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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Specification
The use of the term “Bluetooth”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Regarding claim 9, the phase “at least random access occasion” appears to be missing “one” after “at least” and the usage of multiple “and” conjunctions makes the scope unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/626,907 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches all the limitations of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 18/627,268 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches all the limitations of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/067,638 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches all the limitations of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/353,466 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches all the limitations of the pending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0392692 (hereinafter Sakhnini).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 13, Sakhnini discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, and based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: receive, from a first network entity, a first physical random access channel (PRACH) configuration (FIG. 6, 610: details Determine a first PRACH configuration); receive, from the first network entity, a second PRACH configuration (FIG. 6, 624: details Determine a second PRACH configuration); and communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration (FIG. 6, 640: details Transmit a message based on the second PRACH configuration).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: communicate with the first network entity based on the first PRACH configuration (FIG. 6, 640: details Transmit a message based on the second PRACH configuration, as first PRACH configuration) and not the second PRACH configuration based on a lack of reception of a dynamic indication (FIG. 6, 640: details silence regarding dynamic indication as not… based on lack of reception of a dynamic indication).
Regarding claims 3 and 15-16, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: communicate with the first network entity based on the second PRACH configuration for a period of time; and communicate with the first network entity based on the first PRACH configuration after the period of time ([0094]: details the UE 104 may select a PRACH configuration… the second PRACH configuration may be applicable based on a current time being within a defined time period for the second PRACH configuration).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: receive, from the first network entity, a dynamic indication that indicates a usage of the second PRACH configuration; and communicate with the first network entity based on the second PRACH configuration and not the first PRACH configuration based on reception of the dynamic indication ([0094]: details the UE 104 may select a PRACH configuration… the second PRACH configuration may be applicable based on a most recent dynamic configuration message 464 indicating the second PRACH configuration).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: communicate with the first network entity based on a combined PRACH configuration including a union of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, wherein the combined PRACH configuration comprises a first set of PRACH resources in the first PRACH configuration and a second set of PRACH resources in the second PRACH configuration (FIG. 6; [0071][0077][0118]: details usage of both second PRACH configuration and first PRACH configuration, as union / combined configuration; each resources based on PRACH configuration).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Sakhnini discloses wherein the first set of PRACH resources is associated with a first PRACH configuration index and the second set of PRACH resources is associated with a second PRACH configuration index, such that the combined PRACH configuration is associated with the first PRACH configuration index and the second PRACH configuration index ([0077][0107]: details second PRACH configuration index and PRACH configuration index as first PRACH configuration index).
Regarding claim 7, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: map a set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) to a set of random access occasions (ROs) separately for the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration ([0079][0082]: details The number of SSBs per RACH occasion may define which RACH occasion a UE is to use based on a selected SSB; The UE 104 may transmit the Msg1 on a random access occasion (RO)).
Regarding claims 8, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: map a set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) to a set of random access occasions (ROs) to the combined PRACH configuration ([0079][0082]: details The number of SSBs per RACH occasion may define which RACH occasion a UE is to use based on a selected SSB; The UE 104 may transmit the Msg1 on a random access occasion (RO)).
Regarding claim 9, Sakhnini discloses wherein at least random access occasion is valid for the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration and a combined PRACH configuration including a union of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration (FIG. 6; [0071][0077][0118]: details usage of both second PRACH configuration and first PRACH configuration, as union / combined configuration; each resources based on PRACH configuration).
Regarding claim 10, Sakhnini discloses wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: map a set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) to a set of random access occasions (ROs) separately for the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration ([0079][0082]: details The number of SSBs per RACH occasion may define which RACH occasion a UE is to use based on a selected SSB; The UE 104 may transmit the Msg1 on a random access occasion (RO)).
Regarding claim 11 and 20, Sakhnini discloses at least one transceiver coupled with the at least one processor, and wherein to communicate with the first network entity based on at least one of the first PRACH configuration and the second PRACH configuration, the at least one processor, individually or in any combination, is configured to cause the UE to: transmit a preamble based on the first PRACH configuration or the second PRACH configuration ([0088]: details In a two-step RACH procedure, the UE transmits both RACH preamble and payload to a base station (e.g., a gNB) before receiving a random access response from the gNB… a second PRACH configuration may be dynamically selected for the 2-step RACH procedure).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ying (US 12,069,730) details secondary PRACH configuration for contention based random access in new radio systems.
Guo (US 2023/0413342) details techniques for transmission of MSGA in an idle period within a wireless communication system.
Yang (US 2023/0403746) details SSB specific PRACH configuration.
Wang (US 2023/0108510) details two-step RA procedure.
Moon (US 2023/0011025) details communication in network having asymmetric uplink and downlink.
Mizusawa (US 2016/0113037) details a combination of first and second PRACH configuration index.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights