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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed 18 May 2026, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 10, 11, 15, 20-23, 27-30 and 33-36 are canceled.
Claims 1, 13, 25 and 31 are amended.
Claims 1-9, 12-14, 16-19, 24-26, 31 and 32 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 25, 26, 31 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to Claims 25 and 31.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 May 2026 regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, at page 11 of the response, that “Cheng's UE does not derive any RSRP threshold, nor would it need to, as the available options in Cheng are provided in the PRACH configuration from the base station. Cheng therefore does not disclose the second signal strength threshold value being derived by the UE from the received first signal strength threshold value based on a function or combination of functions.” The Office respectfully disagrees. The Office first notes that the manner in which the second signal strength threshold is “derived…based on a function or combination of functions” is not further limited in the claim so as to require a specific set of steps or operations. While Applicant further states, at page 12 of the response, that “Cheng does not disclose the UE mathematically deriving a second threshold value from the first threshold value based on a function or combination of functions (e.g., G2 = f(G1, Δg), such as G2 = G1 + Δg or G2 = G1 - Δg)”, these mathematical operations are not claimed.
Turning to the claimed “deriving” step and “function or combination of functions”, the Office bases its interpretation in MPEP 2111.01: “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.” A plain meaning for the term “derive” includes “to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source”, while a plain meaning of the term “function” includes “something (as a quality, trait, or measurement) that is determined by or based on something else.” Neither term, given its plain meaning, is inherently limited to mathematical operations as alleged by Applicant.
Referring to page 14, lines 12-23 of Applicant’s specification, the Office notes the following passage (with G1 representing a first threshold and G2 representing a second threshold):
“In this example, G1 and G2 are related by a function or combination of functions. Examples of functions are sum, maximum, minimum, product, x-th percentile, etc.”
As shown in this exemplary description, G2 can be derived from G1 using mathematical functions; however, the specification does not provide a special definition of either the derivation or the functions, and the claims do not require the disclosed level of specificity. Further, as this specificity is not claimed, it would be impermissible to import this narrow meaning into the broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, Cheng’s disclosure, where the UE selects an RSRP level (with an associated threshold) from on a group of initially provided RSRP levels based on a series of measurements and comparison to provided thresholds (refer to Figure 5 at step 502 and paragraphs 0165, 0168) reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “derived…based on a function or combination of functions”, absent more specific language in the claim.
Applicant further states that “Cheng does not teach or suggest that the thresholds are associated with or derived based on the UE’s receiver configuration, such as a number of receive branches supported by the UE.” The Office notes that the claim language solely recites “a second signal strength threshold value associated with a receiver configuration supported by the UE.” There is no requirement in the claim language that the thresholds be derived based on the UE’s receiver configuration, and the manner in which the threshold value is “associated with” a receiver configuration is not further limited in the claim language. As an example, Claims 2-4 describe various receiver configurations, but do not provide any further detail as to how these configurations would be utilized to derive respective threshold values. Applicant’s arguments related to Maamari’s teachings with respect to the independent claims are moot as Maamari is not utilized to teach any limitations in said claims.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1, 13, 25 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) is maintained.
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 1-9, 12-14, 16-19, 24-26, 31 and 32 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. Independent Claims 1, 13, 25 and 31 are amended to recite “based on a function or combination of functions.” However, it is not clear whether the “combination of functions” include “a function” or encompass functions that would not be covered by the singular function. Claims 2-9, 12, 14, 16-19, 24, 26 and 32 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims. For examination and search purposes, the claims will be treated as best understood by the Office.
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 1, 7-9, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cheng et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0137988), hereinafter Cheng.
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses a method implemented by a user equipment (UE) (Figure 1 – UE 101) in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a first signal strength threshold value from a network node (Figure 5 at step 501 and paragraph 0160 – the UE receives PRACH configuration information containing one or more RRC parameters (such as the thresholds disclosed in paragraphs 0161-0163));
deriving a second signal strength threshold value associated with a receiver configuration supported by the UE for performing a radio procedure, the second signal strength threshold value being derived from the received first signal strength threshold value based on a function or combination of functions (Figure 5 at step 502; paragraph 0165 – the one or more RSRP thresholds are used for determining RSRP levels for the UE; paragraph 0168 – an RSRP level may be selected based on the first RSRP threshold and second RSRP thresholds, where the UE selects an SSB if the SS-RSRP of the SSB satisfies the threshold (i.e., based on a function or a combination of functions) of the selected RSRP level); and
performing the radio procedure using the second signal strength threshold value (Figure 5 and step 504; paragraph 0179 – the UE selects a preamble associated with the selected RSRP level and transmits a preamble in a PRACH occasion).
Claim 25 is directed to a user equipment in a wireless communication network performing the same steps as the method of Claim 1. Cheng discloses a UE comprising processing circuitry (Figure 1, UE 101 comprising processing modules as described in paragraphs 0052-0053). The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Cheng discloses a method implemented by a network node (Figure 1 – base station 102) in a wireless communication network, the method comprising:
determining a first receiver configuration supported by a UE for performing a radio procedure (Figure 5 at step 501 and paragraph 0160 – the UE receives PRACH configuration information containing one or more RRC parameters (such as the thresholds disclosed in paragraphs 0161-0163) from the base station); and
sending, to the UE, a first signal strength threshold value associated with a second receiver configuration for the UE to derive, from the first signal strength threshold value, a second signal strength threshold value, based on a function or combination of functions, associated with the first receiver configuration (Figure 5 at steps 501-502; paragraph 0165 – the one or more RSRP thresholds in the received configuration are used for determining RSRP levels for the UE; paragraph 0168 – an RSRP level may be selected based on the first RSRP threshold and second RSRP thresholds, where the UE selects an SSB if the SS-RSRP of the SSB satisfies the threshold (i.e., based on a function or combination of functions) of the selected RSRP level).
Claim 31 is directed to a network node in a wireless communication network performing the same steps as the method of Claim 13. Cheng discloses a network node comprising processing circuitry (Figure 1 – base station 102 comprises operations module 182 as described at paragraphs 0067-0075). The remaining limitations are rejected for the same reasons as presented above for Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 7, Cheng discloses the radio procedure comprises one or more of selection of reference signal for random access transmission (Figure 5 and step 504; paragraph 0179 – the UE selects a preamble associated with the selected RSRP level and transmits a preamble in a PRACH occasion, therefore meeting the claimed alternative limitation), selection between normal uplink carrier and supplementary uplink carrier, selection between 2-step random access and 4-step random access, selection between small data transmission and legacy transmission, and selection of resources for small data transmission.
Regarding Claim 8, Cheng discloses wherein deriving a second signal strength threshold value associated with a receiver configuration supported by the UE comprises: determining one of a plurality of different receiver configurations supported by the UE for performing the radio procedure (paragraph 0174 – the UE can be configured with multiple RSRP levels which may contain multiple thresholds); and deriving a signal strength threshold value associated with the determined receiver configuration (Figure 5 at step 502; paragraph 0165 – the one or more RSRP thresholds are used for determining RSRP levels for the UE; paragraph 0168 – an RSRP level may be selected based on the first RSRP threshold and second RSRP thresholds, where the UE selects an SSB if the SS-RSRP of the SSB satisfies the threshold of the selected RSRP level).
Regarding Claim 9, Cheng discloses the second signal strength threshold value is a relative threshold value (paragraph 0174 – configured RSRP thresholds may be larger than other thresholds).
Regarding Claim 12, Cheng discloses the first signal strength threshold value is received from the network node in one or both of a broadcast message and a system information message (paragraph 0160 - the UE may receive system information which is broadcast by the BS. The system information may include PRACH configuration information (which contains the RSRP threshold values as further described in paragraphs 0161-0162)).
Regarding Claim 24, Cheng discloses wherein sending a first signal strength threshold value to the UE comprises sending the first signal strength threshold value in a broadcast message and/or a system information message (paragraph 0160 - the UE may receive system information which is broadcast by the BS. The system information may include PRACH configuration information (which contains the RSRP threshold values as further described in paragraphs 0161-0162)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-6, 14, 16-19, 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Maamari et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0090018), hereinafter Maamari.
Regarding Claims 2 and 26, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 25, as described above. However, Cheng does not disclose the first signal strength threshold value is for a receiver configuration with two receive branches. In an analogous art, Maamari discloses this. Specifically, Maamari discloses establishing a coverage area with a corresponding threshold for a UE with 2 RX antennas (i.e., receive branches) (Figure 4 and paragraph 0143). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claim 3, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 1, as described above. However, Cheng does not disclose the receiver configuration supported by the UE is a receiver configuration with one receive branch, and wherein the second signal strength threshold value is for a receiver configuration with one receive branch. In analogous art, Maamari discloses this. Specifically, Maamari discloses establishing a coverage area with a corresponding threshold for a UE with 1 RX antenna (i.e., receive branch) (Figure 4 and paragraph 0143). Maamari further discloses that a UE can modify a provided threshold based on its type (paragraph 0142). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Cheng and Maamari further discloses the UE further supports a receiver configuration with two receive branches (Maamari at Figure 4 and paragraph 0143 - establishing a coverage area with a corresponding threshold for a UE with 2 RX antennas (i.e., receive branches)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 13, as described above. However, Cheng does not disclose the second signal strength threshold value is derived from the received first signal strength threshold value and an offset. In an analogous art, Maamari discloses this. Specifically, Maamari discloses the UE modifying a provided threshold by adding a factor (i.e., offset) to the threshold (paragraph 0142). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, the combination of Cheng and Maamari further discloses the second signal strength threshold value is the sum of the received first signal strength threshold value and the offset (Maamari at paragraph 0142 - the UE modifying a provided threshold by adding (i.e., sum) a factor (i.e., offset) to the threshold). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claims 14 and 32, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claims 13 and 31, as described above. However, Cheng does not disclose the second receiver configuration is a receiver configuration with two receive branches, and wherein the first signal strength threshold value is for a receiver configuration with two receive branches. In an analogous art, Maamari discloses this. Specifically, Maamari discloses establishing a threshold for a UE with 2 RX antennas (i.e., receive branches) (paragraph 0143). Maamari further discloses that a UE can modify a provided threshold based on its type (paragraph 0142). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claim 16, Cheng discloses the limitations of Claim 13, as described above. However, Cheng does not disclose the first receiver configuration supported by the UE is a receiver configuration with one receive branch, and wherein the second signal strength threshold value is for a receiver configuration with one receive branch. In analogous art, Maamari discloses this. Specifically, Maamari discloses establishing a coverage area with a corresponding threshold for a UE with 1 RX antenna (i.e., receive branch) (Figure 4 and paragraph 0143). Maamari further discloses that a UE can modify a provided threshold based on its type (paragraph 0142). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Cheng and Maamari further discloses the second signal strength threshold value is derived from the first signal strength threshold value and an offset (Maamari at paragraph 0142 - the UE modifying a provided threshold by adding a factor (i.e., offset) to the threshold). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Cheng and Maamari. One would have been motivated to do so in order to allow for identification of RedCap UEs in the network and allow the network to take measure to compensate for link budget loss of RedCap UEs (see paragraph 0045 of Maamari).
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