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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-26, 29-34, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (US 2025/0310971 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Prasad discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Fig. 36), the method comprising:
identifying that a random access procedure is initiated (Fig. 36, UE initiates a preamble transmission based on PDCCH order) for a first layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) candidate cell (Fig. 36, UE receives L1/2 measurement configuration of candidate cells) based on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order (Fig. 36, UE receives PDCCH order triggering from source cell); and
setting a preamble power ramping counter to 1, in case that (i) the PDCCH order indicates a preamble initial transmission (Fig. 38 and 411th paragraph, setting preamble power ramping counter to 1 based on PDCCH order indicating initial preamble transmission) or (ii) the PDCCH order indicates a preamble retransmission (Fig. 38 and 411st paragraph, setting preamble power ramping counter to 1 based on PDCCH order indicating retransmission) and the first LTM candidate cell is different from a cell of a last random access preamble transmission (Fig. 38, 428th and 428th paragraphs, setting preamble power ramping counter to 1 for a preamble transmission for second candidate cell).
Regarding claims 22 and 30, Zhou discloses setting a preamble transmission counter to 1 based on the identification (Fig. 38 and 411th paragraph, setting preamble transmission counter to 1 based on PDCCH order for RA procedure).
Regarding claims 23 and 31, Zhou discloses setting a preamble received target power based on the preamble power ramping counter (Fig. 38, UE obtains preamble received target power based on PTC and PPRC setting to 1); and transmitting a random access preamble on the first LTM candidate cell using the preamble received target power (Fig. 38, UE initiates preamble transmission to first candidate cell).
Regarding claims 24 and 32, Zhou discloses that upon the transmission of the random access preamble, considering the random access procedure as completed (Fig. 38, complete RA procedure upon receiving RAR).
Regarding claims 25 and 33, Zhou discloses receiving, on a serving cell, configuration information on the first LTM candidate cell (Fig. 36, UE receives configuration of candidate PCells, e.g., cell 1, cell 2, etc…).
Regarding claims 26 and 34, Zhou discloses that wherein the PDCCH order is received on the serving cell (Fig. 36, UE receives PDCCH order from source cell).
Regarding claims 28 and 36, Zhou discloses setting the preamble power ramping counter to 1, in case that the PDCCH order is a first PDCCH order received for the first LTM candidate cell and the PDCCH order indicates the preamble retransmission (Fig. 41, PDCCH order indicates candidate cell 1 and retransmission bit set while PPRC set by 1).
Regarding claim 29, Prasad discloses an electronic device (Fig. 15, wireless device 1502) comprising:
at least one processor including processing circuitry (Fig. 15, processing system 1518); and
memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions (Fig. 15, memory 1524), when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device (Fig. 15) to:
identify that a random access procedure is initiated (Fig. 36, UE initiates a preamble transmission based on PDCCH order) for a first layer 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) candidate cell (Fig. 36, UE receives L1/2 measurement configuration of candidate cells) based on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) order (Fig. 36, UE receives PDCCH order triggering from source cell); and
set a preamble power ramping counter to 1, in case that (i) the PDCCH order indicates a preamble initial transmission (Fig. 38 and 411th paragraph, setting preamble power ramping counter to 1 based on PDCCH order indicating initial preamble transmission) or (ii) the PDCCH order indicates a preamble retransmission (Fig. 38 and 411st paragraph, setting preamble power ramping counter to 1 based on PDCCH order indicating retransmission) and the first LTM candidate cell is different from a cell of a last random access preamble transmission (Fig. 38, 428th and 428th paragraphs, setting preamble power ramping counter to 1 for a preamble transmission for second candidate cell).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 27 and 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Prasad et al (US 2026/0075657 A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 35, Zhou discloses incrementing the preamble power ramping counter by 1, in case that the PDCCH order indicates the preamble retransmission (438th paragraph and Fig. 39, incrementing preamble power ramping counter by 1 if PDCCH order indicates retransmission). Zhou does not disclose incrementing the preamble power ramping counter by 1 if a listen before talk (LBT) failure was not identified for the last random access preamble transmission. Prasad discloses incrementing the power ramping counter by 1 based on PDCCH order indicating the preamble retransmission and LBT failure for the first preamble transmission (338th and 364th paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increment power ramping counter by 1 in Zhou’s system, as suggested by Prasad, to increase transmission reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. 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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights