DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/766115 filed on 11/11/2025. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS)s comply with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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 Objections
Claims 22 and 32 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include “…wherein the the…” Appropriate correction is required.
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 “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;” & “and initiate a random access procedure on the second carrier in response to the addition of the RACH configuration” of claims 21 and 31. Thus the claims are rejected.
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 21-40 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.
The independent claims call for “…the addition…” there is lack of antecedent basis. Also the “in addition to” does not provide antecedent basis for the limitation.
The independent claims call for “…in response to the addition of RACH configuration” which is in singular form. The rest of the limitations are in plural format but the last line calls for a singular form which is not clear. Are those configurations different from each other.
The second limitation of the independent claims “…. receive…. second carrier in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH…” is not clear. What does it mean?
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 21-25, 27-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (hereinafter Wang) US 2008/0075043 A1 in view of Gollamudi et al. (hereinafter Gollamudi) US 2009/0047984 A1.
Regarding Claim 21, Wang teaches a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (Fig. 2; WTRU 20) comprising:
a processor, a receiver, and a transmitter (Fig. 2; WTRU 20 inherently includes a processor, receiver and transmitter e.g. transceiver 22) collectively configured to:
receive, from a network, a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling indicating a first carrier configuration (¶0016; WTRU 20, through transceiver 22, listens to a downlink broadcast signal transmitted by NB 30. Information within the broadcast signal is received and extracted by transceiver 22, which includes a RACH configuration signal and a RACH indicator signal. ¶0038; included with the RACH configuration parameters, or conveyed through control signaling or through the paging channel), 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 (¶0014-¶0024; WTRU will have multiple sets of RACH configuration parameters to use that are selected based on the load indicator, which is broadcast by the eNB);
Wang does not expressly teach “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;” & “and initiate a random access procedure on the second carrier in response to the addition of the RACH configuration.”
Gollamudi teaches a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU) (Fig. 2; mobile device is WTRU). Gollamudi further teaches “RRC signaling,” (¶0006 & ¶0038; a carrier frequency on which a random access channel (RACH) was transmitted for initial access to a network is used as an initial serving carrier for a mobile. The serving carrier is changed if the selecting determines a different serving carrier, the changing indicated to the mobile using radio resource control (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” (the loading conditions are interpreted as the “in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations. See ¶0038; in step S10, a carrier frequency on which a random access channel (RACH) is transmitted for initial access to the network 20 is used as an initial serving carrier for the mobile 10 [allowed]. Next, in step S20, one of a plurality of carrier frequencies is selected as a serving carrier by the RNC 14 for an uplink transmission based on at least one of a mobile velocity and loading conditions of the plurality of carrier frequencies. Next, at step S30, the current serving carrier and the selected serving carrier from step S20 are compared by the RNC 14. If the serving carriers are different, in step S40, the mobile 10 is signaled by the RNC 14 through the base station 12 using Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling to change to the selected serving carrier of step S20. Also see Examples in Figs. 3-6 that provide selecting carrier based on different conditions).
and initiate a random access procedure on the second carrier in response to the addition of the RACH configuration (Figs. 3-6; UE initiate random access with second carrier based on offset value, SINR, load or low frequency [the addition of RACH configuration])
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 Gollamudi into the system of Wang so that selection of the serving carrier favors a carrier frequency having a smaller loading than at least one other carrier frequency based on the loading conditions (abstract). Also, selection of the serving carrier favors a lower frequency carrier for a higher mobile velocity and favors a higher frequency carrier for a lower mobile velocity based on the mobile velocity (abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Wang in view of Gollamudi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the the second RRC signaling comprises an indicator sent with a second carrier configuration (obvious from claim 1 & ¶0014-¶0027; RACH configuration parameters are associated with a load indicator. Thus, a WTRU will have multiple sets of RACH configuration parameters to use that are selected based on the load indicator, which is broadcast by the eNB).
Regarding claim 23, Wang in view of Gollamudi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, Gollamudi 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 Figs. 3-6 for selecting RA procedure).
Regarding claim 27, Wang in view of Gollamudi teaches the WTRU of claim 26, Gollamudi further teaches wherein the random access response is received on a downlink primary component carrier (obvious, see Figs. 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 28, Wang in view of Gollamudi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, Gollamudi further teaches wherein the RACH configuration in addition to the set of one or more allowed RACH configurations is received via dedicated signaling (¶006-¶007; RRC signaling).
Regarding claim 24, Wang in view of Gollamudi 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 (this limitation is obvious from Wang since it is part of random access parameters. See background in ¶0003-¶0009 & Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 25, Wang in view of Gollamudi 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 Wang since it is part of random access parameters. See background in ¶0003-¶0009 & Figs. 1-2 “which may take a value between 0 and 63”).
Regarding claim 29, Wang in view of Gollamudi 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 from Wang since it is part of random access parameters. See background in ¶0003-¶0009 & Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 30, Wang in view of Gollamudi 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 from Wang since it is part of random access parameters. See background in ¶0003-¶0009 & Figs. 1-2).
Claims 31-35 and 37-40 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gollamudi and further in view of Kim US 2011/0194500 A1.
Regarding claim 26, Wang in view of Gollamudi teaches the WTRU of claim 21, wherein the processor, the receiver, and the transmitter are further configured to: but they do not expressly teach monitor at least one physical downlink control channel candidate in a common search space for a random access radio network temporary identifier (RA- RNTI); 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.
Kim teaches 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. 5 & ¶0054-¶0058); 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. 5 & ¶0054-¶0058).
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 Kim into the system of Wang in view of Gollamudi in order to receives a plurality of downlink data through a plurality of downlink carriers and transmits one acknowledgement (ACK)/not-acknowledgement (NACK) signal for the plurality of downlink data through an uplink carrier. The ACK/NACK signal is an ACK signal when all of the plurality of downlink data are successfully received (abstract).
Claim 36 is substantially similar to claim 26, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
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