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 .
DETAILED ACTION
a. Claims 1-27 in the present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA :
- claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 21, 22 are canceled
b. This is a final action on the merits based on Applicant’s claims submitted on 01/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 18-20, and 23-27 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's first arguments, see “Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that a combination of Maamari and R1- 2100500 fails to disclose or suggest "wherein the apparatus is configured with a reference signal received power threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches."” on page 11, filed on 01/30/2026, with respect to Maamari et al. US Pub 2024/0090018, claiming provisional applications 63122414 and 63250751 priorities (hereinafter "Maamari"), and in view of Nokia NPL "Higher layer support of Reduced Capability NR Devices", 3GPP R1-2100500, Jan 25 - Feb 5, 2021 (hereinafter "Nokia"), have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Maamari discloses wherein the apparatus is configured with a reference signal received power threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches (“the determining comprises: comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement of the UE is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure; or when the UE has one receive branch, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure.” [0023] and furthermore “Combinations of UE features and thresholds may also be used. For example, RedCap UEs with 2 Rx branches and RSRP above a threshold and non-RedCap UEs may use a normal RO (i.e., RACH), or, RedCap UEs with 1 Rx branch and RSRP below a threshold may use a CE RO (i.e., RACH2 in Table 11). Use of the repetition region (for Msg3) (i.e., RACH2 in Table 11) would require support of the CE feature by the UEs.” [0221]).
The Maamari’s reference, as combined with the Nokia’s reference, discloses each and every limitation of the present claims, and therefore render the claims obvious. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness MPEP § 2141. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 18-20, and 23-27 are still being rejected on the same grounds for rejection as before.
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 18-20, and 23-27 previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant's second arguments, see “In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that a combination of Maamari and R1- 2100500 fails to disclose or suggest "communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response, wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced- capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches."” on page 12, filed on 01/30/2026, with respect to Maamari et al. US Pub 2024/0090018, claiming provisional applications 63122414 and 63250751 priorities (hereinafter "Maamari"), and in view of Nokia NPL "Higher layer support of Reduced Capability NR Devices", 3GPP R1-2100500, Jan 25 - Feb 5, 2021 (hereinafter "Nokia"), have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Nokia discloses transmitting, to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches (“When the REDCAP UE performs initial access in a cell where it is supported, it must signal to the network that it is REDCAP UE and, if multiple types are supported, an indicator of RedCap UE type” on page 1, section 2.1 and furthermore “Proposal 1: A cell can be optionally configured to identify certain REDCAP device types (a type defines a subset of capabilities, e.g. reduced antenna efficiency and number of rx antennas) using msg-1 of the initial access procedure to:
1. Optimise further message transmission during random access procedure.
2. Support load balancing of RACH resources between REDCAP and non-REDCAP devices.” On page 2, section 2.1).
Nokia further discloses (“Option 2 bases the definition of UE types on the reduced capabilities that the network needs to know during initial access. Of all the reduced capabilities, only the number of Rx branches and whether the UE has a reduced antenna efficiency may be useful for the network to know during initial access since transmission of messages can be optimized accordingly. As discussed in Section 2.1, however, it would be possible to conservatively schedule transmissions assuming the worst case (1 Rx branch and reduced antenna efficiency), which would reduce network efficiency but otherwise avoid having to distinguish between REDCAP UEs with different number of Rx branches during initial access. Thus, this option allows for defining a single REDCAP UE type to enable access control and identification during initial access with the actual reduced capabilities being reported after initial access. Initial access for REDCAP UEs may then be supported based on the most reduced capabilities (1 Rx branch and reduced antenna efficiency). Clearly, the option also allows for defining multiple REDCAP UE types that are distinguished based on the number of Rx branches and normal/reduced antenna efficiency. If network access is granted based on merely REDCAP UE type, this option does enable network access to UEs that include only these limited reduced capabilities (1 or 2 Rx branches with or without reduced antenna efficiency) while not including any of the other mandatory REDCAP capabilities. In other words, Option 2 may not constrain the use of REDCAP capabilities to only REDCAP UEs since other UEs can represent themselves as REDCAP UEs during initial access.” On page 4, section 2.2).
The Nokia’s reference, as combined with the Maamari’s reference, discloses each and every limitation of the present claims, and therefore render the claims obvious. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness MPEP § 2141. Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 18-20, and 23-27 are still being rejected on the same grounds for rejection as before.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, 11, 13-15, 18-20, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maamari et al. US Pub 2024/0090018, claiming provisional applications 63122414 and 63250751 priorities (hereinafter “Maamari”), and in view of Nokia NPL “Higher layer support of Reduced Capability NR Devices”, 3GPP R1-2100500, Jan 25 – Feb 5, 2021 (hereinafter “Nokia”).
Regarding claim 1
Maamari discloses An apparatus (i.e. “UE” in Fig. 2; “the apparatus is a reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE)” [Claim 18]), comprising:
at least one processor (“one or more processors” [Claim 18]); and
at least one memory including computer program instructions (“non-transitory memory storage storing instructions” [Claim 18]),
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
transmitting, to a network element (i.e. “gNB” in Fig. 2), an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches (“receiving, by a gNB from a user equipment (UE), a first message during a random access (RA) procedure; determining, by the gNB, whether the first message indicates that the UE is a reduced capability (RedCap) UE, the RedCap UE having a quantity of receive branches less than a minimum number of receive branches of a non-RedCap UE” [0025]).
wherein the apparatus is configured with a reference signal received power (i.e. RSRP) threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the apparatus has one receive branch (“comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has one receive branch and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure; when the UE has one receive branch and the RSRP measurement is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure;” [0024]) or two receive branches (“comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement of the UE is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure” [0023]).
receiving, from the network element (i.e. “gNB” in Fig. 2), a response based on the indication (“In the second step of a RACH process (in reference to FIG. 2), following the PRACH preamble transmission, the UE awaits a random access response from the gNB.” [0192]).
Maamari does not specifically teach communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response, wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches.
In an analogous art, Nokia discloses communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response (“the type indication is provided by msg1”), wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources (e.g. “provide the flexibility to define more UE types to further constrain the capabilities of each type”) conditioned on the apparatus having two receive branches (““Furthermore, like Option 2, Option 4 allows for supporting either one or more than one REDCAP UE type. As an example of the latter, the number of UE Rx branches (and, correspondingly, the maximum number of MIMO layers) may distinguish the different types. Note that this distinction between the types is beneficial for the network to know to optimize initial access if the type indication is provided by msg1, as discussed in Section 2.1. Alternatively, if optimization of initial access is not performed and only a single REDCAP UE type is supported, the REDCAP UE is expected to have a minimum of 1 Rx branch and reduced antenna efficiency can also be incorporated into the type definition. It is possible to include reduced antenna efficiency in the type definition. Any other optional features (e.g., support of HD-FDD or DL 256-QAM in FR1) supported by the UE can be indicated by the UE to the network through capability signaling. Option 4 does provide the flexibility to define more UE types to further constrain the capabilities of each type. For example, a separate UE type can be defined for UEs that support 40 MHz UE bandwidth after initial access together with 2 Rx branches. Overall, Option 4 provides the desired flexibility while satisfying the uses of defining UE types.” On page 5 and furthermore “For REDCAP UE Type 3, support the following capabilities: 2 Rx antennas, reduced antenna efficiency, and maximum of 2 DL MIMO layers. For REDCAP UE Type 4, support the following capabilities: 2 Rx antennas, and maximum of 2 DL MIMO layers. Since the maximum number of DL MIMO layers supported is directly related to the number of Rx antennas, we include DL MIMO support feature in the type definition. The REDCAP UE capability types are listed in Table 2, showing the minimum UE capabilities for each type.” Table 2 on page 6).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Maamari’s method for identification of reduced capability (RedCap) user equipments (UEs), to include Nokia’s method for determining RedCap UE capabilities, in order to differentiate between UEs based on the number of Rx branches and whether the UE has reduced antenna efficiency (Nokia, Proposal 4, page 5). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would have appreciated the ability to incorporate Nokia’s method for determining RedCap UE capabilities into Maamari’s method for identification of reduced capability (RedCap) user equipments (UEs) since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the apparatus having one receive branch (“when the UE has one receive branch, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure” [0020]).
Regarding claim 5
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources, based on whether the apparatus has one receive branch or two receive branches (“According to the criterion C2, when the UE has two receive branches and is operable in FR1 FDD bands and FR2 bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE after the RA procedure. When the UE has one receive branch and is operable in FR1 FDD and FR2 bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE during the RA procedure. When the UE has two receive branches and is operable in FR1 TDD bands, it may indicate that it is a RedCap UE during the RA procedure.” [0134]).
Regarding claim 6
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 5,
Maamari further discloses wherein the response explicitly indicates that the apparatus is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources (“The UE may inform the network that it is a RedCap UE either implicitly (e.g., by using a preamble/resource choice for transmitting Msg1), or explicitly (e.g., through the setting of 1 bit in Msg3).” [0120]).
Regarding claim 7
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 5,
Maamari further discloses wherein the response indicates that the apparatus is forbidden access to resources by configuring a threshold (“In another embodiment, a threshold is defined if a RedCap UE is to use an early identification path based on a criterion using a threshold (such as C3, C4, C5). In one embodiment, the threshold may be defined using rsrp-ThresholdsPrachInfoList-r17 IE Different coverage levels may be defined based on RSRP and defined in an information element. The RACH-ConfigGeneric IE may be augmented to include the rsrp-ThresholdsPrachInfoList-r17 IE. In another embodiment, the RACH-ConfigCommon IE may be augmented to include the rsrp-ThresholdsPrachInfoList-r17 IE.” [0188]).
Regarding claim 10
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus claim 1,
Maamari further discloses wherein the communicating further comprises accessing common physical random access channel resources (“the first message is sent by the UE according to a physical random access channel (PRACH) configuration that is broadcast by the gNB and received by the UE before the RA procedure, the PRACH configuration comprising a RACH preamble, a RACH occasion, or a combination thereof, which is associated with indicating RedCap UEs.” [0012]).
Regarding claim 11
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
Maamari further discloses receiving, from the network element, a configuration of a reference signal received power (i.e. “RSRP”) threshold for the apparatus to access a reduced-capability-specific resources (“the determining comprises: comparing, by the UE, a RSRP measurement with a threshold configured for RedCap UEs; when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement is greater than the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE after the RA procedure;” [0023]), wherein the apparatus is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold (when the UE has two receive branches and the RSRP measurement of the UE is less than or equal to the threshold, determining, by the UE, to indicate the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure;” [0023]).
Regarding claim 13
Maamari previously discloses the apparatus of claim 1,
Maamari further discloses wherein the random access message comprises a message three of a four-step random access procedure (“the indicating comprises: sending, by the UE to the gNB when determining to indicate during the RA procedure, a first message indicating the UE as the RedCap UE during the RA procedure, the first message comprising a message 1 (Msg1) of the RA procedure, a message 3 (Msg3) of the RA procedure, or a message A (MsgA) of the RA procedure of the RA procedure.” [0009]).
Regarding claim 14
Maamari discloses an apparatus (“gNB” in Fig. 2; “the electronic device may be an element of communications network infrastructure, such as a base station (for example a NodeB, an evolved Node B (eNodeB, or eNB), a next generation NodeB (sometimes referred to as a gNodeB or gNB)” [0236]), comprising:
at least one processor (“a device may contain multiple instances of a component, such as multiple processors” [0236]); and
at least one memory (“memories” [0236]) including computer program instructions,
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
receiving, from a user equipment, an indication in a random access message;
determining whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches based on the indication; and
communicating with the user equipment based on the determination that the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches, wherein the communicating comprises permitting the user equipment to access reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the user equipment having two receive branches,
wherein the apparatus is further caused to perform:
configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment, and wherein the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 14 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 14 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 15
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform:
configuring a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the user equipment is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 15 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 11. Therefore apparatus claim 15 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Regarding claim 18
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the communicating further comprises permitting the user equipment to access common physical random access channel resources.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 18 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 10. Therefore apparatus claim 18 corresponds to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Regarding claim 19
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the communicating comprises permitting access to resources or forbidding access to resources, based on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches.
The scope and subject matter of apparatus claim 19 are reciprocal to the scope and subject matter as claimed in apparatus claim 5. Therefore apparatus claim 19 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 20
A method, comprising:
transmitting, from a user equipment to a network element, an indication in a random access message, wherein the indication indicates to the network element as to whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches,
wherein the user equipment is configured with a reference signal received power threshold, and the reference signal received power threshold depends on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches,
receiving, from the network element, a response based on the indication; and
communicating, with the network element, based on the indication and the response, wherein the communicating comprises accessing reduced-capability-specific resources conditioned on the user equipment having two receive branches.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 20 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 20 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used in claim 1 rejection above.
Regarding claim 23
The method of claim 20, wherein the response indicates the user equipment is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources, based on whether the user equipment has one receive branch or two receive branches.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 23 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 5. Therefore method claim 23 corresponds to apparatus claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 5 rejection above.
Regarding claim 24
The method of claim 23, wherein the response explicitly indicates that the user equipment is permitted access to resources or forbidden access to resources.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 24 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 6. Therefore method claim 24 corresponds to apparatus claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 6 rejection above.
Regarding claim 25
The method of claim 23, wherein the response indicates that the user equipment is forbidden access to resources by configuring a threshold.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 25 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 7. Therefore method claim 25 corresponds to apparatus claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 7 rejection above.
Regarding claim 26
The method of claim 20, wherein the communicating further comprises accessing common physical random access channel resources.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 26 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 10. Therefore method claim 26 corresponds to apparatus claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 10 rejection above.
Regarding claim 27
The method of claim 20, comprising:
receiving, from the network element, a configuration of a reference signal received power threshold for the user equipment to access a reduced-capability-specific resources, wherein the user equipment is permitted to access the reduced-capability-specific resources in response to the reference signal received power being below the threshold.
The scope and subject matter of method claim 27 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 11. Therefore method claim 27 corresponds to apparatus claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in claim 11 rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am - 6:30pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at 571-272-3123. 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.
/CHUONG M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights