DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 09/24/2024. Claims 1 and through 12 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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 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
4. Claims 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6 and 12 are objected because they recite “RSRP” in abbreviation form. The unabbreviated RSRP form is required. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claim 1 is drawn to an WTRU (machine). Machine - a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burrv. Duryee, 68 U.S. (lWall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863). This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683 (1854). [Emphasis added].[MPEP 2106.03].
In other words a machine must consist of more than one parts, claim 1 does not have any parts. This rejection may be overcome by adding an additional structure to the machine as claimed to be consistent with the definition above.
Double Patenting
6. 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 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.[10,142,962-herafter Lee]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 has broaden scope of claim 1 of Lee by eliminating the strike-out lined in the claim 1 of Lee, and rewording and moving around some limitations (e.g., the “
For claim 1 a wireless transmit/receive unit
a receiver configured to receive configuration from a base station, wherein the random access configuration includes first random access resources associated with a first repetition factor, wherein the random access configuration includes second random access resources associated with a second repetition factor, wherein the first repetition factor is lower than the second repetition factor;
a transmitter configured to transmit using the first rrandom access resource associated with a first repetition factor; and
the transmitter further configured to a random access response time window , transmit a second preamble using the second random access resources associated with a second .
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.[10,142,962-herafter Lee]. Because claims 2-3 are substantially the same as “wherein the first and second repetition factors indicate a number of times to repeat each preamble during each transmission” limitation of claim 1.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over first limitation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.[10,142,962-herafter Lee]. Claim 1 is extracted underlined potions of first limitation of claim 1 of Lee: a receiver configured to receive configuration information related to a random access channel from an eNode-B, the configuration information including at least a first coverage enhancement level having a first response window time configuration information and a first repetition factor, and a second coverage enhancement level having a second response window time configuration information and a second repetition factor.
Claims 5 and 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable claim 5 of U.S. Patent No.[10,142,962-herafter Lee].
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable claim 4 of U.S. Patent No.[10,142,962-herafter Lee]. Claim 6 and claim 4 of Lee are substantially the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 ,6-10 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al (US 2015/0173105 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 9,225,571 B2).
For claims 1 and 7 Bergstrom teaches a method implemented by a wireless transmit/receive unit, WTRU (Fig. 5 “user equipment (UE 4)” ), the method comprising:
receiving a random access configuration from a base station, wherein the random access configuration includes first random access resources associated with a first repetition factor, wherein the random access configuration includes second random access resources associated with a second repetition factor, wherein the first repetition factor is lower than the second repetition factor (paragraph 53, Fig. 2 “PRACDH repetition configurator of network (base station) configures initial PRACH preamble …and N PRACH repetitions”, Fig. 9 “RRC CONNECTIONREQUEST REPETITION CONFIGURATOR 34 configures initial PRACH preamble, subsequent PRACH preamble '”, and paragraph 20 “network (base station) knows the number of repetitions (repetition factor) needed for the preamble transmission and RRC CONNECTION SETUP UNIT 14 configures connection request and connection request repetitions”);
transmitting a first preamble using the first random access resources associated with a first repetition factor (Fig. 2 “PRACDH repetition configurator configures initial PRACH preamble …and N PRACH repetitions associated with radio resources”); and
on a condition that a random access response message is not received within a random access response time window, transmitting a second preamble using the second random access resources associated with a second repetition factor (paragraph 8 “a UE which does not receive any Random Access Response in response to its initial random-access preamble transmission of step 1 above within a pre-defined time window, will have considered the attempt failed, and will repeat it random access pre-amble transmission (possibly with higher transmit power) up to a number of maximum of
four times (repetition factor is 4), before considering the entire random-access procedure failed”).
Bergstrom does not explicitly teach wherein the first repetition factor is lower than the second repetition factor.
However, Han teaches wherein the first repetition factor is 3, and the second
repetition factor is 2 (Han: claim 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Han in the repetition factor of Bergstrom in order to assign different factor to various repetition factors according to a design requirement (Han: claim 1).
For claims 2 and 8 Bergstrom in view of Han teaches the WTRU, wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the first preamble repeatedly based on the first repetition factor (as discussed in claim 1).
For claims 3 and 9 Bergstrom in view of Han teaches the WTRU, wherein the transmitter is further configured to transmit the second preamble repeatedly based on the second repetition factor (as discussed in claim 1).
For claims 4 and 10 the WTRU, wherein the first preamble is transmitted starting a first time associated with the first repetition factor, and the second preamble is transmitted starting at a second time associated with the second repetition factor (Bergstrom: “initial preamble started before the subsequent preamble”).
For claims 6 and 12 Bergstrom in view of Han teaches the WTRU, wherein the first repetition factor is determined to be used based on or pathloss measurement compared to a threshold (Bergstrom: paragraph 12 “pathloss estimate”).
8. Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al (US 2015/0173105 A1) in view of Han et al. (US 9,225,571 B2) and Burbidge et al. (US 2005/0100037 A1).
For claims 5 and 11 the WTRU of claim 4, Bergstrom in view of Han does not explicitly teach wherein a first subframe is determined for the first time based on the first repetition factor, and wherein a second subframe is determined for the second time based on the second repetition factor.
However, Burbidge teaches the method of claim 16 wherein the first time interval is determined by a repetition factor assigned to the wireless communication device (Burbidge: claim 21). In addition, Burbidge teaches a system frame (subframe) number comparator is coupled to the repetition value calculator (Burbidge: paragraph 24).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use the teachings of Burbidge in the combined repetition factor of Han and Bergstrom in order to assign first or second time interval for the first subframe or second subframe based on different repetition factors according to a design requirements-options (Burbidge: paragraph 24).
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights