CTNF 18/704,362 CTNF 85300 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia a. Claims 53-72 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, are being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. b. This is a first action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 04/24/2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/13/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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. Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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. Claim 59 recites the limitation "configuring an infinite threshold" (underlined emphasis) . The term "infinite" is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "infinite threshold" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 conflicting 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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 53-72 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 18-20 of copending US Patent Application No. 19186536 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims cited above in the instant application broaden the scope of Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 18-20 of already allowed U.S. Patent No. 19186536 by omitting the feature of a method and/or apparatus, logic using for controlling access for devices with different capabilities. It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA), also note Exparte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd. App. 1969); the omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. The table below compares the claims in instant application with corresponding conflicting claims in copending U.S. Patent application No. 19186536 wherein the underlined parts highlighting the patentably indistinct features between the conflicting claims. In instant application In U.S. Patent Application No. 19186536 Claim 53. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: transmitting, to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 54. The apparatus of claim 53, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from the network element, a response based on the indication. Claim 60. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response. Claim 61. The apparatus of claim 60, wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches. Claim 64. The apparatus of claim 53, wherein the apparatus is configured with a reference signal received power threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 1. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: transmitting, to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches, wherein the apparatus is configured with a reference signal received power threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches; receiving, from the network element, a response based on the indication; and communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response, wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches. Claim 55. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having one receive branch. Claim 3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having one receive branch. Claim 56. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein the response indicates the apparatus is forbidden to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having one receive branch. Claim 58. The apparatus of claim 57, wherein the response explicitly indicates that the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources. Claim 6. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the response explicitly indicates that the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources. Claim 57. The apparatus of claim 54, wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources, based on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources, based on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 59. The apparatus of claim 57, wherein the response indicates that the apparatus is forbidden access to resources by configuring an infinite threshold. Claim 7. The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the response indicates that the apparatus is forbidden access to resources by configuring a threshold. Claim 62. The apparatus claim 60, wherein the communicating further comprises accessing common physical random access channel resources. Claim 10. The apparatus claim 1, wherein the communicating further comprises accessing common physical random access channel resources. Claim 63. The apparatus of claim 53, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from the network element, a configuration of a reference signal received power threshold for the apparatus to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the apparatus is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold. Claim 11. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from the network element, a configuration of a reference signal received power threshold for the apparatus to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the apparatus is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold. Claim 65. The apparatus of claim 53, wherein the random access message comprises a message three of a four-step random access procedure. Claim 13. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the random access message comprises a message three of a four-step random access procedure. Claim 66. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from a user equipment, an indication in a random access message; determining whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches based on the indication; and communicating with the user equipment based on the determination that the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 68. The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment, and wherein the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 69. The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the communicating comprises permitting the user equipment to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the user equipment having two receive branches. Claim 14. An apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from a user equipment, an indication in a random access message; determining whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches based on the indication; and communicating with the user equipment based on the determination that the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches , wherein the communicating comprises permitting the user equipment to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the user equipment having two receive branches , wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform: configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment, and wherein the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 67. The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the user equipment is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold. Claim 15. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the user equipment is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold. Claim 70. The apparatus of claim 69, wherein the communicating further comprises permitting the user equipment to access common physical random access channel resources. Claim 18. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the communicating further comprises permitting the user equipment to access common physical random access channel resources. Claim 71. The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the communicating comprises permitting access to resources or forbidding access to resources, based on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 19. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the communicating comprises permitting access to resources or forbidding access to resources, based on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 72. A method, comprising: transmitting, from a user equipment to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. Claim 20. A method, comprising: transmitting, from a user equipment to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches, wherein the user equipment is configured with a reference signal received power threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches, receiving, from the network element, a response based on the indication; and communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response, wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the user equipment having two receive branches. As shown above, claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 18-20 of claimed U.S. Patent Application No. 19186536, using different but patentably indistinct terminologies , disclose all features of corresponding claims 53-72 of instant application. Claims 53-72 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 18-20 of U. S. Patent Application No. 19186536 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as shown in the table above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 53-59, 63-69, and 71-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maamari et al. US Pub 2024/0090018, claiming provisional applications 63122414 and 63250751 priorities (hereinafter “Maamari”) . Regarding claim 53 Maamari discloses an apparatus (i.e. “UE” in Fig. 2; “the apparatus is a reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE)” [Claim 18]) , comprising: at least one processor (“one or more processors” [Claim 18]) ; and at least one memory (“non-transitory memory storage storing instructions” [Claim 18]) including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: transmitting, to a network element (i.e. “gNB” in Fig. 2) , an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches (“receiving, by a gNB from a user equipment (UE), a first message during a random access (RA) procedure; determining, by the gNB, whether the first message indicates that the UE is a reduced capability (RedCap) UE, the RedCap UE having a quantity of receive branches less than a minimum number of receive branches of a non-RedCap UE” [0025]) . Regarding claim 54 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 53, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: Maamari further discloses receiving, from the network element (i.e. “gNB” in Fig. 2) , a response based on the indication (“In the second step of a RACH process (in reference to FIG. 2), following the PRACH preamble transmission, the UE awaits a random access response from the gNB.” [0192]) . Regarding claim 55 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 54, Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having one receive branch (“when the UE has one receive branch, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure” [0020]) . Regarding claim 56 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 54, Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates the apparatus is forbidden to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches (“The UE may inform the network that it is a RedCap UE either implicitly (e.g., by using a preamble/resource choice for transmitting Msg1), or explicitly (e.g., through the setting of 1 bit in Msg3).” [0120] and furthermore “According to the criterion C2, when the UE has two receive branches and is operable in FR1 FDD bands and FR2 bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE after the RA procedure. When the UE has one receive branch and is operable in FR1 FDD and FR2 bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE during the RA procedure. When the UE has two receive branches and is operable in FR1 TDD bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE during the RA procedure.” [0134])) . Regarding claim 57 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 54, Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources, based on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches (“According to the criterion C2, when the UE has two receive branches and is operable in FR1 FDD bands and FR2 bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE after the RA procedure. When the UE has one receive branch and is operable in FR1 FDD and FR2 bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE during the RA procedure. When the UE has two receive branches and is operable in FR1 TDD bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE during the RA procedure.” [0134]) . Regarding claim 58 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 57, Maamari further discloses wherein the response explicitly indicates that the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources (“The UE may inform the network that it is a RedCap UE either implicitly (e.g., by using a preamble/resource choice for transmitting Msg1), or explicitly (e.g., through the setting of 1 bit in Msg3).” [0120]) . Regarding claim 59 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 57, Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates that the apparatus is forbidden access to resources by configuring an infinite threshold (“In another embodiment, a threshold is defined if a RedCap UE is to use an early identification path based on a criterion using a threshold (such as C3, C4, C5). In one embodiment, the threshold may be defined using rsrp-ThresholdsPrachInfoList-r17 IE Different coverage levels may be defined based on RSRP and defined in an information element. The RACH-ConfigGeneric IE may be augmented to include the rsrp-ThresholdsPrachInfoList-r17 IE. In another embodiment, the RACH-ConfigCommon IE may be augmented to include the rsrp-ThresholdsPrachInfoList-r17 IE.” [0188]) . Regarding claim 63 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 53, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: Maamari further discloses receiving, from the network element (i.e. “gNB” in Fig. 2) , a configuration of a reference signal received power (i.e. “RSRP”) threshold for the apparatus to access a reduced-capability-specific resources (“the determining comprises: comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure;” [0023]) , wherein the apparatus is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold (when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement of the UE is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure;” [0023]) . Regarding claim 64 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 53, Maamari further discloses wherein the apparatus is configured with a reference signal received power (i.e. RSRP) threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the apparatus has one receive branch (“comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has one receive branch and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure; when the UE has one receive branch and the RSRP measurement is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure;” [0024]) or two receive branches (“comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement of the UE is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure” [0023]) . Regarding claim 65 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 53, Maamari further discloses wherein the random access message comprises a message three of a four-step random access procedure (“the indicating comprises: sending, by the UE to the gNB when determining to indicate during the RA procedure, a first message indicating the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure, the first message comprising a message 1 (Msg1) of the RA procedure, a message 3 (Msg3) of the RA procedure, or a message A (MsgA) of the RA procedure of the RA procedure.” [0009]) . Regarding claim 66 Maamari discloses an apparatus (“gNB” in Fig. 2; “the electronic device may be an element of communications network infrastructure, such as a base station (for example a NodeB, an evolved Node B (eNodeB, or eNB), a next generation NodeB (sometimes referred to as a gNodeB or gNB)” [0236]) , comprising: at least one processor (“a device may contain multiple instances of a component, such as multiple processors” [0236]) ; and at least one memory (“memories” [0236]) including computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving, from a user equipment, an indication in a random access message; determining whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches based on the indication; and communicating with the user equipment based on the determination that the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 66 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 53. Therefore apparatus claim 66 corresponds to apparatus claim 53 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 53 rejection above. Regarding claim 67 The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the user equipment is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold. The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 67 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 63. Therefore apparatus claim 67 corresponds to apparatus claim 63 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 63 rejection above. Regarding claim 68 The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment, and wherein the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 68 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 64. Therefore apparatus claim 68 corresponds to apparatus claim 64 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 64 rejection above. Regarding claim 69 The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the communicating comprises permitting the user equipment to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the user equipment having two receive branches. The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 69 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 67. Therefore apparatus claim 69 corresponds to apparatus claim 67 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 67 rejection above. Regarding claim 71 The apparatus of claim 66, wherein the communicating comprises permitting access to resources or forbidding access to resources, based on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 71 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 57. Therefore apparatus claim 71 corresponds to apparatus claim 57 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 57 rejection above. Regarding claim 72 A method, comprising: transmitting, from a user equipment to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches. The scope and subject matter of method claim 72 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 52. Therefore method claim 72 corresponds to apparatus claim 53 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 53 rejection above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 60-62, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maamari et al. US Pub 2024/0090018, claiming provisional applications 63122414 and 63250751 priorities (hereinafter “Maamari”), and in view of Nokia NPL “Higher layer support of Reduced Capability NR Devices” , 3GPP R1-2100500, Jan 25 – Feb 5, 2021 (hereinafter “Nokia”) . Regarding claim 60 Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 54, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: Maamari does not specifically teach communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response. In an analogous art, Nokia discloses communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response (“Furthermore, like Option 2, Option 4 allows for supporting either one or more than one REDCAP UE type. As an example of the latter, the number of UE Rx branches (and, correspondingly, the maximum number of MIMO layers) may distinguish the different types. Note that this distinction between the types is beneficial for the network to know to optimize initial access if the type indication is provided by msg1 , as discussed in Section 2.1. Alternatively, if optimization of initial access is not performed and only a single REDCAP UE type is supported, the REDCAP UE is expected to have a minimum of 1 Rx branch and reduced antenna efficiency can also be incorporated into the type definition. It is possible to include reduced antenna efficiency in the type definition. Any other optional features (e.g., support of HD-FDD or DL 256-QAM in FR1) supported by the UE can be indicated by the UE to the network through capability signaling. Option 4 does provide the flexibility to define more UE types to further constrain the capabilities of each type. For example, a separate UE type can be defined for UEs that support 40 MHz UE bandwidth after initial access together with 2 Rx branches. Overall, Option 4 provides the desired flexibility while satisfying the uses of defining UE types.” On page 5”) . Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maamari’s method for identification of reduced capability (RedCap) user equipments (UEs), to include Nokia’s method for determining RedCap UE capabilities, in order to differentiate between UEs based on the number of Rx branches and whether the UE has reduced antenna efficiency (Nokia, Proposal 4, page 5). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Nokia’s method for determining RedCap UE capabilities into Maamari’s method for identification of reduced capability (RedCap) user equipments (UEs) since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Regarding claim 61 Maamari, as modified by Nokia, previously discloses the apparatus of claim 60, Nokia further discloses wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches (“Option 4 does provide the flexibility to define more UE types to further constrain the capabilities of each type . For example, a separate UE type can be defined for UEs that support 40 MHz UE bandwidth after initial access together with 2 Rx branches. Overall, Option 4 provides the desired flexibility while satisfying the uses of defining UE types.” On page 5 and furthermore “For REDCAP UE Type 3, support the following capabilities: 2 Rx antennas, reduced antenna efficiency, and maximum of 2 DL MIMO layers. For REDCAP UE Type 4, support the following capabilities: 2 Rx antennas, and maximum of 2 DL MIMO layers. Since the maximum number of DL MIMO layers supported is directly related to the number of Rx antennas, we include DL MIMO support feature in the type definition. The REDCAP UE capability types are listed in Table 2, showing the minimum UE capabilities for each type.” Table 2 on page 6) . Regarding claim 62 Maamari, as modified by Nokia, previously discloses the apparatus claim 60, Maamari further discloses wherein the communicating further comprises accessing common physical random access channel resources (“the first message is sent by the UE according to a physical random access channel (PRACH) configuration that is broadcast by the gNB and received by the UE before the RA procedure, the PRACH configuration comprising a RACH preamble, a RACH occasion, or a combination thereof , which is associated with indicating RedCap UEs.” [0012]) . Regarding claim 70 The apparatus of claim 69, wherein the communicating further comprises permitting the user equipment to access common physical random access channel resources. The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 70 are similar to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 62. Therefore apparatus claim 70 corresponds to apparatus claim 62 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 62 rejection above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm. 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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. /CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 2 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 3 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 4 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 5 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 6 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 7 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 8 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 9 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 10 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 11 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 12 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 13 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 14 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 15 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 16 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 17 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 18 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 19 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 20 Art Unit: 2411 Application/Control Number: 18/704,362 Page 21 Art Unit: 2411
Prosecution Insights