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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the previously applied written description rejection, the amendment appears to hide the concept of using configuration information to configure time gaps by not claiming it directly. This introduces new problems with the claims which are addressed with new rejections in this office action. The examiner contends that the applicant has not disclosed how the invention actually configures time gaps based on configuration information. As such, the applicant does not appear to provide a description of technology that meets the requirements of the written description requirement as dictated to the examiner by sections 2162 and 2161.01(I) of the MPEP. The applicant addressed the previously written description issue with claim 19 but not the corresponding language in claim 30.
Regarding the written description issue of claim 18, there appears to be a disagreement between the applicant and the examiner on the standards for written description support. The Examiner has cited portions of the MPEP which explain that the applicant must disclose how a claimed function is performed (2161.01(I) and 2163.03(V)) and that the applicant should provide a full and clear disclosure of novel technology in order to provide the public with knowledge in exchange for patent protection (2162). The applicant’s view is that simply having the words in the specification that correspond to the claimed function is satisfactory and there is no need for an applicant to explain how technology works. The Examiner cannot abide by the applicant’s view based on the guidance given in the MPEP.
Regarding the prior art, the Yao reference shows the concept of providing a UE with information to configure time gaps in a NTN network. Lee shows that the concept of requesting time gaps, although not taught by Yao, was known to those of ordinary skill. The Examiner’s contention is that based on Lee, one of ordinary skill would recognize that a UE in Yao could request time gaps in the board context claimed by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1 features the following amendments:
transmit capability information including a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals scheduled for transmission by the UE in a non-terrestrial network (NTN);
obtain, based at least in part on the capability information, configuration information configuring the time gaps for at least a first set of uplink signals of the scheduled uplink signals
Claim 19 features the following amendments:
receive, from a user equipment (UE), capability information including a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals scheduled for transmission by the UE in a non-terrestrial network (NTN);
transmit, based on the capability information, configuration information to the UE configuring the time gaps for at least a first set of uplink signals of the scheduled uplink signals
Claim 29 features the following amendments:
transmitting capability information including a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals scheduled for transmission
obtaining, based at least in part on the capability information, configuration information configuring the time gaps for at least a first set of uplink signals of the scheduled uplink signals
Claim 30 features the following amendments:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE), capability information including a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals scheduled for transmission by the UE in a non-terrestrial network (NTN);
transmitting, based on the capability information, configuration information to the UE configuring the time gaps for at least a first set of uplink signals of the scheduled uplink signals
The applicant did disclose that the capability information that is sent from the UE to the network entity is associated with uplink signals that are scheduled for transmission as claimed. Paragraph 95 uses the phrase that the “UE is scheduled to transmit uplink signals” which covers scheduling the UE for the purpose of transmitting signals and not scheduling individual uplink signals as claimed. Paragraphs 111 and 112 reference scheduling uplink signals with respect to step 630. This occurs after steps 610 and 620 which correspond to the transmitting/receiving configuration information limitation and therefore there is no suggestion that the uplink signals are already scheduled when steps 610 and 620 occur. The same goes for paragraphs 116-118 which describe Figure 7. The applicant only references scheduling with respect to the transmitting steps, but there is no suggestion that any scheduling is performed prior to transmitting capability information by the UE (claims 1 and 29) or receiving capability information by the network entity (claims 19 and 30).
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 1 features the following limitation:
obtain, based at least in part on the capability information, configuration information
Claim 29 features the following limitation:
obtaining, based at least in part on the capability information, configuration information
The applicant has not disclosed how obtaining configuration information by the UE is “based at least in part on the capability information” that is transmitted in the first step of claims 1 and 29. The applicant has disclosed that the network entity creates the obtained configuration based on the capability information but the capability information has no bearing on how the UE obtains the configuration information. Paragraph 101 is clear that the step of obtaining configuration information is in response to the step 610 of transmitting the configuration information and not based on the configuration information, itself, as claimed.
Written Description Issue #3
Claim 19 covers the following limitation:
transmit, based on the capability information, configuration information to the UE
Claim 30 covers the following limitation:
transmitting, based on the capability information, configuration information to the UE
Paragraphs 116-118 of the applicant’s disclosure state the following:
[0116] FIG. 7 shows a method 700 for wireless communications by a network entity, such as satellite 140 or BS 102 illustrated in FIGs. 1, 3, 5A-5C, and 6 and/or a disaggregated base station as described with respect to FIG. 2.
[0117] Method 700 begins in step 710 with receiving capability information from a UE indicating whether the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE in an NTN.
[0118] In step 720, the network entity transmits, based on the capability information, configuration information to the UE configuring the time gaps between the transmission segments associated with the uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE.
The applicant is clearly defining the capability information as information which indicates whether the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE in an NTN. The applicant is claiming that the network entity transmits configuration information based on this information which indicates whether the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE in an NTN. The applicant does not disclose a technique for transmitting configuration information to a UE based on the UE’s need for time gaps. The configuration information is disclosed as being dependent upon the UE’s need for time gaps but this relationship has no bearing on how the configuration information would be transmitted.
Written Description Issue #4
Claim 30 covers “receiving the uplink signals in one or more segments based on the configuration information”. The is language is not supported because there is no description of how the network entity would receive the uplink signals in one or more transmission segments based on the configuration information. The act of receiving would be the same whether the uplink signals are received with time gaps or not because the signals get to the receiver whenever they get there. Reception of a signal is a passive act that is totally based on the transmission of the signal and not configuration information that configures time gaps.
Written Description Issue #5
As to claim 18, the applicant provides literal support for these limitations but no description of the invention actually compensates for propagation delay and frequency shift and the applicant has not identified any well-known techniques for performing these functions. The disclosure does not comply with 2161.01(I) of the MPEP.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-15, 17-26, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The final limitation of claims 1 and 29 referenced “the configured time gaps”. The applicant does not claim a step of configuring time gaps. Instead, the applicant only claims obtaining configuration information configuring time gaps. Obtaining information for configuring time gaps is not the same thing as actually configuring time gaps. If the applicant wants to claim transmitting based on configured time gaps, the applicant must first claim a step of configuring those time gaps.
Claims 1 and 29 recites the limitation "the configured time gaps" in the final limitation of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 7 recite the limitation "the time gaps for the first set of uplink signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 7 recite the limitation "the time gaps for the second set of uplink signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: The second limitation of claim 19 covers transmitting configuration information to the UE for configuring the time gaps, meaning that the UE and not the claimed network entity configures the time gaps. The final limitation states that the first set of uplink signals is received in the one or more segments “based on the time gaps”. The applicant is missing a step of the network entity receiving information about the time gaps that are claimed as configured by the UE in order for the network entity to receive “based on the time gaps” as required by the final limitation.
Claims 20 and 22 recite the limitation "the time gaps for the second uplink signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the time gaps for the first set of uplink signals". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1, 2, 4-9, 11-13, 19-25, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0156646 by Yao et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0048297 by Lee et al.
As to claim 1, Yao teaches a user equipment (UE) (Figure 3), comprising: a memory comprising executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the UE to: obtain, based at least in part on a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink scheduled for transmission (paragraphs 98 and 99, the UE is initially scheduled to transmit signals and this schedule is modified by the determination of time gaps) by the UE in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (paragraphs 101, 102, and 104), configuration information configuring the time gaps for at least a first set of uplink signals of the scheduled uplink signals (Figure 9C); and transmit the first set of uplink signals in one or more transmission segments based on the configured time gaps (Figure 9A); however Yao does not explicitly that the UE transmits the parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps.
Lee teaches a UE which performs a method comprising: transmitting capability information including a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE (ref. no. 604 in Figure 6); and obtaining, based at least in part on the parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps, configuration information configuring the time gaps between the transmission segments associated with the uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE (ref. no. 606 in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the non-terrestrial communication network art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yao regarding supplying configuration information to configure time gaps to user equipment based on their equipment capabilities with the teachings of Lee regarding the user equipment requesting time gaps and receiving them from a network entity because in paragraph 101 Yao suggests that a scaling factor/time gap could be received via DCI or RRC communication and Lee shows that DCI or RRC messages could be explicitly requested by user equipment in order to initiate such communications.
As to claim 2, the combination of Yao and Lee shows how the concepts of Lee could be applied to the NTN concepts of Yao to show the disclosed techniques obvious.
As to claim 19,Yao teaches a network entity (Figure 4), comprising: a memory comprising executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions and cause the network entity to: receive capability information indicating whether the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals scheduled for transmission (the base station would work the same regardless of what the UE has scheduled) by the UE in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (paragraphs 101, 102 and 104, the base station knows UE characteristics in paragraph 104 so they are received somehow); transmit, based on the capability information, configuration information to the UE configuring the time gaps between the transmission segments associated with the uplink signals for at least a first set of uplink signals of the scheduled uplink signals (Figure 9C); and receive the uplink signals in one or more transmission segments based on the configuration information (Figure 9A); however Yao does not explicitly that the UE transmits the parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps.
Lee teaches a UE which performs a method comprising: transmitting capability information including a parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps between transmission segments associated with uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE (ref. no. 604 in Figure 6); and obtaining, based at least in part on the parameter that explicitly specifies that the UE needs time gaps, configuration information configuring the time gaps between the transmission segments associated with the uplink signals to be transmitted by the UE (ref. no. 606 in Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the non-terrestrial communication network art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yao regarding supplying configuration information to configure time gaps to user equipment based on their equipment capabilities with the teachings of Lee regarding the user equipment requesting time gaps and receiving them from a network entity because in paragraph 101 Yao suggests that a scaling factor/time gap could be received via DCI or RRC communication and Lee shows that DCI or RRC messages could be explicitly requested by user equipment in order to initiate such communications.
As to claims 4, 5, and 20, the cited portions of Yao mention configuring PUSCH channels and they do not mention configuring PRACH channels so they read on the breadth of the negative claim limitation.
As to claims 6 and 21, see paragraphs 102 and 104 of Yao.
As to claims 7, 8, and 22, see paragraphs 104-107 of Yao.
As to claims 9, 11 and 23, see paragraphs 104-107 of Yao.
As to claims 12 and 24, see Figure 9B of Yao which preempts previous scheduling of transmission based on new slot information.
As to claims 13 and 25, there is no disclosure in Yao of scheduling within a time gap between segments.
As to claim 29, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claim 30, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 19.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 18, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0156646 by Yao et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0048297 by Lee et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0320760 by Rastegardoost et al.
As to claim 14, the Yao-Lee combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; however Yao does not explicitly teach that the configuration information is configured according to a default.
Rastegardoost teaches the UE configured to transmit uplink signals via default channels during a random access procedure, wherein the configuration information by default regardless of any capability information from the UE indicating a need for time gaps (paragraph 267).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the non-terrestrial communication network art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yao regarding the use of configuration information with the teachings of Rastegardoost regarding using pre-configured time gap information because such a technique reduces signaling overhead (see paragraph 267 of Rastergardoost).
As to claims 15, see paragraph 104-107 of Yao.
As to claim 26, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 14.
As to claim 18, the Yao-Lee combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; Yao teaches compensating for first and second propagation delays (paragraph 36 and Figures 9A and 9C, the processes operate continuously over time); however the Yao-Tripathi combination does not explicitly teach compensating for frequency shift.
Rastegardoost teaches compensating for the same Doppler shift disclosed by the applicant in paragraph 20 of their spec (see paragraphs 155 and paragraph 164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the non-terrestrial communication network art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yao regarding compensation for conditions with the teachings of Rastegardoost regarding compensating for Doppler shift because such conditions could occur in the network shown of Yao.
Claim(s) 17 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0156646 by Yao et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0048297 by Lee et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0132622 by Ahn et al.
As to claims 17 and 28, the Yao-Lee combination teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 19; however Yao does not explicitly teach an association between the uplink signals and NB-IoT.
Ahn shows how uplink signals such as those taught by Yao could be associated with NB-IoT (paragraphs 65 and 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the non-terrestrial communication network art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Yao regarding uplink signals with the teachings of Ahn regarding associating such signals with NB-IoT because such an association allows for communication with more legacy devices (paragraph 79 of Ahn).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights