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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of Remarks, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and the rejection of claims 1-33 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
The double patenting rejection of claims 1-33 has been maintained, since the applicant has not filed a terminal disclaimer.
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 1-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, 11-18, 20, 23-30, 32, and 35-36 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,483 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1 of the current application, by omitting the features of “two-step random access procedure”, “based on a determination that a response to the first message has not been received within a duration threshold”, “four-step random access procedure”, and “based on receiving a random access response to the second message, retransmitting the transport block”, claim 1 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 2 of the current application, claim 2 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 3 of the current application, claim 3 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 4 of the current application, claim 4 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 5 of the current application, claim 5 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 6 of the current application, claim 6 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 7 of the current application, claim 8 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 8 of the current application, claim 11 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 9 of the current application, claim 12 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 10 of the current application, claim 1 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 11 of the current application, claim 1 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 12 of the current application, by omitting the features of “two-step random access procedure”, “based on a determination that a response to the first message has not been received within a duration threshold”, “four-step random access procedure”, and “based on receiving a random access response to the second message, retransmitting the transport block”, claim 13 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 13 of the current application, claim 14 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 14 of the current application, claim 15 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 15 of the current application, claim 16 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 16 of the current application, claim 17 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 17 of the current application, claim 18 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 18 of the current application, claim 20 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 19 of the current application, claim 23 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 20 of the current application, claim 24 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 21 of the current application, claim 13 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 22 of the current application, claim 13 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 23 of the current application, by omitting the features of “two-step random access procedure”, “based on a determination that a response to the first message has not been received within a duration threshold”, “four-step random access procedure”, and “based on receiving a random access response to the second message, retransmitting the transport block”, claim 25 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 24 of the current application, claim 26 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 25 of the current application, claim 27 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 26 of the current application, claim 28 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 27 of the current application, claim 29 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 28 of the current application, claim 30 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 29 of the current application, claim 32 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 30 of the current application, claim 35 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 31 of the current application, claim 36 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 32 of the current application, claim 25 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Regarding claim 33 of the current application, claim 25 of US 12,096,483 B2 is directed to substantially same subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tsai et al. (US 2021/0227587 A1) discloses power ramping step/factor for MSGA preamble in 2-step RA procedure, and MSGA transport block size.
Cozzo et al. (US 2021/0360660 A1) discloses 2-step RA procedure and signaling RSRP threshold through SIB.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BAILOR C HSU whose telephone number is (571)272-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at (571)-272-3155. 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.
/BAILOR C HSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461