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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 23 June 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 23 June 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, 20 and 22 are amended and currently pending.
Claims 5, 6, 10, 14-19, 21, 23 and 24 are cancelled.
The outstanding objections to Claims 1 and 13 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to said claims.
The outstanding rejections of Claims 1-4, 7-9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to at least Claims 1 and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 regarding the rejection of Claims 11-13 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. Applicant states: “In view of these amendments, the Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and requests that the claims be allowed.” However, Applicant has not made specific arguments as to the patentability of these claims. For the reasons detailed below, the rejection of Claims 11-13 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 23 June 2026 regarding the rejection of Claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states: “Claims 11 and 22 are hereby amended to incorporate features previously recited in claims 12, which was not alleged to be anticipated by Roy. Given than Roy is not alleged to disclose these features, the Applicant respectfully submits that the claims as amended are allowed.” The Office respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the current amendments, as the subject matter of Claim 12 (related to energy-efficient and performance optimized RACH configurations) has not been incorporated into Claims 11 and 22. Applicant has not made further specific arguments as to the patentability of these amended claims. For the reasons detailed herein, the rejection of Claims 11 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-9 and 20 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not disclose the following limitations found in Claims 1 and 20: “start a timer associated the second RACH configuration; monitor for one or more additional preambles in a second RACH occasion according to the second RACH configuration of the network node; and when no additional preambles are received before the timer runs out, reconfigure with the first RACH configuration.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 11-13 and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim language recites a method performed by a UE, where the UE performs the step of “determining whether a RACH configuration period and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration was dynamically changed according to whether the preamble was received in the RACH Occasion by the network node.” However, the claim language is unclear as to how a step that is not claimed as occurring at the UE (i.e., “receiving the preamble by the network node”) and is claimed as already having occurred (“was dynamically changed according to whether a preamble was received in the RACH Occasion by the network node”) can lead the UE to determine that the RACH determining whether a RACH configuration period and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration was dynamically changed. While the claim language further recites that “…the RACH configuration and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration are indicated by a second RACH configuration,” the claim is not clear as to whether the UE receives this “second RACH configuration” or how a “second RACH configuration” would allow the UE to determine that the RACH configuration period and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration was dynamically changed. Accordingly, Claim 11 is found to be indefinite. Claim 22 recites the same language and is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 11. Claims 12 and 13 are rejected by virtue of dependency on Claim 11. For search and prior art purposes, the claims will be interpreted as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2023/0254899), hereinafter Roy.
Regarding Claim 22, Roy discloses a User Equipment (UE) (Figure 1B – WTRU 102) for enabling an energy efficient Random Access Channel (RACH) the UE comprising:
processing circuitry (Figure 1B – processor 118); and
memory storing instructions executable by the processing circuitry (Figure 1B – non-removable memory 130),
whereby the UE is operable to:
transmit a preamble in a RACH Occasion of a network node according to a first RACH configuration (Figure 7 at step 713 – the WRTU transmits a first RACH preamble chosen from a common pool in RACH occasion associated with SSB Index 1 to a gNB; paragraph 0185); and
determine whether a RACH configuration period and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration was dynamically changed according to whether the preamble was received in the RACH Occasion by the network node (Figure 7 at step 715 – the WTRU transmits a RACH preamble chosen from special pool for SSB Index 1 in RACH occasion associated with SSB Index 2 based on a determination that no response was received from the gNB in a RAR window; paragraph 0185), wherein the RACH configuration and/or RACH frequency multiplexing configuration are indicated by a second RACH configuration (Figure 7 and paragraph 0185 – the RACH occasion for SSB Indexes 1 and 2 (inclusive of preamble pools are both communicated to the WTRU).
Claim 11 is directed to a method comprising the same steps as performed by the UE in Claim 22. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented for Claim 22 above.
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 ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights