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
No IDS was filed.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent. US 12, 127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 1 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 1 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
1. A method of transmitting and receiving a signal for a random access channel (RACH) procedure by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a message A including a physical random access channel (PRACH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH); and transmitting a message B in response to the message A, wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A configured for the UE, and wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH in the message A.
1. A method of transmitting and receiving a signal for a random access channel (RACH) procedure by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: transmitting, to a base station (BS), a message A including a physical random access channel (PRACH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH); and receiving a message B from the BS in response to the message A, wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A, and wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH other than the PUSCH among the PRACH and the PUSCH included in the message A.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 2 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 2 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the counter value is incremented based on that the transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH is not changed.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the counter value is incremented based on that the transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH is not changed.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 3 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 3 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the counter value is applied commonly to the PRACH and the PUSCH.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the counter value is applied commonly to the PRACH and the PUSCH.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 4 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 4 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
4. The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising: transmitting first information indicating a maximum number of retransmission for the message A and second information indicating a threshold number of retransmission for which the configuration of the transmission power is changed.
4. The method according to claim 1, the method further comprising: receiving first information indicating a maximum number of retransmission for the message A and second information indicating a threshold number of retransmission for which the configuration of the transmission power is changed.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 5 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 5 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein a ramping step size for the message A is configured to be equal to a ramping step size for transmission of a Message 1 including a preamble, based on that the message A is performed as equal or fewer times than the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information.
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein a ramping step size for the message A is configured to be equal to a ramping step size for transmission of a Message 1 including a preamble, based on that the message A is performed as equal or fewer times than the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 6 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 6 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
6. The method according to claim 4, wherein a ramping step size for the message A is configured to be different from a ramping step size for transmission of a Message 1 including a preamble, based on that the message A is performed as more times than the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information.
6. The method according to claim 4, wherein a ramping step size for the message A is configured to be different from a ramping step size for transmission of a Message 1 including a preamble, based on that the message A is performed as more times than the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 7 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 7 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
7. The method according to claim 4, wherein the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information is lower than the maximum number of retransmission for the message A indicated by the first information and is larger than 1.
7. The method according to claim 4, wherein the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information is lower than the maximum number of retransmission for the message A indicated by the first information and is larger than 1.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 8 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 8 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
8. An base station (BS) for transmitting and receiving a signal for a random access channel (RACH) procedure in a wireless communication system, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform a specific operation, wherein the specific operation comprises: receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a message A including a physical random access channel (PRACH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH); and transmitting a message B in response to the message A, wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A configured for the UE, and wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH in the message A.
8. An apparatus for transmitting and receiving a signal for a random access channel (RACH) procedure in a wireless communication system, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory operatively connected to the at least one processor and storing instructions which, when executed, cause the at least one processor to perform a specific operation, wherein the specific operation comprises: transmitting a message A including a physical random access channel (PRACH) and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH); and receiving a message B in response to the message A, and wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A, and wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH other than the PUSCH among the PRACH and the PUSCH included in the message A.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 9 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 9 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
9. The BS to claim 8, wherein the counter value is incremented based on that the transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH is not changed.
9. The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the counter value is incremented based on that the transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH is not changed.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,127,263 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claim 10 of the instant application is anticipated by the claim 10 of said patent.
Instant Application# 18/887,471
US 12,127,263 B2 (Patent)
10. The BS according to claim 8, wherein the counter value is applied commonly to the PRACH and the PUSCH.
10. The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the counter value is applied commonly to the PRACH and the PUSCH.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabouri et al (US 2021/0022057 A1), hereinafter, “Sabouri” in view of Shen et al (US 2022/0167429 A1), hereinafter, “Shen” further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2022/0078856 A1, Use the Priority of Provisional application No. 62/887,279 filed on 08/15/2019), hereinafter, “Jeon”.
Regarding claim 1, Sabouri discloses: A method of transmitting and receiving a signal for a random access channel (RACH) procedure by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system (Sabouri: fig 3, para [0054]-[0055], where, fig 3 illustrates 2-step and 4-step RACH communication between the gNB 90 and UE 110 ), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a message A including a physical random access channel (PRACH) (Sabouri: fig 3, para [0054]-[0055], where, gNB 90 receives MsgA 350 from the UE 110 RACH preamble and data), and a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (Sabouri: fig 3, para [0054]-[0055], where, in 2-step RACH communication illustrated in fig 3, the gNB 90 receives MsgA 350 from the UE 110 which includes PRACH preamble and PUSCH for payload transmitted on the RACH occasion, para [0059]); and
transmitting a message B in response to the message A (fig 3, para [0058]-[0059], where, in step 360 of FIG. 3 where a MsgB: RA response is communicated from the gNB 90 to the UE 110. As shown in FIG. 3 this step 360); Sabouri does not explicitly teach: wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A configured for the UE, and wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH in the message A.
Shen teaches: wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A configured for the UE Shen (para [0009]-[0010], where, “a processing module, configured to determine, based on the LBT detection result, whether to update a power ramping counter for the msgA, where the power ramping counter is used to determine transmission power for the msgA, and the msgA includes a PRACH and a PUSCH”);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “wherein a transmission power for the message A is configured based on a counter value related to the message A” taught by Shen into Sabouri in order to Extending new radio (NR) technology on licensed bands to unlicensed bands can improve capacity and performance of a system (Shen: para [0003]); and
although Sabouri further teaches: PRACH in MsgA as illustrated in 2-step RACH procedure in fig 3, para [0059] and starts power ramping counter using initial beam or spatial filter by starting the counter timer T304 in fig 4, para [0092]); However, neither Sabouri nor Shen explicitly teach: wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH in the message A.
However, Jeon teaches: wherein the counter value is maintained (Jeon: fig 13a-c para [0320], where, “in response to determining a random access reception being unsuccessful and/or a contention resolution being unsuccessful, increment PREAMBLE_POWER_ RAMPING_ COUNTER by a value of a counter step predefined or semi-statically configured by a base station”) based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH in the message A (Jeon: fig 13a-c, para [0319]-[0320], where, “ in response to determining a random access reception being unsuccessful and/or a contention resolution being unsuccessful, increment PREAMBLE_ POWER_RAMPING_COUNTER by a value of a counter step predefined or semi-statically configured by a base station. For example, The MAC entity of the wireless device may increment PREAMBLE_POWER_ RAMPING_COUNTER by 1, e.g., if PREAMBLE_TRANSMISSION_COUNTER is greater than one; if the notification of suspending power ramping counter has not been received from lower layers (e.g., the notification is received in response to a preamble transmissions being dropped due to LBT failure and/or in response to a spatial filter is changed)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “wherein the counter value is maintained based on a change of a transmission spatial filter related to the PRACH among the PRACH and the PUSCH included in the message A” taught by Jeon into the system of Sabouri and Shen in order to improves uplink transmission efficiencies for two-step RA procedures (Jeon: para [0336]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim includes features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1 above. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding information processing apparatus in a Base Station, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto. Additionally, the claim includes a memory and a processor. However, Sabouri discloses the memory and the processor (fig 6, modules 120 and 125]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Sabouri modified by Shen further modified by Jeon teaches: wherein the counter value is incremented (Sabouri: para [0059]-[0060], where, “higher probability of delay in completing the RACH procedure as the UE will have to retry with higher power levels until its MsgA is finally heard by the gNB or base station”) based on that the transmission spatial filter related to PRACH is not changed (Jeon: fig 13a-c, para [0320], where, “if SSB or CSI-RS selected is not changed from the selection in the last Random Access Preamble transmission”, i.e., spatial filter is not changed).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Sabouri discloses: wherein the counter value is applied commonly to the PRACH and the PUSCH (fig 3-4, para [0059]-[0060] and para [0092]-[0093], where, the timer T304 is configured for the counter which is applied for both MsgA and MsgB, see steps 445 and 450).
Regarding claim 4, Sabouri modified by Shen further modified by Jeon teach: the method further comprising: receiving first information indicating a maximum number of retransmission for the message A and second information indicating a threshold number of retransmission (Sabouri: fig 4, para [0092], where, “As shown in note 435 of FIG. 4 for a case the timer T or counter expires before ACK is received as shown in step 440 of FIG. 4 then the RACH-less procedure is determined to have failed. As a note, as shown in note 440 of FIG. 4 a failure can result if the timer T or counter expires or if a “predetermined number” equivalent to “threshold” of configured UL grant(s) have elapsed before a success of the RACH-less procedure”) for which the configuration of the transmission power is changed (Sabouri: para [0060], where, UE retry for higher power level, i.e., transmission power is changed).
Regarding claim 5, Sabouri modified by Shen further modified by Jeon teach: The method according to claim 4 (Sabouri: fig 4, para [0092]), wherein a ramping step size (Jeon: fig 24, para [0295], where, “a wireless device may increment PREAMBLE_POWER_ RAMPING_COUNTER, e.g., by one or to the next value (e.g., counter step size may be predefined and/or semi-statically configured)”) for the message A is configured to be equal to a ramping step size for transmission of a Message 1 including a preamble (Jeon: fig 28A-B, para [0320], where, “A wireless device may determine the transmit power of the retransmission of at least one preamble (or MsgA) based PREAMBLE_POWER_ RAMPING_COUNTER”), based on that the message A is performed as equal or fewer times than the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information (Jeon: fig 28A-B, para [0335], where, “the retransmission may require the wireless device to wait for a next available PRACH and/or PUSCH for the retransmission. The retransmission of the MsgA or Msg1 may increase a congestion level of a PRACH and/or PUSCH in a network, which, in turn, may increase the likelihood that a collision occurs during the retransmission with other wireless device(s)”).
Regarding claim 6, Sabouri modified by Shen further modified by Jeon teach: The method according to claim 4 (Sabouri: fig 4, para [0092]), wherein a ramping step size for the message A is configured to be different from a ramping step size for transmission of a Message 1 including a preamble (Jeon: fig 28A-B, para [0335], where, “a wireless device may increment PREAMBLE_POWER_ RAMPING_COUNTER, e.g., by one or to the next value (e.g., counter step size may be predefined and/or semi-statically configured)”), based on that the message A is performed as more times than the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information (Jeon: fig 28A-B, para [0335], “the random access response (e.g., PDSCH) in a two-step RA procedure, the wireless device may determine a retransmission of MsgA or Msg1 of a two-step RA procedure. It may be inefficient to determine the retransmission. The retransmission of MsgA or Msg1 determined based on failing to decode the PDSCH may increase a latency of the two-step RA procedure”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabouri et al (US 2021/0022057 A1), hereinafter, “Sabouri” in view of Shen et al (US 2022/0167429 A1), hereinafter, “Shen” further in view of Jeon et al. (US 2022/0078856 A1, Use the Priority of Provisional application No. 62/887,279 filed on 08/15/2019), hereinafter, “Jeon” further in view of Medles et al (US 2020/0044786 A1), hereinafter, “Medles”.
Regarding claim 7, Sabouri teaches: 2-step and 4-step RACH (Sabouri: fig 3 and fig 4), neither Sabouri nor Shen explicitly teach, Jeon teaches: maximum number of retransmission (Shen: fig 13a-c, para [0191], “if the number of preamble transmissions exceeds a threshold configured by the one or more RACH parameters (e.g., preamble TransMax)”) however, neither Sabouri nor Shen nor Jeon explicitly teach: wherein the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information is lower than the maximum number of retransmission for the message A indicated by the first information and is larger than 1.
Medles teaches: wherein the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information is lower than the maximum number of retransmission for the message A indicated by the first information and is larger than 1 (para [0005], where, “URLLC with very low latency allows for a very low number of retransmissions, maximum 1 or 2”, where, “2” is greater than “1”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use “wherein the threshold number of retransmission indicated by the second information is lower than the maximum number of retransmission for the message A indicated by the first information and is larger than 1” taught by Medles into the system of Sabouri and Shen and Jeon in order to improve system efficiency for PRACH/RACH communication.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAM U AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9561. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fry, 7:00 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/NIZAM U AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights