a carrier, wherein the configuration parameters may indicate at least one of random access procedure configuration, ... In an example, a base station may configure an SUL carrier and a NUL carrier to support a random access procedure (e.g., initial access). For example, as shown in FIG. 12, to support a random access to a cell configured with SUL, ...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Cirik into MO to enhance UL coverage and capacity (Cirik, see para. 455).
Regarding claim 2, MO in view of Cirik teaches claim 1.
MO further teaches in which the first type of uplink carrier comprises the supplementary uplink carrier, the second type of uplink carrier comprises a normal uplink carrier, and meeting the signal strength threshold comprises the downlink pathloss being less than the signal strength threshold. (MO, see at least para. 50 along with para. 31, for one non-limiting example, “...If the terminal determines that at least one of the following conditions is met: the measured RSRP of the path loss reference signal of the target downlink carrier is less than a first threshold, ... ; the terminal selects the SUL carrier for the random access process...”, note that “...For example, the first type of uplink carrier can be a NUL carrier, and the second type of uplink carrier may be a SUL carrier...”)
Regarding claim 3, MO in view of Cirik teaches claim 1.
MO does not explicitly teach in which the first type of uplink carrier comprises a normal uplink carrier, the second type of uplink carrier comprises the supplementary uplink carrier, and meeting the signal strength threshold comprises the downlink pathloss exceeding the signal strength threshold.
Cirik teaches in which the first type of uplink carrier comprises a normal uplink carrier, the second type of uplink carrier comprises the supplementary uplink carrier, and meeting the signal strength threshold comprises the downlink pathloss exceeding the signal strength threshold (Cirik, see at least para. 487-489, in particular, see para. 489, for one non-limiting example, “...the wireless device may select the NUL carrier to perform the random-access procedure in response to the measured quality (e.g., RSRP) of the downlink pathloss reference of the serving cell being higher than the uplink carrier threshold...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Cirik into MO to enhance UL coverage and capacity (Cirik, see para. 455).
Regarding claim 5, MO in view of Cirik teaches claim 1.
MO further teaches performing the random access procedure on the second type of uplink carrier only when the UE is within a serving cell. (MO, see at least para. 82-84 disclosing “2. a counter corresponding to the random access process is equal to a fourth threshold”, note that para. 84 discloses that “...after the terminal selects the uplink carrier in the unlicensed band during random access initialization, if the random access process is not completed and a counter at the medium access control (MAC) layer of the terminal is equal to the fourth threshold, the terminal changes/switches the target carrier to SUL carrier and then performs next random access attempt. For example, a serving cell is configured with at least one uplink carrier working in an unlicensed band and one SUL carrier working in a licensed band or an unlicensed band...”)
Regarding claim 6, MO in view of Cirik teaches claim 5.
MO further teaches resetting a failure counter in response to the UE moving to a new serving cell or tracking area. (MO, see at least para. 82-84 disclosing “2. a counter corresponding to the random access process is equal to a fourth threshold”, note that para. 83 discloses that, “...For example, after completing initial selection of the target carrier, the counter corresponding to the random access process is initialized; and after completing previous change of the target carrier, the counter corresponding to the random access process is reset...”)
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format. To be more specific, MO in view of Cirik also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising means for performing various functions (MO, see at least fig. 6-7), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claims 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format. To be more specific, MO in view of Cirik also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (MO, see at least fig. 6-7), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MO in view of Cirik, and further in view of QIAN et al. (US 20190215877 A1, hereinafter QIAN).
Regarding claim 4, MO in view of Cirik teaches claim 1.
MO in view of Cirik does not explicitly teach incrementing a failure counter in response to receiving a connection setup request failure for the first type of uplink carrier.
QIAN teaches incrementing a failure counter in response to receiving a connection setup request failure for the first type of uplink carrier (QIAN, in general, see sections including, but not limited to, paragraphs 198-265 disclosing Embodiment 1 and Embodiment 2, which include at least fig. 11; in particular, see at least para. 233 in view of para. 206, “...if there are two available uplinks, the counter for uplink random access may not be defined separately, but the transmission counter used by the random access procedure may be used to determine the uplink switching. A simple method is that the terminal completes initialization of the random access procedure and selects the uplink 1 to make random access attempts according to the measurement results. The terminal transmits the preamble on the uplink 1 and starts counting of the transmission counter. Until the transmission counter reaches Mmax, random access re-attempts caused by random access procedure failure are all performed on the uplink 1...”, note that para. 206 discloses that “...Due to measurement problems or channel quality problems, the random access procedure performed by the terminal selecting uplink k may fail, for example, a random access response cannot be detected. Or, a random access response is detected, but the preamble identifier contained therein does not match the transmitted preamble. Or, the random access response is successfully detected, and the preamble identifier therein matches the transmitted preamble, but the transmission of message 3 times out...”, in other words, one or more of these examples above could apply).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate QIAN into MO in view of Cirik for reducing the delay of the random access and improving the overall performance of the system (QIAN, see para. 42).
Regarding claim 10, in view of claim 7 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 4 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 16, in view of 13 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 4 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 7, and 13, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights