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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Re claims 19 and 20, they are method claims depend on a terminal claim 18. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takeda et al (US 2021/0226759, “Takeda”).
Re claims 1, 10 and 18, Takeda discloses receiving/transmitting downlink control information (DCI) including physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) scheduling information (paragraph [0056]) and information indicating a number of transmissions for a message in response to a PDSCH from a base station/to a terminal (paragraphs [0030] and [0059]); receiving/transmitting the PDSCH based on the PDSCH scheduling information from the base station/to the terminal (paragraph [0056]); and repeatedly transmitting the message in response to the PDSCH based on the number of transmissions for the message to the base station/from the terminal (figure 6; paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Re claims 2, 11 and 19, Takeda discloses determining instances based on time domain resource assignment (TDRA) information included in the PDSCH scheduling information (paragraph [0098]); and repeatedly transmitting the message in response to the PDSCH in the instances to the base station (figure 6; paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Re claims 5 and 14, Takeda discloses the message in response to the PDSCH is repeatedly transmitted by the terminal for which a RRC connection with the base station is not established (figure 6; paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Re claim 6, Takeda discloses determining one or more valid slots for transmitting the message; and repeatedly transmitting the message in the one or more valid slots to the base station (figure 6; paragraphs [0097] and [0098]).
Re claims 7 and 15, Takeda discloses the one or more valid slots are determined by considering at least one of a slot pattern (figure 6; paragraphs [0097] and [0098]) or a synchronization signal (SS)/physical broadcast channel (PBCH) block.
Re claims 8 and 16, Takeda discloses the information indicating the number of transmissions of the message is identified based on a downlink assignment index (DAI) field included in the DCI (paragraph [0051]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Yang et al (US 2022/0104280, “Yang”).
Re claims 9 and 17, Takeda discloses all of the limitations of the base claim, but fails to disclose the PDSCH includes a message4 (Msg4) in a random access (RA) procedure, and the message is a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)-acknowledgement (ACK) of the Msg4. However, Yang discloses transmitting HARQ-ACK for the corresponding Msg4 PDSCH (paragraph [0401]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Takeda with Yang for the benefit of implementing traditional 4-step RACH procedure. One skill in the art would have been motivated to generate the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143.02).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13 and 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hong Cho whose telephone number is 571-272-3087. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri during 8 am to 4 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/HONG S CHO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights