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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Xiong et al. (US 2021/0014011).
Regarding claim 1, Xiong teaches a random access method, wherein the method comprises: transmitting, by a terminal device, a first PRACH to a network device by using a first PRACH occasion (Paragraphs [0130]; [0139]; [0160]; [0369] describes transmitting a PRACH using configured PRACH time-frequency resources);
and monitoring, by the terminal device, a first PDCCH by using a first RNTI (Paragraphs [0370]-[0371] describes the user device monitors a PDCCH that is scrambled by the RA-RANTI),
wherein the first PDCCH is used to schedule a PDSCH, and the PDSCH scheduled by the first PDCCH carries an RAR (Paragraphs [0016]; [0228]; [0037]-[0038]; [0371] describes the RAR PDCCH indicates the second-type PDSCH resource and the second type PDSCH is the Msg B RAR PDSCH. Thus, the PDCCH schedules a PDSCH that carries the random access response. Carries an RAR encompasses a PDSCH carrying an Msg B Random access response and used to schedule encompasses the PDCCH indicating the PDSCH resources).
Regarding claim 2, Xiong teaches wherein the method further comprises: after receiving, by the terminal device, the first PDCCH or the PDSCH scheduled by the first PDCCH, determining, by the terminal device based on first indication information, whether the first PDCCH is a PDCCH for scheduling a first PDSCH (Paragraphs [0023]; [0231]; [0031] describes the UE first receives the PDCCH and then receives the scheduled second type PDSCH. Teaches that the received PDCCH contains PDSCH scheduling information, UE transmission mode indication, DCI bit fields, DCI bit values, CRC scrambling using different RNTIs and different DCI formats these are all indication information. The UE interprets these indications after decoding the PDCCH to determine what PDSCH is being scheduled and determining, based on indication information, whether the received PDCCH schedules the desired PDSCH); or, determining, by the terminal device based on first indication information, whether the PDSCH scheduled by the first PDCCH is a first PDSCH, wherein an RAR carried in the first PDSCH is an RAR corresponding to the first PRACH.
Regarding claim 3, Xiong teaches a terminal device, comprising a processor configured to perform operations of (Paragraph [0575] describes a terminal device, comprising a processor):
transmitting a first PRACH to a network device by using a first PRACH occasion (Paragraphs [0130]; [0139]; [0160]; [0369] describes transmitting a PRACH using configured PRACH time-frequency resources);
and monitoring a first PDCCH by using a first RNTI (Paragraphs [0370]-[0371] describes the user device monitors a PDCCH that is scrambled by the RA-RANTI),
wherein the first PDCCH is used to schedule a PDSCH, and the PDSCH scheduled by the first PDCCH carries an RAR (Paragraphs [0016]; [0228]; [0037]-[0038]; [0371] describes the RAR PDCCH indicates the second-type PDSCH resource and the second type PDSCH is the Msg B RAR PDSCH. Thus, the PDCCH schedules a PDSCH that carries the random access response. Carries an RAR encompasses a PDSCH carrying an Msg B Random access response and used to schedule encompasses the PDCCH indicating the PDSCH resources).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 respectively.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Shin et al. (US 20250234386).
Regarding claim 5, Xiong doesn’t teach wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of following: a system frame index corresponding to the first RNTI or a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; k least significant bits of a system frame index corresponding to the first RNTI or k least significant bits of a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; a system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first RNTI or a system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or a system frame index associated with the first RNTI in N system frames or a system frame index associated with the first PRACH occasion in N system frames; wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1, and k is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1.
However, in analogous art Shin teaches wherein the first indication information is used to indicate at least one of following: a system frame index corresponding to the first RNTI or a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; k least significant bits of a system frame index corresponding to the first RNTI or k least significant bits of a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; a system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first RNTI or a system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or a system frame index associated with the first RNTI in N system frames or a system frame index associated with the first PRACH occasion in N system frames; wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1, and k is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (Paragraphs [0150]; [0156] describes RAR includes an SFN (system frame number) value, SFN corresponding to the single reference RO, the reference RO is a selected PRACH RO. UE determines whether the RAR is for the UE using the RA-RNTI and the SFN corresponding to the reference RO ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiong scheduled downlink signal in a predefined resource to incorporate the teachings of Shin’s method to handle repeated PRACH preamble transmission across multiple ROs to improve UL coverage of a basic wireless communication system (Shin, Paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 6, Xiong in view of Shin, Shin teaches wherein the first RNTI is determined based on at least one of following: a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; k least significant bits of a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; a system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or a system frame index associated with the first PRACH occasion in N system frames; wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1, and k is a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (Paragraphs [0139]-[0142]; [0150]-[0156] describes a system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 respectively.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 respectively.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Shin in further view of Jeon et al. (US 2022/0110184).
Regarding claim 7, Xiong in view of Shin don’t teach wherein the first RNTI is determined based on a result of a modulo operation performed with the system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion and the system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or the first RNTI is determined based on a result of a division operation performed with the system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion and the system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or the first RNTI is determined based on the system frame index associated with the first PRACH occasion in the N system frames.
However, in analogous art Jeon teaches wherein the first RNTI is determined based on a result of a modulo operation performed with the system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion and the system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or the first RNTI is determined based on a result of a division operation performed with the system frame index corresponding to the first PRACH occasion and the system frame quantity value N corresponding to the first PRACH occasion; or the first RNTI is determined based on the system frame index associated with the first PRACH occasion in the N system frames (Paragraph [0297] describes a RAR window size is a quantity representing a number of system frames (or a frame-based response window configured by ra-responseWindow), and teaches determining the RA-RNTI based on the result of a modulo operation performed on the SFN).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiong scheduled downlink signal in a predefined resource and Shin’s method to handle repeated PRACH preamble transmission across multiple ROs to incorporate the teachings of Jeon’s method using a DRX active period tied to a time window so the device can receive the response efficiently (Jeon, Paragraph [0216]).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 respectively.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Gu et al. (US 2024/0260093).
Regarding claim 8, Xiong doesn’t teach wherein the first PRACH occasion comprises M second PRACH occasions, the first RNTI is determined based on at least one second PRACH occasion in the M second PRACH occasions, and M is a positive integer greater than 1.
However, in analogous art Gu teaches wherein the first PRACH occasion comprises M second PRACH occasions, the first RNTI is determined based on at least one second PRACH occasion in the M second PRACH occasions, and M is a positive integer greater than 1 (Paragraphs [0074]-[0082] describes multiple PRACH occasions for a repeated preamble and determing a single RA-RNTI using the first, second, last or closest PRACH occasion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiong scheduled downlink signal in a predefined resource to incorporate the teachings of Gu’s RAR-window timing for repeated random access preambles across multiple Ros to reduce timing overlap and improves access success when repetitions are used (Gu, Paragraphs [0008]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 9, Xiong in view of Gu, Gu teaches wherein the first RNTI is determined based on an RNTI corresponding to the at least one second PRACH occasion in the M second PRACH occasions ([0074]-[0082] describes the first RNTI is determined based on an RNTI corresponding to the PRACH occasion).
Regarding claim 10, Xiong in view of Gu, Gu teaches wherein the first RNTI is an RNTI corresponding to the first second PRACH occasion in the M second PRACH occasions; or the first RNTI is an RNTI corresponding to the last second PRACH occasion in the M second PRACH occasions (Paragraphs [0074]-[0082] describes RNTI corresponding to the last PRACH occasion).
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 respectively.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9 respectively.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10 respectively.
Claim(s) 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiong in view of Gu in further view of Ko et al. (US 2022/0167427).
Regarding claim 11, Xiong in view of Gu don’t teach wherein a PRACH format corresponding to the second PRACH occasion is at least one of following formats: 0, 1, 2, 3, A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, B4, C0, or C2.
However, in analogous art Ko teaches wherein a PRACH format corresponding to the second PRACH occasion is at least one of following formats: 0, 1, 2, 3, A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, B4, C0, or C2 (Paragraphs [0168]-[0170] describes the PRACH occasion and the formats associated with those).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Xiong scheduled downlink signal in a predefined resource and Gu’s RAR-window timing for repeated random access preambles across multiple Ros to incorporate the teachings of Ko’s monitoring DCI for a MsgB response after transmitting PRACH, and to receive the scheduled PDSCH even when it cannot verify SFN-matching bits in the DCI to preserves low-latency access while accommodating handover scenarios where SFN knowledge is unavailable (Ko, Paragraphs [185]-[193]).
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 11 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/KAN YUEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights