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 1/16/26, 8/22/25, and 12/5/24 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 19-21 and 23-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, on line 2, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “second”.
Claim 20 is also objected to as being dependent on claim 19 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 21, on line 3, it appears that the word “the” is missing before the term “UE”. Also, on line 3, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “Random”.
Regarding claim 23, on line 2, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “second”.
Claim 24 is also objected to as being dependent on claim 23 and containing the same deficiency.
Regarding claim 25, on line 3, it appears that the word “the” is missing before the term “UE”. Also, on line 3, it appears that the word “a” is missing before the word “Random”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 18, 19, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sedin et al. (U.S. 2025/0016837) (hereinafter “Sedin”). Sedin teaches all of the limitations of the specified claims with the reasoning that follows.
Regarding claim 18, “a method of a User Equipment (UE) comprising: setting feature information in report information to indicate one or more features, which comprises at least one of Reduced Capability (RedCap) and Small Data Transmission (SDT), applicable for a random access procedure in a case where the random access procedure is completed successfully, and sending, to a network, the report information” is anticipated by the UE 110 of Figure 1 that determines (setting) a first preamble from two or more groups of preambles indicated by a received configuration for PRACH transmission (random access procedure), the first preamble indicating whether one or more features are requested or not; where the UE subsequently transmits the PRACH transmission to a network node 120 by using the first preamble (report information); where the one or more features include SDT and/or a RedCap UE (feature information) as shown in steps S1010, S1020, S1030 of Figure 10 and spoken of on pages 16-17, paragraphs [0239]-[0243]; and where the random access preambles are used to verify a successful random access procedure as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0089].
Regarding claim 19, “wherein: the report information comprises another feature information indicating second feature associated to a random-access resource used in the random-access procedure” is anticipated by the one or more features that may include Msg3 repetition, MsgA repetition, a network slice, SDT, a RedCap UE, a random access in a non-terrestrial network, and a specific service type or UE priority as spoken of on page 17, paragraph [0243].
Regarding claim 22, “a User Equipment (UE) comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: set feature information in report information to indicate one or more features, which comprises at least one of Reduced Capability (RedCap) and Small Data Transmission (SDT), applicable for a random access procedure in a case where the random access procedure is completed successfully, and send, to a network, the report information” is anticipated by the UE 110 of Figure 1 that determines (setting) a first preamble from two or more groups of preambles indicated by a received configuration for PRACH transmission (random access procedure), the first preamble indicating whether one or more features are requested or not; where the UE subsequently transmits the PRACH transmission to a network node 120 by using the first preamble (report information); where the one or more features include SDT and/or a RedCap UE (feature information) as shown in steps S1010, S1020, S1030 of Figure 10 and spoken of on pages 16-17, paragraphs [0239]-[0243]; where the random access preambles are used to verify a successful random access procedure as spoken of on page 7, paragraph [0089]; and where the UE 1200 of Figure 12 includes a processing unit 1206 (processor) coupled to a computer program product 1208 (memory) that stores a computer program 1210 (instructions) as spoken of on page 20, paragraphs [0275]-[0276].
Regarding claim 23, “wherein: the report information comprises another feature information indicating second feature associated to a random-access resource used in the random-access procedure” is anticipated by the one or more features that may include Msg3 repetition, MsgA repetition, a network slice, SDT, a RedCap UE, a random access in a non-terrestrial network, and a specific service type or UE priority as spoken of on page 17, paragraph [0243].
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) 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2024/0357667) (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 20 and 24, Sedin teaches claims 19 and 23 as described above. While Sedin further teaches where one or more features of a random access procedure may include Msg3 repetition, MsgA repetition, a network slice, SDT, a RedCap UE, a random access in a non-terrestrial network, a specific service type or UE priority as spoken of on page 17, paragraph [0243], Sedin does not explicitly teach “wherein: the second feature comprises a slice group”.
However, Park teaches a system and method for random access where a wireless device sends a random access report to a base station, and where the random access report includes network slice group information as spoken of on page 26, paragraph [0261].
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 include slice group information as taught in Park as an additional random access feature in the system of Sedin in order to provide easier detection of whether a random access procedure for a network slice has completed successfully, thereby improving the reliability of the random access process as spoken of on page 26, paragraph [0261] of Park.
Claim(s) 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin in view of Wang et al. (U.S. 2022/0346174) (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, Sedin teaches claims 18 and 22 as described above. Sedin does not explicitly teach “wherein: the report information comprises purpose information to include a purpose of triggering the random-access procedure, in a case where UE initiates Random Access Channel (RACH) due to consistent Listen Before Talk (LBT) failures”.
However, Wang teaches a method and system for reporting listen-before-talk (LBT) failures in a wireless network, where a report message is transmitted using random access preamble resources, and where a network node is informed that a wireless device has experienced LBT failures meeting a criteria specified in the LBT reporting configuration (purpose information) as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0112].
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 report messaging for LBT failures as taught in Wang to the system of Sedin in order to provide for the detection of LBT failures via the transmission of random access preambles, thereby improving the reliability of the random access process as spoken of on page 5, paragraph [0112] of Wang.
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