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 .
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 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5-6 of copending Application No. 18/879,306 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a 4-step random access procedure that uses Msg1 and/or Msg3 repetition. See below for an mapping of the instant claims and the co-pending application.
Claim No.
instant application
(18/880,600)
reference application
(18/879,306 /
PGPUB 2026/0206059 A1)
Claim No.
1
A terminal comprising:
A terminal comprising:
1
a transmitting section that transmits first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
claim 1, wherein the information relates to the number of repetitions of the message 1.
2
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
a receiving section that receives indication information related to the number of repetitions of a message 3; and
1
a control section that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
a control section that determines the number of repetitions of the message 3, based on the indication information and information related to a repetition of a message 1 in random access procedure including a repetition of the message 3.
1
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
Optional limitation not required
5
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
5
transmitting first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
claim 1 (wherein Claim 1 is substantially the same scope as Claim 5), wherein the information relates to the number of repetitions of the message 1.
2
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
receiving indication information related to the number of repetitions of a message 3; and
5
determining, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
determining the number of repetitions of the message 3, based on the indication information and information related to a repetition of a message 1 in random access procedure including a repetition of the message 3.
5
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
Optional limitation not required
6
A base station comprising:
A base station comprising:
6
a receiving section that receives first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
claim 1 (wherein Claim 1 is substantially the same scope as Claim 6), wherein the information relates to the number of repetitions of the message 1.
2
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
a transmitting section that transmits indication information related to the number of repetitions of a message 3; and
6
a control section that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
a control section that determines the number of repetitions of the message 3, based on the indication information and information related to a repetition of a message 1 in random access procedure including a repetition of the message 3.
6
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
Optional limitation not required
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-6 of copending Application No. 18/879,287 (reference application) in view of Lei (US 2023/0044766 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a 4-step random access procedure that uses Msg1 and/or Msg3 repetition. See below for an mapping of the instant claims and the co-pending application.
Claim No.
instant application
(18/880,600)
reference application
(18/879,287 /
PGPUB 2026/0006650 A1)
Claim No.
1
A terminal comprising:
A terminal comprising:
1
a transmitting section that transmits first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
a receiving section that receives information related to first random access procedure including a repetition of a message 1; and
1
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
Lei Fig 7 step 720 and Fig 8 block 805 UE transmits UE capabilities report; [0183] RACH procedure is performed with coverage enhancement (CE) based on the one or more capabilities of the UE; and the CE comprises at least one of: repetition of the PRACH preamble (i.e. Msg1), repetition of the PUSCH (i.e. Msg3)
a control section that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
a control section that, based on the information, uses, for the first random access procedure, a first random access resource and
(optional limitation not required)
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
uses, for second random access procedure not including the repetition of the message 1, a second random access resource different from the first random access resource.
1
2
claim 1, wherein the control section
A terminal comprising:
…
a control section that, based on the information,
1
uses, for the first random access procedure, a first random access resource and
uses, for the first random access procedure, a first random access resource and
uses, for the second random access procedure, a second random access resource different from the first random access resource.
uses, for second random access procedure not including the repetition of the message 1, a second random access resource different from the first random access resource.
5
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
5
transmitting first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
receiving information related to first random access procedure including a repetition of a message 1; and
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
Lei Fig 7 step 720 and Fig 8 block 805 UE transmits UE capabilities report; [0183] RACH procedure is performed with coverage enhancement (CE) based on the one or more capabilities of the UE; and the CE comprises at least one of: repetition of the PRACH preamble (i.e. Msg1), repetition of the PUSCH (i.e. Msg3)
determining, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
using, for the first random access procedure, a first random access resource and
(optional limitation not required)
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
using, for second random access procedure not including the repetition of the message 1, a second random access resource different from the first random access resource, based on the information.
6
A base station comprising:
A base station comprising:
6
a receiving section that receives first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
a transmitting section that transmits information related to first random access procedure including a repetition of a message 1; and
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
Lei Fig 7 step 720 and Fig 8 block 805 UE transmits UE capabilities report; [0183] RACH procedure is performed with coverage enhancement (CE) based on the one or more capabilities of the UE; and the CE comprises at least one of: repetition of the PRACH preamble (i.e. Msg1), repetition of the PUSCH (i.e. Msg3)
a control section that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
a control section that, based on the information, uses, for the first random access procedure, a first random access resource and
(optional limitation not required)
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
uses, for second random access procedure not including the repetition of the message 1, a second random access resource different from the first random access resource.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-6 of copending Application No. 18/880,608 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both directed to a 4-step random access procedure that uses Msg1 and/or Msg3 repetition. See below for an mapping of the instant claims and the co-pending application.
Claim No.
instant application
(18/880,600)
reference application
(18/880,608 /
PGPUB 2025/0393080 A1)
Claim No.
1
A terminal comprising:
A terminal comprising:
1
a transmitting section that transmits first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
a receiving section that receives information related to random access procedure including a plurality of repetitions of a message 1
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
and a plurality of repetitions of a message 3; and
a control section that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
a control section that, based on the information and based on one or more first beams to be used for the plurality of repetitions of the message 1, determines one or more second beams to be used for the plurality of repetitions of the message 3.
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
Optional limitation not required
5
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
5
transmitting first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
receiving information related to random access procedure including a plurality of repetitions of a message 1 and
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
a plurality of repetitions of a message 3; and
determining, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
determining, based on the information and based on one or more first beams to be used for the plurality of repetitions of the message 1, one or more second beams to be used for the plurality of repetitions of the message 3.
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
Optional limitation not required
6
A base station comprising:
A base station comprising:
6
a receiving section that receives first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and
a transmitting section that transmits information related to random access procedure including a plurality of repetitions of a message 1 and
second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3; and
a plurality of repetitions of a message 3; and
a control section that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 or
a control section that, based on the information and based on one or more first beams to be used for the plurality of repetitions of the message 1, determines one or more second beams to be used for the plurality of repetitions of the message 3.
second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3.
Optional limitation not required
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “transmitting section”/”receiving section” and “control section” in claims 1-4 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In particular, examiner is interpreting these limitations in light of instant Specification [0309] which teaches that transmitting/receiving section may be antennas or communication interface(s) and [0295] which teaches that control section can be a controller or control circuit, which examiner is respectively interpreting as a transceiver and a processor/controller.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lei (US 2023/0044766 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lei teaches the below limitation(s):
A terminal comprising:
a transmitting section (Lei Fig 2 UE 104 comprising transceiver 254a) that transmits first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3 (Fig 7 step 720 and Fig 8 block 805 UE transmits UE capabilities report; [0183] RACH procedure is performed with coverage enhancement (CE) based on the one or more capabilities of the UE; and the CE comprises at least one of: repetition of the PRACH preamble (i.e. Msg1), repetition of the PUSCH (i.e. Msg3)); and
a control section (Fig 2 UE 104 comprising controller/processor 280) that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 (Fig 7 step 750 and Fig 8 block 815 receive a PDCCH that orders the UE to perform a type of RACH procedure on an uplink carrier using at least one of the CE (i.e. at least one of Msg1 repetition and/or Msg3 repetition per [0094], [0113], [0183])) or second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 (alternative limitation not mapped).
Regarding Claim 2, Lei teaches the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lei further teaches the below limitation(s):
wherein the control section uses, for the first random access procedure, a first random access resource (Lei Fig 7 step 705 and associated [0074] network entity determines a RACH message resource for the UE (i.e. first random access resource)) and uses, for the second random access procedure, a second random access resource different from the first random access resource ([0089] teaches first type and second type RACH procedure in which each type uses a regular or a supplementary uplink carrier (i.e. RA resources)).
Regarding Claim 5, Lei teaches the below limitation(s):
A radio communication method for a terminal, the radio communication method comprising:
transmitting first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3 (Lei Fig 7 step 720 and Fig 8 block 805 UE transmits UE capabilities report; [0183] RACH procedure is performed with coverage enhancement (CE) based on the one or more capabilities of the UE; and the CE comprises at least one of: repetition of the PRACH preamble (i.e. Msg1), repetition of the PUSCH (i.e. Msg3)); and
determining, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 (Fig 7 step 750 and Fig 8 block 815 receive a PDCCH that orders the UE to perform a type of RACH procedure on an uplink carrier using at least one of the CE (i.e. at least one of Msg1 repetition and/or Msg3 repetition per [0094], [0113], [0183])) or second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 (alternative limitation not mapped).
Regarding Claim 6, Lei teaches the below limitation(s):
A base station comprising:
a receiving section (Lei Fig 2 base station 102 comprising transceiver 232a) that receives first capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 1, and second capability information related to a capability for a repetition of a message 3 (Fig 7 step 720 and Fig 8 block 805 UE transmits UE capabilities report; [0183] RACH procedure is performed with coverage enhancement (CE) based on the one or more capabilities of the UE; and the CE comprises at least one of: repetition of the PRACH preamble (i.e. Msg1), repetition of the PUSCH (i.e. Msg3)); and
a control section (Fig 2 base station 102 comprising controller/processor 240) that determines, based on the first capability information and the second capability information, whether to perform first random access procedure including the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 (Fig 7 step 750 and Fig 8 block 815 receive a PDCCH that orders the UE to perform a type of RACH procedure on an uplink carrier using at least one of the CE (i.e. at least one of Msg1 repetition and/or Msg3 repetition per [0094], [0113], [0183])) or second random access procedure not including at least one of the repetition of the message 1 and the repetition of the message 3 (alternative limitation not mapped).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei (US 2023/0044766 A1) in view of Cozzo (US 2021/0360660 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Lei discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lei does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the control section determines whether to perform the first random access procedure or the second random access procedure, based on comparison between reference signal received power and a threshold.
In the same field of endeavor of 4-step random access procedures with or without repetition, Cozzo does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the control section determines whether to perform the first random access procedure or the second random access procedure, based on comparison between reference signal received power and a threshold (Cozzo [0138] UE determines the number of repetitions for Msg3 PUSCH retransmission based on RSRP measurement and configured threshold(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned terminal to include determining a number of Msg1/Msg3 repetition based on RSRP as taught by Cozzo. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce the number of repetitions when RSRP is outside of an expected value to prevent errors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lei and Cozzo to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Lei discloses the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Lei does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the control section controls repetition of information related to at least one of a maximum number of repetitions of the message 1 and a threshold for reference signal received power.
In the same field of endeavor of 4-step random access procedures with or without repetition, Cozzo does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the control section controls repetition of information related to at least one of a maximum number of repetitions of the message 1 (Cozzo Fig 8 step 802 gNB configures UE with a maximum number of PRACH (.e. Msg1) transmission attempts) and a threshold for reference signal received power ([0138] UE determines the number of repetitions for Msg3 PUSCH retransmission based on RSRP measurement and configured threshold(s)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned terminal to include limiting repetition according to a threshold and/or predetermined value as taught by Cozzo. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to lower the number of repetitions when network measurements indicate poor performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lei and Cozzo to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights