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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/5/26, 8/28/25, and 7/19/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,088,393. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following correspondences.
Regarding claim 1, “a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory” corresponds to “a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: … at least one memory comprising instructions” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
“One or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: select, while operating using a first beam corresponding to a cell, a second beam corresponding to the cell based at least in part on a set of beam information associated with the second beam, wherein a first narrowband is associated with the first beam and a second narrowband is associated with the second beam” corresponds to “one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to cause the UE to: select, while operating using a first beam corresponding to a cell, a second beam corresponding to the cell based at least in part on a set of beam information associated with the second beam, wherein a first narrowband is associated with the first beam and a second narrowband is associated with the second beam” in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Lastly, “communicate with a wireless communication device that provides the cell using the second beam” corresponds to the same in claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim 1 of the instant application does not claim “receive, via the transceiver, a first master information block (MIB) associated with the first beam, wherein the first MIB is carried using a first frequency; and receive, via the transceiver, a second MIB associated with the second beam, wherein the second MIB is carried using a second frequency that matches the first frequency”. Therefore, claim 1 merely broadens the scope of claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. See In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte 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.
Regarding claim 2, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 2 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 3, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 3 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 4, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 4 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 5, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 5 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 6, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 6 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 7, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 7 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 8, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 1 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 9, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 8 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 10, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 9 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 11, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 10 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 12, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 11 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 13, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 12 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 14, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 13 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 15, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 14 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 16, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 15 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 17, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 16 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 18, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 17 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 19, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 18 of the above U.S. Patent.
Regarding claim 20, this claim similarly corresponds to claim 19 of the above U.S. Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 10-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (U.S. 2022/0078848) (hereinafter “Hu”). Hu teaches all of the limitations of the specified claims with the reasoning that follows.
Regarding claim 1, “a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: select, while operating using a first beam corresponding to a cell, a second beam corresponding to the cell based at least in part on a set of beam information associated with the second beam, wherein a first narrowband is associated with the first beam and a second narrow band is associated with the second beam” is anticipated by the UE 702 of Figure 7 that measures reference signals of different narrow beams (set of beam information), selects the best base station Tx narrow beam (second beam), and reports the best base station Tx narrow beam(s) to the base station 700 using a Msg3 transmission, where the set of different narrow beams follow a specific pattern (corresponding to the cell) covered by a SSB broad beam (first beam) previously selected by the UE based on an initial SSB detection as shown in steps 710 and 716 of Figure 7 and spoken of on page 10, paragraphs [0115]-[0116]; where the Tx narrow beams are associated with corresponding narrowbands as spoken of on page 9, paragraph [0108]; and where the UE 1200 of Figure 12 includes a memory 1208 coupled to a processor 1206.
Lastly, “communicate with a wireless communication device that provides the cell using the second beam” is anticipated by the base station 700 (wireless communication device) that sends Msg4 via the best Tx narrow beam (second beam) to the UE that receives Msg4 via the best Rx narrow beam as shown in step 718 of Figure 7 and spoken of on page 10, paragraph [0116].
Regarding claim 2, “receive a master information block (MIB) associated with the second beam; and identify the second beam based at least in part on the MIB” is anticipated by UE 102 of Figure 1 that receives MIB transmission 106 of Figure 1 that includes fundamental system information that the UE may use to communicate over the wireless network including information about the configuration of the random access procedure as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0041]; where the MIB transmission 106 occurs prior to the Msg3 transmission (second beam) of Figure 7.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the set of beam information is stored in a memory of the UE, and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: access the set of beam information stored in the memory; and select the second narrowband based at least in part on the set of beam information” is anticipated by the UE 702 of Figure 7 that measures reference signals of different narrow beams (set of beam information), selects the best base station Tx narrow beam (second beam), and reports the best base station Tx narrow beam(s) to the base station 700 using a Msg3 transmission, where the set of different narrow beams follow a specific pattern (corresponding to the cell) covered by a SSB broad beam (first beam) previously selected by the UE based on an initial SSB detection as shown in steps 710 and 716 of Figure 7 and spoken of on page 10, paragraphs [0115]-[0116]; where the Tx narrow beams are associated with corresponding narrowbands as spoken of on page 9, paragraph [0108]; and where the UE 1200 of Figure 12 includes a memory 1208 coupled to a processor 1206.
Regarding claim 5, “receive an indication of a beam identifier (ID) corresponding to the second beam, wherein the beam ID is carried in at least one of: a primary synchronization signal, a secondary synchronization signal, a master information block, or a system information block” is anticipated by the UE 702 that receives information in a SIB1 (system information block) transmission pertaining to a mapping between TCI state information and reference signals of narrow beams corresponding to an SSB beam (indication of beam identifier) as spoken of on pages 10-11, paragraph [0119].
Regarding claim 7, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a master information block (MIB) associated with the second beam, wherein the MIB indicates an index corresponding to at least one of: a paging narrowband list of a plurality of paging narrowband lists, or a physical random access channel (PRACH) narrowband of a plurality of PRACH narrowbands” is anticipated by the UE 102 that initiates a random access message exchange by transmitting a first message including a random access preamble to a gNB 100 on a PRACH which may be configured by system information (index) within the received MIB/SIB transmission as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0042].
Regarding claim 10, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit an uplink random access channel (RACH) message associated with the first beam, wherein the uplink RACH message is carried using a first narrowband; and receive a response RACH message associated with the second beam, wherein the response RACH message is carried using a second narrowband that does not match the first narrowband” is anticipated by the UE 902 that transmits Msg1 (uplink RACH message) with the same preamble in repetition over the configured PRACH resources over a set of narrow beams (first narrowband), the set of UE Tx narrow beams may be covered by the UE Tx broad beam with beam correspondence to the best received SSB broad beam; and the base station 900 that in response transmits a Msg2/RAR (response RACH message) to the UE 902 using the best BS Tx narrow beam (second narrowband), thereby indicating to the UE 902 which UE Tx narrow beam is the one best received by the base station 900 as spoken of on pages 11-12, paragraphs [0129]-[0130].
Regarding claim 11, “receive a downlink random access channel (RACH) message associated with the first beam, wherein the downlink RACH message is carried using a first narrowband; and transmit a response message associated with the second beam, wherein the response message is carried using a second narrowband that does not match the first narrowband” is anticipated by a base station 900 that broadcasts narrow beam configuration information (downlink RACH message) in SIB1 to a UE 902, the configuration information may include frequency and time PRACH resources (first narrowband) for UE Tx narrow beam sweeping; and the UE 902 that in response transmits Msg1 (response message) with the same preamble in repetition over the configured PRACH resources over a set of narrow beams (second narrowband), the set of UE Tx narrow beams may be covered by the UE Tx broad beam with beam correspondence to the best received SSB broad beam as spoken of on pages 11-12, paragraph [0129].
Regarding claim 12, “transmit a first uplink communication using a first narrowband, and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the wireless communication device using the second beam, are configured to transmit a second uplink communication using a second narrowband that does not match the first narrowband” is anticipated by the UE 902 that transmits Msg1 (first uplink communication) with the same preamble in repetition over the configured PRACH resources over a set of narrow beams (first narrowband), the set of UE Tx narrow beams may be covered by the UE Tx broad beam with beam correspondence to the best received SSB broad beam; and the UE 902 that may transmit Msg3 (second uplink communication) to the base station 900 using the selected best UE Tx narrow beam (second narrowband) as spoken of on pages 11-12, paragraphs [0129]-[0130].
Regarding claim 13, “receive a first downlink communication using a first narrowband, and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the wireless communication device using the second beam, are configured to receive a second downlink communication using a second narrowband that does not match the first narrowband” is anticipated by a base station 900 that broadcasts narrow beam configuration information (first downlink communication) in SIB1 to a UE 902, the configuration information may include frequency and time PRACH resources (first narrowband) for UE Tx narrow beam sweeping; and the base station 900 that in response transmits a Msg2/RAR (second downlink communication) to the UE 902 using the best BS Tx narrow beam (second narrowband), thereby indicating to the UE 902 which UE Tx narrow beam is the one best received by the base station 900 as spoken of on pages 11-12, paragraphs [0129]-[0130].
Regarding claim 14, “receive a downlink communication using a first narrowband, and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the wireless communication device using the second beam, are configured to transmit an uplink communication using a second narrowband that does not match the first narrowband” is anticipated by a base station 900 that broadcasts narrow beam configuration information (downlink communication) in SIB1 to a UE 902, the configuration information may include frequency and time PRACH resources (first narrowband) for UE Tx narrow beam sweeping; and the UE 902 that in response transmits Msg1 (uplink communication) with the same preamble in repetition over the configured PRACH resources over a set of narrow beams (second narrowband), the set of UE Tx narrow beams may be covered by the UE Tx broad beam with beam correspondence to the best received SSB broad beam as spoken of on pages 11-12, paragraph [0129].
Regarding claim 17, “wherein a first beam identifier (ID) corresponding to the first beam is associated with a first set of physical random access channel (PRACH) narrowbands, and wherein a second beam ID corresponding to the second beam is associated with a second set of PRACH narrowbands” is anticipated by multiple narrow beams 504a, 504b, 504c, and 504d that correspond to a single broad beam 502 transmitted by a base station, where the broad beam 502 may be based on an SSB reference signal (first beam identifier) while narrow beams 504a, 504b, 504c, and 504d may be based on TCI_N0, TCI_N1, TCI_N2 … TCI_N-1 (second beam identifier) which may be transmitted on RS0, RS1, RS2 … RS N-1 as shown in Figure 5 and spoken of on page 10, paragraph [0112].
Regarding claim 18, “receive a mapping of a plurality of beam identifiers to at least one of: a plurality of paging narrowbands, or a plurality of physical random access channel narrowbands” is anticipated by the UE 702 that receives information in a SIB1 transmission pertaining to a mapping between TCI state information (beam identifiers) and reference signals of narrow beams (PRACH narrowbands) corresponding to an SSB beam as spoken of on pages 10-11, paragraph [0119].
Regarding claim 19, “wherein the mapping is carried using at least one of: a system information block, or a radio resource control message” is anticipated by the UE 702 that receives information in a SIB1 transmission (system information block) pertaining to a mapping between TCI state information (beam identifiers) and reference signals of narrow beams (PRACH narrowbands) corresponding to an SSB beam as spoken of on pages 10-11, paragraph [0119].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view Rofougaran et al. (U.S. 2020/0344739) (hereinafter “Rofougaran”).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches claim 3 as described above. While Hu further teaches a network including cells 202 and 206 indicated by physical cell identifiers PCI1 and PCI2 as shown in Figure 3, Hu does not explicitly teach “select the second narrowband based at least in part on determining that a first physical cell identifier (PCID) associated with the first narrowband and a second PCID associated with the second narrowband match”.
However, Rofougaran teaches a device and method for initial access to a 5G NR network where the PCI (first PCID) of a gNB 308 acquired from a UE 104B may be compared with the current beam identity, i.e. the stored PCI (second PCID) in the memory 208 for the last decoded beam, and when the PCI of the gNB 308 matches the current beam identity, the beam acquisition at the UE 104B for access to the beam of RF signals in the NR frequency is validated as successful (narrowband selected) as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0062].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the narrowband selection based upon PCID matching described in Rofougaran to the narrow beam selection of Hu in order to improve the reliability of the process of initial access to the network by utilizing PCID matching to validate successful beam acquisition as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0062] of Rofougaran.
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches claim 1 as described above. While Hu further teaches a network including cells 202 and 206 indicated by physical cell identifiers PCI1 and PCI2 as shown in Figure 3, Hu does not explicitly teach “identify the second beam based at least in part on a frequency associated with the second beam and a physical cell identifier associated with the second beam.
However, Rofougaran teaches a device and method for initial access to a 5G NR network where the PCI of a gNB 308 acquired from a UE 104B may be compared with the current beam identity, i.e. the stored PCI (physical cell identifier associated with second beam) in the memory 208 for the last decoded beam, and when the PCI of the gNB 308 matches the current beam identity, the beam acquisition at the UE 104B for access to the beam of RF signals in the NR frequency (frequency associated with second beam) is validated as successful (second beam identified) as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0062].
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the narrowband selection based upon PCID matching described in Rofougaran to the narrow beam selection of Hu in order to improve the reliability of the process of initial access to the network by utilizing PCID matching to validate successful beam acquisition as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0062] of Rofougaran.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Bhaskar et al. (U.S. 11,722,215) (hereinafter “Bhaskar”).
Regarding claim 20, Hu teaches claim 1 as described above. Hu does not explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the wireless communication device using the second beam, are configured to communicate based at least in part on a determination that a per-beam access barring mechanism condition is satisfied”.
However, Bhaskar teaches a system and method for improving data rate in a NB-IoT over satellite network, where access restrictions are sent via system-information messages to UEs, and the UEs react by checking their class of service (access barring mechanism condition), and, if required, back off from accessing the particular cell for a prescribed period as spoken of on column 6, lines 19-23.
Given the above references, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the access barring mechanism of Bhaskar to the narrow beam selection of Hu in order to improve the reliability of the process of initial access to the network by utilizing access restrictions for various classes of users in accordance with current system conditions as spoken of on column 6, lines 15-19 of Bhaskar.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 9, and 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. MOORE, JR., whose telephone number is (571)272-3168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9am-4pm).
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, Hassan A. Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/MICHAEL J MOORE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights