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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12035371. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 7, and 10 of the instant application merely change the scope of claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12035371 by further limiting with “by a transform precoder field” and “without having transmitted timing advance information in a message B to the terminal device”.
KIM et al. (US 20200252954) teaches “by a transform precoder field”, see KIM’s [0011] to transmit, to a terminal, configuration of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) through a radio resource control (RRC) connection setup procedure, identify whether application information of a transform precoding for a PUSCH transmission is included in the configuration of the PUSCH. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with KIM in order to efficiently operate an uplink in a next generation mobile communication (Abstract, KIM).
However, KIM does not teach “without having transmitted timing advance information in a message B to the terminal device”. CHEN et al. (US 20200146069) teaches FIG. 4 and [0143] FIG. 11 is another example data structure 1100 for a MAC RAR that supports the 2-step RA procedure… the MAC RAR may include the set of Reserved bits, the Contention Resolution ID field, and the C-RNTI field, without TA command field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with CHEN in order to have an enhanced and efficient RA procedure for the next generation wireless networks ([0004], CHEN).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12035371
1. A method in a base station, comprising:
transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) signalling message indicating a waveform of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) by a transform precoder field,
which is to be used for transmission of a message A from a terminal device in a two-step random access procedure without having transmitted timing advance information in a message B to the terminal device; and
receiving the message A using the waveform of the PUSCH through the air interface in the two-step random access procedure.
1. (Previously Presented) A method in a base station, comprising:
transmitting a signalling message indicating a waveform of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) without including a waveform of a preamble
which is to be used for message A in two-step random access procedure, through an air interface; and
receiving the message A using the waveform of the PUSCH through the air interface in two-step random access procedure.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, 10, and 12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20200252954) in view of CHEN et al. (US 20200146069), and further in view of YANG et al. (US 20210329703).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, and 10, KIM teaches transmitting a radio resource control (RRC) signalling message indicating a waveform of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) by a transform precoder field ([0011] to transmit, to a terminal, configuration of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) through a radio resource control (RRC) connection setup procedure, identify whether application information of a transform precoding for a PUSCH transmission is included in the configuration of the PUSCH).
However, KIM does not expressly teach PUSCH which is to be used for transmission of a message A from a terminal device in a two-step random access procedure (without having transmitted timing advance information in a message B to the terminal device); and receiving the message A using the waveform of the PUSCH through the air interface in the two-step random access procedure. YANG teaches [0080] When the transform precoding is allowed (e.g., the transform precoding is enabled), the UE may transmit the PUSCH based on the CD-OFDM waveform or the DFT-s-OFDM waveform. PUSCH transmission may be dynamically scheduled by the UL grant in the DCI or semi-statically scheduled based on higher layer (e.g., RRC) signaling. [0245] Referring to FIG. 14, the UE may transmit a random access request message (e.g., MsgA) to the BS. MsgA transmission includes RAP transmission (S1402) and PUSCH transmission (S1404). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with YANG so that wireless signal transmission and reception can be efficiently performed ([0015], YANG).
Neither KIM nor YANG expressly teach without having transmitted timing advance information in a message B to the terminal device. CHEN teaches FIG. 4 and [0143] FIG. 11 is another example data structure 1100 for a MAC RAR that supports the 2-step RA procedure… the MAC RAR may include the set of Reserved bits, the Contention Resolution ID field, and the C-RNTI field, without TA command field. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with CHEN in order to have an enhanced and efficient RA procedure for the next generation wireless networks ([0004], CHEN).
Regarding claims 3, 5, 9, and 12, KIM teaches wherein a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-S-OFDM) waveform is used when a transform precoder is enabled by the transform precoder field ([0107] The waveform field may consist of 1 bit and the waveform information field may, by way of example, be set to 0 for indicating use of OFDM and 1 for indicating use of DFT-S-OFDM. A 1-bit field for indicating whether to apply DFT precoding for uplink transmission may also be included).
Claims 2, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 20200252954) in view of CHEN et al. (US 20200146069) and YANG et al. (US 20210329703), and further in view of Lee et al. (US 11438203).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, and 11, none of KIM, CHEN, and YANG expressly teaches wherein the message A is received based further on a waveform of a preamble which is predefined to be either fixed or same as a waveform used for message 3 in a four-step random access procedure. LEE teaches, see col 10 line 59, if the waveform indication field is included in the system information, for example, a PBCH (e.g., MIB information), a UE may recognize the waveform for uplink transmission by obtaining the system information during an initial access procedure. If the waveform indication field is set for the DFT-s-OFDM waveform, the UE may perform initial data transmission using the DFT-s-OFDM waveform. For instance, during a random access procedure, the UE transmits an RACH preamble and receives message 2 from the BS. Thereafter, the UE uses the DFT-s-OFDM waveform to transmit message 3. If an RACH is defined in the form of data rather than a preamble, the UE may use the DFT-s-OFDM waveform when transmitting the RACH. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Lee in order to have much higher communication capacity, scenarios for the next generation communication system (col 1 line 28, Lee).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. 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.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights