DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/23/2024, in which claims 1-30 are pending and ready for examination.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 21 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeon et al.(hereinafter, “Jeon”; 20180279375).
In response to claims 1 and 29,
Jeon teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (paragraph 42, wireless device is equated to a UE, this paragraph teaches using a memory for performing the claimed functionalities); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the UE to (paragraph 42, processor is equated to a processor, this paragraph teaches using a memory for performing the claimed functionalities):
receive, from a network node, a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, wherein the message further indicates, for each path corresponding to the random access preambles, a set of allocated resources including at least a first set of resources, a second set of resources, or an uplink grant (paragraph 42, base station is equated to network node, paragraph 38, using a carrier is interpreted as using a path for communication, paragraph 116, step 1504 is read as receiving a message form the network node, paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources), and
wherein the first set of resources corresponds to contention-based random access resources and the second set of resources corresponds to contention-free random access resources (paragraph 113 is read as using a contention based and a contention free communication, paragraph 116, subframe (three subframes) are interpreted as the first set of resources corresponds to contention-based random access resources and the second set of resources corresponds to contention-free random access resources);
determine, for a path associated with a first random access preamble transmitted by the UE, whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble (paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as using a first random access preamble, paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble, paragraph 120, determining a random access procedure has failed (in step 1505) explicitly teaches this limitation),
wherein the determination is based at least in part on the path information and a round trip time associated with the first random access preamble (paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as using the first random access preamble, paragraph 119, CRNTI on a PDCCH or TC-RNTI on a DLSCH is equated to path information, paragraph 120, determining a RA has failed using a C-RNTI explicitly teaches determining based at least in part on the path information, mac-ContentionResolutionTimer is equated to a round trip timer, using the mac- ContentionResolutionTimer is read as determining based on a round trip time associated with the first random access preamble); and
transmit a random access message comprising a second random access preamble using the first set of resources, or the second set of resources, or the uplink grant (paragraph 120, restarting a four step random access procedure from first step (step 1501) explicitly teaches this limitation),
wherein the first set of resources, or the second set of resources, or the uplink grant is used for the random access message based at least in part on whether the collision exists for the path (paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access for the carrier or path, paragraph 121, uplink grant is equated to uplink grant, obtaining an uplink grant for the second RA procedure due to the failure for RA procedure( as explained in paragraph 120) is interpreted as the uplink grant is used for the random access message based at least in part on whether the collision exists for the path).
In response to claims 21 and 30,
Jeon teaches a network node, comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the network node to (paragraph 42, base station(BS) is equated to a network node, this paragraph teaches this limitation):
obtain a plurality of random access preambles from a plurality of user equipment (UEs), wherein each random access preamble of the plurality of random access preambles is associated with a respective UE(paragraph 50,serving multiple cell by a base station is read as receiving or obtaining from a plurality of UEs, paragraph 115, step 1503, transmitting a RAP (configured with RA preamble) by a UE as shown as an example is interpreted as the BS can obtain a plurality of random access preambles from a plurality of user equipment (UEs),paragraph 116, RA-RNTI is equated to an identification for a random access preambles is associated with a respective UE, using a RA-RNTI for a RA procedure by a UE is read as wherein each random access preamble of the plurality of random access preambles is associated with a respective UE);
output a message indicating path information for the plurality of random access preambles, wherein the message further indicates, for each path corresponding to the plurality of random access preambles, a set of allocated resources including at least a first set of resources, a second set of resources, or an uplink grant (paragraph 38, using a carrier is interpreted as using a path for communication, paragraph 116, step 1504, sending a RAR is read as outputting a message indicating path information for the plurality of random access preambles for the plurality of UEs located in different serving calls, using a RA-RNTI for a RA procedure by a UE and sending a RAR by the BS in response to a RAP explicitly teaches the message further indicates, for each path corresponding to the plurality of random access preambles, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources), and
wherein the first set of resources corresponds to contention-based random access resources and the second set of resources corresponds to contention-free random access resources (paragraph 113 is read as using a contention based and a contention free communication, paragraph 116, subframe (three subframes) are interpreted as the first set of resources corresponds to contention-based random access resources and the second set of resources corresponds to contention-free random access resources); and
obtain, from a UE of the plurality of UEs, a random access message comprising a first random access preamble using the first set of resources, or the second set of resources, or the uplink grant (paragraph 118, step 1505, transmitting one or more Tbs to a base station by a UE using uplink resources assigned in the UL grant explicitly tranches this limitation),
wherein obtaining the random access message using the first set of resources, or the second set of resources, or the uplink grant is based at least in part on whether a collision exists for a path associated with a second random access preamble of the plurality of random access preambles (paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access for the carrier or path, paragraph 121, uplink grant is equated to uplink grant, obtaining an uplink grant for the second RA procedure due to the failure for RA procedure( as explained in paragraph 120) is interpreted as the uplink grant is used for the random access message based at least in part on whether the collision exists for the path).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-20 and 22-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As for dependent claim 2, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the path information comprises a list of cyclic shifts associated with the random access preambles, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: determine that the path associated with the first random access preamble is indicated by the path information based at least in part on the round trip time and a cyclic shift associated with the first random access preamble included in the list of cyclic shifts, wherein determining whether the collision exists is based at least in part on a quantity of paths associated with the cyclic shift and the round trip time.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Dependent claims 2-7 depend on claim 2.
As for dependent claim 8, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the path information comprises a set of cyclic shift windows associated with the random access preambles, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: determine that the path associated with the first random access preamble is indicated by the path information based at least in part on the round trip time and based at least in part on a cyclic shift associated with the first random access preamble being included in a cyclic shift window of the set of cyclic shift windows, wherein determining whether the collision exists is based at least in part on the cyclic shift window that includes the cyclic shift.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Claims 9-11 depend on claim 8.
As for dependent claim 12, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: retransmit a first random access message based at least in part on the path information excluding one or more paths associated with the first random access preamble, the round trip time associated with the first random access preamble, or both.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 13, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: select a transmission power control value for transmitting the random access message based at least in part on the path associated with the first random access preamble, wherein the random access message is transmitted using the second set of resources.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 14, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: compute a timing advance value for transmitting the random access message based at least in part on a difference between a cyclic shift indicated by the path information and a first cyclic shift associated with the first random access preamble, the first cyclic shift having a cyclic shift offset applied, wherein the random access message is transmitted using the second set of resources.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Dependent claims 15-16 depend on claim 14.
As for dependent claim 17, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the random access message is transmitted using a first timing advance and a first transmission power control value that respectively correspond to a second timing advance and a second transmission power control value used for transmitting the first random access preamble, and wherein the random access message is transmitted using the first set of resources.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 18, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: receive, from the network node and based at least in part on the random access message, a response message comprising at least a timing advance, a transmission power control value, and one or more resources for an uplink transmission, or any combination thereof, wherein the random access message is transmitted using the first set of resources.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 19, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the UE to: receive, from the network node and based at least in part on the random access message, a response message comprising one or more resources for an uplink transmission, wherein the random access message is transmitted using the second set of resources.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 20, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the first set of resources is associated with one or more parameters that are different from one or more parameters associated with the second set of resources, the one or more parameters comprising at least a set of candidate cyclic shifts, a set of root sequences, one or more random access occasions, a cyclic shift step size, or any combination thereof.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
As for dependent claim 21, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the path information comprises a list of cyclic shifts associated with the plurality of random access preambles, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further configured to cause the network node to: select, for each path that corresponds to the list of cyclic shifts, the set of allocated resources based at least in part on whether the collision is detected by the network node.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Dependent claims 23-24 depend on claim 22.
As for dependent claim 25, this claim is objected, because there is no prior art in the record that teaches claimed limitation “wherein the path information comprises a set of cyclic shift windows associated with the plurality of random access preambles, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network node to: select, for each cyclic shift window of the set of cyclic shift windows, the set of allocated resources based at least in part on whether a collision is detected by the network node.”
The closet prior art in the record Jeon et al.’s (20180279375) teaching in paragraph 115, sending a message with a RA preamble by the UE at step 1503 is read as a message indicating path information for random access preambles detected by the network node, paragraph 116,subframe (three subframes) are equated to a set of allocated resources that include a first set of resources, a second set of resources, his teaching in paragraph 119, using a four step contention to ensure a wireless device does not use another wireless device identity for preventing a simultaneous RA transmission by one or more UE and receiving same TC-RNTI explicitly teaches determining whether a collision exists for the first random access preamble. He fails to teach the above cited limitation.
Dependent claims 26-28 depend on claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20190190668…………………paragraph 78.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABUSAYEED HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)270-7252. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -7:30 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/ABUSAYEED M HAQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/CHRISTOPHER M CRUTCHFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights