DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to amendment for Application 18/766115 filed on 8/24/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Interview
Applicant states that an interview took place on Aug. 21, 2026. To clarify the records, Examiner did not have an interview regarding the 112 (a) rejection. Examiner merely received a call to schedule an interview to discuss the outstanding rejections including 112 (a). Examiner then stated that a complete response to the 112 (a) must be submitted for evaluation. Thus, no records of applicants’ agenda or interview summary.
After receiving this action, I would invite the applicants to schedule an interview to go over the rejections because it is not clear how “addition of a new RACH configuration for a second carrier” triggers a second RRC.
Priority
After evaluating applicants’ response to the 112 (a) rejection, Application’s priority date to 4/23/2009 has been revoked. The filed provisional applications 61171917, 61172076 and 6118181 do not support the current claims especially the “second RRC.”
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments in the amendment filed on 8/24/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 112 (a) have been considered and found unpersuasive because the specification does not provide support.
a. As initial matter, the specification as filed provides support to the current claims. However, provisional applications like 61171917, 61172076 and 6118181 provide no support. Thus, application’s earlier filing date has been revoked.
b. Applicants cite to ¶0052 & ¶0054 to support the limitation “…second RRC signaling that indicates…” of the independent claims. Examiner disagrees because none of those paragraphs support a second RRC. At best those paragraphs support a second carrier and a first RRC. A single RRC connection still maintains connection with the multi-carrier operations as claimed.
c. To support this limitation the applicant makes backward argument where “second RRC signaling” triggers addition of a new RACH configuration for a second carrier. The issue is the opposite, how is “addition of a new RACH configuration for a second carrier” triggers a second RRC? The answer is it does not. The second RRC as claimed is not supported anywhere in the specification. When you add a second carrier (e.g., an SCell with uplink capabilities or a Secondary Cell Group / SCG), a RACH configuration is needed to establish uplink time alignment and synchronization on that specific carrier (via PDCCH order or RACH-less/RACH-based SCell activation). Thus, adding a new RACH (Random Access Channel) configuration for a second carrier (such as a Secondary Cell / SCell in Carrier Aggregation) does not mean there is a second RRC (Radio Resource Control) entity or connection.
d. One ordinary skill in the art understands that a second RRC requires either SRB3, SRB1, MR-DC or EN-DC. The specification lacks any support to any. Further, Examiner read the 3GPP Release 8 and 9 where LTE was strictly a single carrier system using RRC connection (TS 36.331 Release 8). The second RRC for multi-carriers (3GPP Release 10) was first introduced in 2011 or Release-10. Therefore, because the foundational protocol specifications for Carrier Aggregation did not exist until Release 10, this secondary multi-carrier RRC configuration claimed was impossible to deploy in 2009 (this application claims priority to).
e. Moreover, applicant when arguing against Kim in Remarks p. 23 states that RNTI appeared in “one -sentence,” thus Kim does not disclose the claims. Similarly, here, applicant specification does not even mention a “second RRC” not even in “one-sentence.” For an important limitation like this which the entire claims are directed to, the specification must mention “second RRC” at least once to be better support than Kim’s “one-sentence.”
f. Examiner interprets the second RRC to be same as the first RRC. See the updated rejection.
Applicants’ arguments in the amendment filed on 8/24/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 is moot in view of the new ground of rejection that is necessitated by applicants’ amendments “an addition of the RACH configuration for the second carrier” overcomes the primary art Wang since Wang is directed to a single carrier where the amendments to overcome the antecedent basis issue overcomes the secondary art since it is clear now that the language is part of the claim.
Double Patenting
This application is a continuation of many applications where some are issued patents. Examiner will evaluate the double patenting rejection before allowance due the number of continuations and potentially the change in claim scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 include new matter that was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Examiner could not find support to any of the limitations “…second RRC signaling…” & “receive, from the network, a second RRC signaling that indicates a RACH configuration for a second carrier in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations;” of claims 21 and 31. The rest of the claims are rejected for depending on rejected claim 21 and 31 or because they include “second RRC.” Thus the claims are rejected.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Damnjanovic et al. (hereinafter Damnjanovic) US 2010/0067470 A1 in view of Malladi et al. (hereinafter Malladi) US 2008/0273610 A1.
Regarding claim 21, Damnjanovic teaches a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (Figs. 3 & 11; UE selects a carrier from multi-carriers for random access. ¶0065; System 300 can support multicarrier operation for random access in connection with LTE-A. For instance, in system 300, multiple DL carriers can be associated with one uplink (UL) carrier) comprising:
a processor, a receiver, and a transmitter collectively (inherent from Figs. 3 or 11; UE selects a carrier from multi-carriers for random access) configured to:
receive, from a network, a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling indicating a first carrier configuration (¶0015; a method that facilitates performing random access for multiple carriers in a wireless environment. The method can comprise defining a set of Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) parameters [first/second carrier configuration] for each of at least one downlink (DL) carrier. ¶0095; In the RRC connected mode [first RRC signaling], a decision to perform random access to another cell on a specific carrier [first carrier] may be made by the network (for network-based mobility). ¶0097; For network-based mobility, serving cell may send a reconfiguration message containing the selected cell and carrier to the UE. The UE may then perform random access to the selected cell and carrier), wherein a set of one or more allowed random access channel (RACH) configurations for a first carrier is determined based on the first carrier configuration (¶0097; Resource partitioning between cells and carriers may be performed based on the LRP reports from the UE as well as other UEs. A cell and a carrier may be selected for the UE based on a specified algorithm and with coordination between a set of cells over the backhaul. The serving cell may send a reconfiguration message containing the selected cell and carrier to the UE. The UE may then perform random access to the selected cell and carrier. Also see ¶0060 & Fig. 3; Base station 302 includes a downlink identify module 306 that can evaluate downlink carriers associated with a carrier in order to identify the downlink carrier paired with the uplink carrier that is utilized for random access. In particular, the downlink identify module 306 can evaluate a set of RACH parameters that can be defined to relate to a specific downlink carrier. Thus, the user equipment 304 can perform random access on a selected uplink carrier and the base station 302 can determine the corresponding downlink carrier based upon the defined RACH parameters);
receive, from the network, a second RRC signaling that indicates a RACH configuration for a second carrier in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations (¶0015; a method that facilitates performing random access for multiple carriers in a wireless environment. The method can comprise defining a set of Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) parameters [first/second carrier configuration] for each of at least one downlink (DL) carrier. ¶0056; communications apparatus 200 can further include a define module 206 that can define a set of Random Access Channel (RACH) parameters for each downlink carrier within the multiple carrier wireless environment [second configuration]. Based upon the defined set of RACH parameters, the downlink carrier can be identified. For example, an uplink carrier utilized for random access can be paired with a downlink carrier, wherein the set of RACH parameters can identify the downlink carrier. ¶0095; In the RRC connected mode [first/second RRC signaling], a decision to perform random access to another cell on a specific carrier [second carrier] may be made by the network (for network-based mobility)); and
initiate a random access procedure on the second carrier in response to an addition of the RACH configuration for the second carrier (¶0056; communications apparatus 200 can further include a define module 206 that can define a set of Random Access Channel (RACH) parameters for each downlink carrier within the multiple carrier wireless environment [second configuration]. Based upon the defined set of RACH parameters, the downlink carrier can be identified. For example, an uplink carrier utilized for random access can be paired with a downlink carrier, wherein the set of RACH parameters can identify the downlink carrier. Also see Fig. 10 step 1004 or Fig. 11 step 1104. ¶0060; the downlink identify module 306 can evaluate a set of RACH parameters that can be defined to relate to a specific downlink carrier. Thus, the user equipment 304 can perform random access on a selected uplink carrier and the base station 302 can determine the corresponding downlink carrier based upon the defined RACH parameters. ¶0064; a detected set of RACH parameters can be detected and, in turn, identify the downlink carrier at the base station 302.
Also see Fig. 3 & ¶0056-¶0062; user equipment 304 can include a selection module 310 that can select an uplink carrier to implement random access with the base station 302. The selection module 310 can identify an anchor carrier and corresponding uplink carrier in order to perform random access. Also see Fig. 2 where communications apparatus 200 can further include a define module 206 that can define a set of Random Access Channel (RACH) parameters for each downlink carrier within the multiple carrier wireless environment. Based upon the defined set of RACH parameters, the downlink carrier can be identified. For example, an uplink carrier utilized for random access can be paired with a downlink carrier, wherein the set of RACH parameters can identify the downlink carrier).
Damnjanovic does not expressly teach “…in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations…”
Malladi is analogous art because it is directed to RRC connection (¶0055-¶0056) and one or more available PRACH configuration. See ¶0086.
Malladi teaches “…in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations…” (Figs. 6-8 & ¶0055-¶0056, ¶0086-¶0097; multiple RACHs may be available, and the UE may randomly select one of the available RACHs for use. Each RACH may be associated with a different Random Access RNTI (RA-RNTI). The available RACHs and/or their RA-RNTIs may be sent in the broadcast channel or conveyed in other manners. The UE may access the system by sending a random access preamble on the selected RACH (step D1). The random access preamble may include a random ID, a downlink CQI, an access type, some other information, or any combination thereof. The UE may be identified by a combination of the RA-preamble identifier and the RA-RNTI of the selected RACH during the system access. In effect, an I-RNTI may be defined based on the RA-preamble identifier and the RA-RNTI (instead of system time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Malladi in the system of Damnjanovic in order to transmit available PRACH configurations to a specific new UE that supports the new configurations (¶0086-¶0097).
Regarding claim 22, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the second RRC signaling comprises an indicator sent with a second carrier configuration (same as claim 1 citation. Also, it is obvious from ¶0064; user equipment 304 can also include a define module 316 that can ensure that each downlink carrier within the multicarrier system corresponds to a specific set of RACH parameters. Thus, a detected set of RACH parameters can be detected and, in turn, identify the downlink carrier at base station 302).
Regarding claim 23, Damnjanovic in view of Kim teaches the WTRU of claim 21, Malladi further teaches wherein the second RRC signaling includes a physical downlink control channel order that instructs the WTRU to initiate a random access procedure using provided RACH parameters (see ¶009 & ¶0025-¶0026; PDCCH).
Regarding claim 27, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 26, Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the random access response is received on a downlink primary component carrier (¶0066; see response and also anchor carrier).
Regarding claim 28, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, Damnjanovic further teaches wherein the RACH configuration in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations is received via dedicated signaling (¶0091-¶0096 & Figs. 10-11; see RRC connected mode. Also see ¶0066; random access signal).
Regarding claim 24, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the processor, the receiver, and the transmitter are further configured to: transmit a random access preamble as part of the random access procedure (¶0061-¶0066; see random access).
Regarding claim 25, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 24, wherein the processor, the receiver, and the transmitter are further configured to: transmit the random access preamble up to a configured maximum number of times (this limitation is obvious from Damnjanovic since it is part of random access parameters. Also see time offset in ¶0055-¶0066).
Regarding claim 26, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, Malladi further teaches wherein the processor, the receiver, and the transmitter are further configured to: monitor at least one physical downlink control channel candidate in a common search space for a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA- RNTI) (Fig. 6 & ¶0086-¶0097); and receive, from the network, a random access response associated with the RA- RNTI, wherein the random access response is received in a configured random access response window (Fig. 6 & ¶0086-¶0097);
Regarding claim 29, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 28, wherein the processor, the receiver, and the transmitter are further configured to: receive, from the network, a dedicate preamble; wherein the random access procedure is contention free that uses the dedicated preamble (this limitation is obvious since it is part of random access parameters. See ¶0066).
Regarding claim 30, Damnjanovic in view of Malladi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the random access procedure is contention-based, and wherein the processor, the receiver, and the transmitter are further configured to: transmit a msg3 transmission as part of a contention resolution process (this limitation is obvious since it is part of random access parameters. See ¶0062-¶0068 & ¶0079 & ¶0090; contention resolution).
Claims 31-35 and 36-40 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
ConclusionApplicant'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 MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights