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.
Claim Objections
Claims 25-44 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the independent claims “(DCI) and via medium” should be --(DCI) or via medium-- as noted in the specification on page 9, lines 28-32 and page 13, lines 26-30. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 25-44 are objected to because of the following informalities: In the independent claims “channel, SS/PBCH, index,” should be --channel (SS/PBCH) index,-- for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 32 and 40 objected to because of the following informalities: “in DCI” should be --in the DCI-- as described in the specification on page 10, line 20 through page 11, line 10 where the received DCI includes other information. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 31, 39 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the transmission” lacks antecedent basis due to different recited transmissions in respective parent claims 25, 30, 33, 38, 41 and 43. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 38-40 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 38 should be dependent on claim 37 and not claim 29. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 25-29, 33-37 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost et al. (US 2020/0267764) in view of Stern-Berkowitz et al. (US 2017/0280481) and Tsai et al. (US 20190274169). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 25, Rastegardoost discloses a method for a terminal device, comprising: receiving, from a network entity, a random-access indication message (fig. 12, item 1210; paras. 273 and 275; note: a PDCCH order as a RACH/PRACH configuration) indicating whether a transmission of at least one physical random-access channel (PRACH) uses a plurality of random-access resources corresponding to or associated with one or more network entities (para. 313), wherein the plurality of random-access resources comprise the following: random-access preamble index, synchronisation signal/physical broadcast channel, SS/PBCH, index, and random-access channel occasion (para. 313), wherein the random-access indication message is received in downlink control information (DCI) or via medium access control (MAC) control element (as best understood in light of the claim objection) (paras. 313-314; note: resources of a cell or SCell),
However, Rastegardoost fails to disclose wherein the DCI indicates whether the terminal device is to perform a contention-free random-access (CFRA) procedure or a contention-based random-access (CBRA) procedure. Stern-Berkowitz discloses this feature (para. 307; note: DCI of a PDCCH order). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the DCI indicates whether the terminal device is to perform a contention-free random-access (CFRA) procedure or a contention-based random-access (CBRA) procedure in the invention of Rastegardoost. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a type of RA procedure to use as is known in the art (Stern-Berkowitz, fig. 3A-3B and paras. 71-72, 231, 281-282, 285 and 307; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Further, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz fails to teach and make obvious wherein the transmitted at least one PRACH is using the plurality of random-access resources corresponding to or associated with a network entity for which a corresponding timer has expired. Tsai discloses this feature (figs. 8; para. 391 and 425; paras. 398-402 (especially, paras. 398 and 401, each the last sentence); note: RA procedure for an expired alignment timer). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transmitted at least one PRACH using the plurality of random-access resources corresponding to or associated with a network entity for which a corresponding timer has expired in the invention of Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, synchronizing a device as is known in the art (Tsai, figs. 7-8; paras. 376-378 and 398-402; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 26, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 25, wherein the receiving from the network entity comprises receiving from a transmission-reception point (Tsai, para. 425).
Regarding claim 27, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 25, wherein the receiving from the network entity comprises receiving from a physical cell (Rastegardoost, paras. 193-194).
Regarding claim 28, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 25, wherein the receiving from the network entity comprises receiving over a control resource set group (Rastegardoost, para. 310-311; note: PDCCHs in different CORESETs).
Regarding claim 29, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 28, further comprising: determining a presence of at least one second random-access resource in the message based on an indication carried in the message (Rastegardoost, para. 380; note: contention-free and contention-based RA PRACH resources in the DCI)
Regarding claims 33-37, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 25-29, respectively. In addition, Rastegardoost discloses an apparatus (figs. 3 and 12, item 110; para. 417) comprising: a processor; and a memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform the method of claims 24-29.
Regarding claim 41-42 these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 25-26, respectively. In addition, Rastegardoost discloses a system (fig. 13) comprising: an apparatus (figs. 3 and 12, item 110; para. 417); a processor; and a memory comprising computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the apparatus to perform the method of claims 24-29.
Claims 30-32, 38-40 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai as applied to claim 29, 36 or 42 above, and further in view of MolavianJazi et al. (US 2022/0210844). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 30, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 29, wherein the DCI provides an indication to transmit two PRACHs. However, MolavianJazi discloses this feature (para. 87, especially the penultimate sentence; note: single DCI for two PRACHs related to two TRPs; figs. 6 and 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the DCI provide an indication to transmit two PRACHs in the invention of Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz and Tsai. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, transmitting to two TRPs for diversity and accommodating communication with two TRPs as is known in the art (MolavianJazi, para. 86; note: spatial diversity with TRPs; para. 87; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 31, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz, Tsai and MolavianJazi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 30, further comprising: determining that the DCI includes, in addition to a first random-access preamble index a first synchronisation signal/physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) index, and a first random-access channel occasions further random-access preamble indexes, further SS/PBCH indexes, and further random-access channel occasions for the transmission (Rastegardoost, para. 380; MolavianJazi, paras. 87, 393, 412, 420 and 422; note: preamble indexes, SS/PBCH indexes and RACH occasions for RA procedures in DCI).
Regarding claim 32, Rastegardoost in view of Stern-Berkowitz, Tsai and MolavianJazi teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 31, further comprising determining a presence of other preamble indexes, synchronisation signal block (SSB) indexes, and random-access occasions in the DCI (Rastegardoost, para. 380; MolavianJazi, paras. 386, 389, 392 and 420; note: SB indexes, preamble indexes, SS/PBCH indexes and RACH occasions for RA procedures in DCI).
Regarding claims 38-40, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 30-32, respectively.
Regarding claim 43, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claims 29-30, respectively.
Regarding claim 44, these limitations are rejected on the same ground as claim 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights