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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/07/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 24, 26, 36, and 40 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 24, 36, and 40; they are moot based on the new ground of rejection.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 24, 36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 20220303088 A1) hereinafter Sun in view of Yao et al. (US 2024/0313855 A1) hereinafter Yao.
Regarding claim 1,
Sun teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (communication device [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3), comprising: a memory (memories [0108]; elements 306, 310, and 350 of Fig. 3); and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (processor coupled to memories [0108]; elements 302 of Fig. 3), configured to: transmit, to a network entity via a first communication path or a second communication path, an indication of a required minimum value for a time offset associated with a communication with the network entity (UE transmits minimum timing offset information directly to the base station [0149]-[0150]; element 704 of Fig. 7); receive, from the network entity, an indication of an offset value for the time offset based at least in part on the required minimum value for the time offset (UE receives AP-SRS triggering offset [0149]-[0152]; elements 706 and 710 of Fig. 7), wherein the first communication path is a direct link between the UE and the network entity (UE transmits minimum timing offset information directly to the base station [0149]-[0150]; element 704 of Fig. 7).
Sun doesn’t explicitly teach the time offset is associated with a communication with the network entity via the second communication path, wherein the second communication path is via an assisting node.
Yao teaches the time offset is associated with a communication with the network entity via the second communication path, wherein the second communication path is via an assisting node (transmitting a second time offset to be utilized by the BS/UE, where a satellite is used as a relay [0023] and [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Yao to the teachings of Sun. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would mitigate the effects of propagation delay (Yao [0002]).
Regarding claim 4,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Sun further teaches wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is associated with at least one of time resources or frequency resources associated with communicating with the network entity (minimum timing offset associated with time resources associated with communicating with the BS [0147]-[0151]; Fig. 7).
Sun does not explicitly teach the time offset value associated with communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Yao teaches the time offset value associated with communicating with the network entity via the assisting node (transmitting a second time offset to be utilized by the BS/UE, where a satellite is used as a relay [0023] and [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Yao to the teachings of Sun. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would mitigate the effects of propagation delay (Yao [0002]).
Claim 24 “UE method”, Claim 36 “UE CRM”, Claim 40 “UE device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 11, 27, 31, 32, 34 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 20220303088 A1) hereinafter Sun and Yao in in further view of Akkarakaran et al. (US 20210360654 A1) hereinafter Akkarakaran.
Regarding claim 7,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teach communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun further teaches transmit, to the network entity, a required minimum time offset (UE transmits minimum timing offset information to the base station [0149]-[0150]; element 704 of Fig. 7).
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach the minimum time offset being at least one of a required K0 value for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication to be transmitted to the UE, a required minimum K1 value for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback communication to be transmitted to the network entity, or a required minimum K2 value for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) communication to be transmitted to the network entity.
Akkarakaran teaches the minimum time offset being at least one of a required K0 value for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) communication to be transmitted to the UE (minimum-k parameter being a K0 parameter associated with downlink transmission [0058]-[0068]), a required minimum K1 value for a hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback communication to be transmitted to the network entity, or a required minimum K2 value for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) communication to be transmitted to the network entity (minimum-k parameter being a K2 parameter associated with downlink transmission [0058]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Akkarakaran to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce power consumption (Akkarakaran [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 8,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teach communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun further teaches a required minimum value for the time offset (UE transmits minimum timing offset information to the base station [0149]-[0150]; element 704 of Fig. 7))
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach the required minimum value for the time offset is a required minimum K0 value.
Akkarakaran teaches the required minimum value for the time offset is a required minimum K0 value (minimum-k parameter being a K0 parameter associated with downlink transmission [0058]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Akkarakaran to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce power consumption (Akkarakaran [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 9,
Sun and Yao and Akkarakaran teach all the features of claim 8, as outlined above, which further teach communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun further teaches receiving the indication of the time offset value based in at least in part on the required minimum time offset (UE receives offset based on the minimum timing offset [0149]-[0152]; elements 706 and 710 of Fig. 7), and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the network entity in accordance with the offset value (communicating with the BS in accordance with the minimum offset value [0147]-[0151]; Fig. 7)
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication including an indication of a K0 value, for a scheduled physical downlink shared channel communication (PDSCH), and receive the scheduled PDSCH communication in accordance with the K0 value.
Akkarakaran teaches receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication including an indication of a K0 value (receiving a DCI indicating the minimum-k parameter [0058]-[0068]), for a scheduled physical downlink shared channel communication (PDSCH) (minimum-k parameter for a PDSCH transmission [0058]-[0068]), and receive the scheduled PDSCH communication in accordance with the K0 value (receiving PDSCH based on minimum-k parameter [0058]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Akkarakaran to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce power consumption (Akkarakaran [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 11,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teach communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun further teaches receiving the indication of the time offset value based in at least in part on the required minimum time offset (UE receives offset based on the minimum timing offset [0149]-[0152]; elements 706 and 710 of Fig. 7), and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the network entity in accordance with the offset value (communicating with the BS in accordance with the minimum offset value [0147]-[0151]; Fig. 7)
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication including an indication of a K2 value, for a scheduled physical uplink shared channel communication (PUSCH), and transmit the scheduled PUSCH communication to the network entity in accordance with the K2 value
Akkarakaran teaches receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication including an indication of a K2 value (receiving a DCI indicating the minimum-k parameter [0058]-[0068]), for a scheduled physical uplink shared channel communication (PUSCH) (minimum-k parameter for a PUSCH transmission [0058]-[0068]), and transmit the scheduled PUSCH communication to the network entity in accordance with the K2 value (transmitting PUSCH based on minimum-k parameter [0058]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Akkarakaran to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce power consumption (Akkarakaran [0059]-[0060]).
Claim 27 “UE method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 9 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claim 31 “UE method”, Claim 41 “UE device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claim 32 “UE method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 7 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claim 34 “UE method”, Claim 38 “UE CRM” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 11 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claims 2 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Yao in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20180042000 A1) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 2,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teaches communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is a beam-specific required minimum value associated with a beam used by the UE.
Zhang teaches wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is a beam-specific required minimum value associated with a beam used by the UE (correspondence between beam IDs and time offsets [0230]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Zhang to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve communication quality (Zhang [0007]).
Claim 25 “UE method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 “UE apparatus”, Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claims 3 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Yao in further view of Lee et al. (US 20210306984 A1) hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 3,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Sun teaches transmit the indication of the required minimum value for the time offset (UE transmits minimum timing offset information to the base station [0150]; element 704 of Fig. 7).
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach transmitting the indication in connection with switching between a first communication path between the UE and the network entity and a second communication path between the UE and the network entity, wherein the second communication path between the UE and the network entity is associated with communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Lee teaches transmitting the indication in connection with switching between a first communication path between the UE and the network entity and a second communication path between the UE and the network entity (transmitting a BWP switching request in connection with a communication type change [0006] and [0120]; Fig. 13), wherein the second communication path between the UE and the network entity is associated with communicating with the network entity via the assisting node (where the communication type is associated with SL communication [0006] and [0120]; Fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Lee to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would account for switching delay on the UE side (Lee [0006]).
Claim 26 “UE method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Yao in further view of Wang et al. (US 20240430051 A1) hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 5,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teaches communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is associated with a multiplexing mode.
Wang teaches wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is associated with a multiplexing mode (time offset corresponding to a time division [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Wang to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for more control over the time offset (Wang [0073]).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Yao in further view of Youn et al. (US 20090227258) hereinafter Youn.
Regarding claim 6,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is associated with an identifier associated with the assisting node.
Youn teaches wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is associated with an identifier associated with the assisting node (candidate relay information contained within the relay path indicator including ID for a relay station [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Youn to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would minimize service delay and enhance resource usage efficiency (Youn [0002]).
Claims 10 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Yao in further view of Kim et al. (US 20230119439 A1) hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 10,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teach communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is a required minimum K1 value, wherein receiving the indication of the offset value for the time offset comprises receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication including an indication of a K1 value, based at least in part on the required minimum K1 value, for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for a scheduled physical downlink shared channel communication (PDSCH), and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the network entity in accordance with the offset value, are configured to: transmit the HARQ feedback for the scheduled PDSCH communication to the network entity in accordance with the K1 value.
Kim teaches wherein the required minimum value for the time offset is a required minimum K1 value, wherein receiving the indication of the offset value for the time offset comprises receiving a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) communication including an indication of a K1 value, based at least in part on the required minimum K1 value, for hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) feedback for a scheduled physical downlink shared channel communication (PDSCH), and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate with the network entity in accordance with the offset value, are configured to: transmit the HARQ feedback for the scheduled PDSCH communication to the network entity in accordance with the K1 value (UE transmitting capability information including the minimum granularity supported which is used to determine the offsets K1, where K1 is indicated via a DCI and is associated with a HARQ transmission for the PDSCH [0219]-[0222], [0238], and [0299]-[0311]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Kim to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would enhance time slot allocation (Kim [0004]-[0008]).
Claim 33 “UE method”, Claim 37 “UE CRM”, Claim 42 “UE device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 10 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claims 12, 13, 35, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun and Yao in further view of Guo et al. (US 20190141693 A1) hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 12,
Sun and Yao teach all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teaches communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach transmit, to the network entity, an indication of an adjusted time duration for quasi co- location (QCL) associated with communicating with the network entity.
Guo teaches transmit, to the network entity, an indication of an adjusted time duration for quasi co- location (QCL) associated with communicating with the network entity (a DCI indicating a QCL configuration of a multi-slot PDSCH [0292]-[0297] and [0303]-[0306]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Guo to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve beam management (Guo [0016]).
Regarding claim 13,
Sun and Yao and Guo teach all the features of claim 12, as outlined above, which further teaches communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Sun and Yao do not explicitly teach wherein the adjusted time duration for QCL is associated with a beam pair including a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) beam and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) beam, and wherein the PDCCH beam or the PDSCH beam is associated with communicating with the network entity via the assisting node.
Guo teaches wherein the adjusted time duration for QCL is associated with a beam pair including a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) beam and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) beam, and wherein the PDCCH beam or the PDSCH beam is associated with communicating with the network entity (multi-slot PDSCH corresponding to a PDCCH [0292]-[0297] and [0303]-[0306]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Guo to the teachings of Sun and Yao. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would improve beam management (Guo [0016]).
Claim 35 “UE method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 12 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Claim 39 “UE CRM”, Claim 43 “UE device” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 13 “UE apparatus”, where Sun teaches UE device/method [0089] and [0101]-[0112]; Fig. 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465