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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The dependent claim recites an apparatus (network device), yet its base (parent) claim is a method claim. It should be converted to an independent apparatus claim similar to that of apparatus claim 21. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ly (US 2021/0084689).
Regarding claim 1, Ly describes a method for handling a resource collision, performed by a user equipment (UE), comprises:
determining at least one time domain unit corresponding to an overlapping resource between a resource for repetitions of a first uplink message and a resource of a physical channel for a second uplink message, wherein the first uplink message is msg.3 and the second uplink message is msg.1 or msg.A (fig. 4 & para. 82, UE’s transmission time slot structure 400 (resource) comprising MSG3 repetitions (first uplink message) where slot 410c (the at least one time domain unit) of its slots 410a-410d collides with other its previous scheduled transmissions, such as MSG1 PRACH preamble message, para. 97. See also para. 25 & 72); and
not sending the first uplink message and the second uplink message simultaneously on the at least one time domain unit (fig. 4 & para. 83, UE 115 prioritizes the scheduled event (MSG1 transmission, which is the second uplink message) over the MSG3 repetition (first uplink message) in slot 410C).
Regarding claim 2, Ly describes:
determining that an available time domain unit does not comprise the at least one time domain unit (fig. 4 & para. 27 & 82, UE determined aggregated slots 410a-410d, excluding slot 410c (the at least one time domain unit), being available for MSG 3 repetition transmission);
determining the resource for repetitions of the first uplink message based on the available time domain unit (para. 83, the aggregated slots 410a-410d, excluding slot 410c, are available slot (time domain unit) resources that does not collide with preconfigured scheduled resources and are used for MSG3 repetitions);
wherein not sending the first uplink message and the second uplink message simultaneously on the at least one time domain unit comprises: not sending the first uplink message on the at least one time domain unit (fig. 4 & para. 83, UE 115 prioritizes the scheduled event (MSG1 transmission, which is the second uplink message) over the MSG3 repetition (first uplink message) in slot 410C).
Regarding claim 3, Ly describes:
determining that an available time domain unit comprises the at least one time domain unit (fig. 4 & para. 27 & 82, UE determined aggregated slots 410a-410d, excluding slot 410c (the at least one time domain unit), being available for MSG 3 repetition transmission);
determining the resource for repetitions of the first uplink message based on the available time domain unit, or calculating a number of the repetitions based on the available time domain unit (para. 83, the aggregated slots 410a-410d, excluding slot 410c, are available slot (time domain unit) resources that does not collide with preconfigured scheduled resources and are used for MSG3 repetitions);
wherein not sending the first uplink message and the second uplink message simultaneously on the at least one time domain unit comprises: not sending the first uplink message on the at least one time domain unit (fig. 4 & para. 83, UE 115 prioritizes the scheduled event (MSG1 transmission, which is the second uplink message) over the MSG3 repetition (first uplink message) in slot 410C).
Regarding claim 6, Ly describes:
determining an invalid random access channel (RACH) occasion (RO) in the resource of the physical channel, wherein the at least one time domain unit comprises the invalid RO (fig. 4 & para. 82, realizing (determining) slot 410c of the slot structure 400 of transport channel has overlap/collision (invalid RACH RO), where transport channel is mapped to physical layer);
wherein not sending the first uplink message and the second uplink message simultaneously on the at least one time domain unit comprises: in response to not sending the second uplink message at the invalid RO, sending the first uplink message at the invalid RO (fig. 4 & para. 83, UE 115 alternatively prioritizes the scheduled event the MSG3 repetition (second uplink message) in slot 410C over MSG1 transmission, which is the first uplink message)).
Regarding claim 9, Ly describes:
wherein the physical channel for the second uplink message comprises at least one of: a physical random access channel (PRACH), or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (para. 4, PUSCH used for transmission of MSG3 repetitions, fig. 4 & para. 82-83).
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, 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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Rastegardoost (US 2021/0051672).
Regarding claim 4, Ly describes:
wherein determining the at least one time domain unit corresponding to the overlapping resource between the resource for repetitions of the first uplink message and the resource of the physical channel for the second uplink message (claim 1) comprises:
determining a first resource in a set of resources used for sending the second uplink message (para. 83, the aggregated slots 410a-410d, excluding slot 410c, are available slot (time domain unit) resources that does not collide with preconfigured scheduled resources and are used for MSG3 repetitions); and
determining a second resource in the set of resources, wherein second resource is the same as a resource mapped by the first resource; and determining at least one time domain unit corresponding to an overlapping resource between the second resource and the resource for repetitions of the first uplink message (fig. 4 & para. 82, second resource provided in [time] slot 410c (time domain unit) for transmitting MSG 3 repetition collides with (same as) that of its previous scheduled transmissions, such as assignment of MSG1 PRACH preamble message (second resource) , para. 97. See also para. 25 & 72);
Ly fails to further explicitly describe:
a synchronization signal block (SSB) index mapped by (represents) the first/second resource.
Rastegardoost also describes random access procedure involving MSG1 & MSG3 (fig. 13A), further describing:
a synchronization signal block (SSB) index mapped by (represents) the first/second resource (para. 237, a SSB indexes can be mapped to 2+ ROs (resource occasions)).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to specify that the first & second resources in Ly to be represented by (mapping to) a SSB index as in Rastegardoost.
The motivation for combining the teachings is that this enables efficient control signaling and/or efficient resource management for one or more access procedures (Rastegardoost, para. 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ly and Rastegardoost combined describe:
receiving configuration information sent by a network device, wherein the configuration information indicates the set of resources used for sending the second uplink messages (Ly, fig. 2 & para. 8 UE 115-A receives PUSCH parameters (configuration information) for its PUSCH transmission from base station 105-A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein determining the invalid RO in the resource of the physical channel comprises: receiving an invalid resource mode from a network device, wherein the invalid resource mode indicates the invalid RO.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to further explicitly describe:
wherein an invalid resource mode is determined by the network device based on the invalid RO, a first RO resource is determined in a set of RO resources used by the first UE for sending the second uplink message, and a second RO resource in the set of RO resources is determined as the invalid RO, wherein a synchronization signal block (SSB) index mapped by the second RO resource is the same as a SSB index mapped by the first RO resource
For claims 7-8, the closest prior art, Li (US 2023/0156782) describing base station sending (determining) PUSCH assignment to UE (para. 72) and also describing PRACH ROs & PUSHC POs (para. 69), in combination with Ly, fails to further additionally explicitly describing dependent claim 7 limitations as a whole obvious.
Claims 10-18 are method claims for network device comprising mirroring features found in method claims 1-9 for UE respectively. Hence, they are rejected/objected to under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is UE apparatus claim comprising processor & memory storing a computer program to be executed on processor of steps in method claim 1. Hence, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 22 is UE apparatus claim comprising processor & memory storing a computer program to be executed on processor of steps in method claim 1. Hence, it is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Luo (US 2024/0357665) describing that Msg 3 being used for conflict resolution. If a plurality of different devices use a same Msg 1 to perform random access, whether a conflict exists may be jointly determined by using the Msg 3 and the Msg 4 (para. 217), Cirik (US 2023/0224916) describing RA procedure (title) where a plurality of UEs may transmit a same preamble to a base station and the base station may provide an RAR that corresponds to a UE. Collisions may occur if the plurality of UEs interpret the RAR as corresponding to themselves. Contention resolution (e.g., using the Msg 3 1313 and the Msg 4 1314) may be used to increase the likelihood that the UE does not incorrectly use an identity of another the UE. (para. 184), Yamamoto (US 2025/0047434) describing a 4-step RACH where terminal sends a RACH preamble (Msg.1), and then a RACH response (RAR or Message 2 (Msg.1)) sent from the base station. 2). Then, for example, the terminal transmits an uplink signal including an RRC connection request or a schedule request (Msg.3), Boroujeni (US 2022/0124833) or (US 2021/0329700) or (US 2021/0266973), or Ly (US 2018/0132282) each describing collision between two or more UEs 104 requesting access can occur. For instance, two or more UEs 104 may send Msg 1 having a same RACH preamble because the number of RACH preambles may be limited and may be randomly selected by each UE 104 in a contention-based NR RACH procedure (para. 79).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WARNER WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-8197. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am - 3:30pm.
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, Ian Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
WARNER WONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/WARNER WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights