DETAILED ACTION
This office action response the amendment application on 10/28/2025.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21 are presented for examination.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 28 October, 2025. No Claims have been amended. Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-21 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Arguments (Claims 1, 8, and 15)
Applicant argues on pages 7–11 of the Remarks that JIANG et al. (EP4319371A1 / US 2024/0373419, hereinafter “D1”) in view of JIA et al. (WO 2022151110 A1, hereinafter “D2”) fails to teach or suggest the limitation concerning receiving a TA report configuration with a true/false parameter for triggering a Scheduling Request (SR), determining whether a TA report (TAR) is triggered and not canceled, and further determining whether uplink resources accommodate a TAR MAC CE based on Logical Channel Prioritization (LCP). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the outset, Applicant is reminded that claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The applied prior art need not disclose the claimed elements in ipsissimis verbis, but only teach or reasonably suggest them. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Mapping to D1 (JIANG et al.)
As to the limitation of “receiving a timing advance (TA) report configuration comprising a parameter set to either true or false to indicate whether to trigger a scheduling request (SR)”, D1 discloses receiving indication information for performing TA reporting transmitted by the network, wherein triggering conditions may be preset or configured by the network ([0067], [0096]; EP [0052–0054]). D1 further teaches that SR triggering depends on DRX state (active/inactive), which inherently corresponds to a true/false parameter controlling whether SR is triggered ([0060], [0069–0071], [0160–0161]; EP [0054], [0089]). Thus, D1 reasonably teaches a configurable binary parameter for SR triggering.
Regarding “determining whether at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled”, D1 explicitly discloses that the UE may trigger TA reporting, delay it, or cancel it depending on conditions ([0060]; EP [0036]). This directly maps to determining whether a TAR has been triggered and not canceled.
For the limitation of “in a case that the TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether uplink resources are available”, D1 teaches performing TA reporting when uplink resources are available ([0071]; EP [0035]) and canceling TA reporting when no uplink resources are available ([0074]; EP [0067]).
D1 further discloses that TA may be reported via a MAC Control Element and that uplink resource allocation is governed by logical channel priority ([0091], [0093], [0205]; EP [0086]). The TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation is disclosed in [0026] (EP [0019]), which teaches pre-compensation by the UE and adjustment of TA by the network.
Finally, D1 teaches “determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the parameter in the TA report configuration is set to true” when the UE enters DRX ON (active time) ([0200–0201]; EP [0177–0182]).
Claim Mapping to D2 (JIA et al.)
D2 further teaches determining whether uplink resources accommodate a MAC CE and its subheader based on Logical Channel Prioritization (page 2, lines [0030–0035]). D2 discloses that when uplink resources are available and the LCP result allows accommodation of the MAC CE plus subheader, the transmission proceeds; otherwise, it does not. This directly supports the claimed determination of whether uplink resources can accommodate a TAR MAC CE and its subheader as a result of LCP.
In Conclusion, In combination, D1 and D2 teach or reasonably suggest all disputed limitations, including: (1) a configurable true/false parameter for SR triggering, (2) determining whether a TAR is triggered and not canceled, (3) evaluating uplink resource availability and LCP accommodation of a TAR MAC CE and subheader, and (4) triggering SR based on the parameter setting when resources are insufficient.
The combination is proper under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), as both references address uplink resource management and MAC CE reporting in cellular systems and would have been logically combined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained.
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.
Claims 1, 4,6-8, 11, 13-15, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JIANG et al. (EP4319371A1) or (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20240373419), will be cited for convince, (“D1”, hereinafter), in view of JIA et al. (WO 2022151110 A1), hereinafter “D2”
As per Claim 1, D1 discloses a method performed by a User Equipment (UE) ([see, [0054-0055], (EP [0048-0049]) and Fig. 1, methods related to the TA reporting performed by the terminal, wherein the terminal may be served as a user equipment (UE)]), the method comprising:
receiving a timing advance (TA) report configuration ([see, [0067], (EP [0054]), terminal receives the network indication to perform the TA reporting]);
determining whether at least one TA report (TAR) has been triggered and not
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose:
in a case that the at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether at least one uplink resource is available for a new transmission, and the at least one uplink resource accommodates a TAR Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) and a subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of a logical channel prioritization (LCP), the TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation applied by the UE; and in a case that no uplink resource is available for the new transmission, or the at least one uplink resource available for the new transmission does not accommodate the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP, determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the
However, D2 discloses a determining whether at least one TA report (TAR) has been not canceled ([see, page 28, lines 30-37, triggers a scheduling request (SR) for TRP-specific beam failure recovery for each TRP that triggers BFR and does not cancel]); and
in a case that the at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether at least one uplink resource is available for a new transmission ([see, page 28, lines 25-35], triggers a scheduling request (SR) for TRP-specific beam failure recovery for each TRP that triggers BFR and does not cancel; determine the uplink resources are available for a new transmission)];
the at least one uplink resource accommodates a TAR Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) and a subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of a logical channel prioritization (LCP) ([see, page 25, lines [10-20], when the uplink resource is available for a new transmission and the result of LCP is that the uplink resource can accommodate the Truncated BFR MAC CE plus its subheader]),
the TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation applied by the UE ([see, page 52, lines 1-25, a value of 1 bit in the MAC CE indicates that the beam failure detection or trigger beam failure is detected at the transmission and reception point corresponding to the beam failure detection reference signal set (BFD-RS set) with index 0]); and
in a case that no uplink resource is available for the new transmission, or
the at least one uplink resource available for the new transmission does not accommodate the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP ([see, page 28, lines [25-35], when there are no uplink resources available for a new transmission, or if uplink resources are available for a new transmission and if the result of the LCP is that the TRP-specific beam fails to recover the MAC CE plus its subheader]), and
determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the
. In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide measures as the cell beam and generating and reporting beam failure information results enhanced the efficiency of the network, and avoiding waste of resources (D2, page 5, lines 5-10]).
As per Claim 8, D1 discloses a User Equipment (UE) ([see, [0054-0055], (EP [0048-0049]) and Fig. 1, a user equipment (UE)]), comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media ([see, [0215], (EP [0197]), a processor; and a memory for storing processor-executable instructions]),
the at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to:
receive a timing advance (TA) report configuration ([see, [0067], (EP [0054]), terminal receives the network indication to perform the TA reporting]);
determine whether at least one TA report (TAR) has been triggered and not canceled ([see, [0043, 0067], (EP [0036]), the TA reporting is triggered multiple times in the terminal, previous triggers may be cancelled after the TA reporting is completed once]);
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose:
in a case that the at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether at least one uplink resource is available for a new transmission, and the at least one uplink resource accommodates a TAR Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) and a subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of a logical channel prioritization (LCP), the TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation applied by the UE; and in a case that no uplink resource is available for the new transmission, or the at least one uplink resource available for the new transmission does not accommodate the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP, determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the
However, D2 discloses a 28, lines 30-37, triggers a scheduling request (SR) for TRP-specific beam failure recovery for each TRP that triggers BFR and does not cancel]); and
in a case that the at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether at least one uplink resource is available for a new transmission ([see, page 28, lines 25-35], triggers a scheduling request (SR) for TRP-specific beam failure recovery for each TRP that triggers BFR and does not cancel; determine the uplink resources are available for a new transmission)];
the at least one uplink resource accommodates a TAR Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) and a subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of a logical channel prioritization (LCP) ([see, page 25, lines [10-20], when the uplink resource is available for a new transmission and the result of LCP is that the uplink resource can accommodate the Truncated BFR MAC CE plus its subheader]),
the TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation applied by the UE ([see, page 52, lines 1-25, a value of 1 bit in the MAC CE indicates that the beam failure detection or trigger beam failure is detected at the transmission and reception point corresponding to the beam failure detection reference signal set (BFD-RS set) with index 0]); and
in a case that no uplink resource is available for the new transmission, or
the at least one uplink resource available for the new transmission does not accommodate the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP ([see, page 28, lines [25-35], when there are no uplink resources available for a new transmission, or if uplink resources are available for a new transmission and if the result of the LCP is that the TRP-specific beam fails to recover the MAC CE plus its subheader]), and
determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the
. In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide measures as the cell beam and generating and reporting beam failure information results enhanced the efficiency of the network, and avoiding waste of resources (D2, page 5, lines 5-10]).
As per Claims 4, 11, D1 further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to: in a case that the parameter is set to true, trigger the SR ([see, [0061, 0064, 0069], (EP [0057]), and Fig. 1, in the case that the terminal determines that the change amount of the current TA is greater than the threshold value, the scheduling request is triggered in response to no available resource for reporting the TA]).
As per Claims 6, 13, D1 further discloses wherein the TAR MAC CE is associated with one of the at least one TAR that has been triggered and not([see, [0043, 0067], (EP [0036]), the TA reporting is triggered multiple times in the terminal, previous triggers may be cancelled after the TA reporting is completed once]).
As per Claims 7, 14, D1 further discloses wherein the UE operates in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) ([see, [0026], (EP [0019]), transmit the TA to the terminal so that the terminal performs uplink synchronization based on the TA. However, in an NTN]).
As per Claim 15, D1 discloses a Base Station (BS) ([see, [0026], a base station disclosed]), comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions ([see, [0215], (EP [0197]), a processor; and a memory for storing processor-executable instructions]); and
at least one processor coupled to the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, the at least one processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the BS to:
transmit a timing advance (TA) report configuration to a User Equipment (UE), the TA report configuration ([see, [0026], a base station may configure a timing advance (TA) for a terminal and transmit the TA to the terminal]),
the TA report configuration causing the UE to:
determine whether at least one TA report (TAR) has been triggered and not canceled ([see, [0043, 0067], (EP [0036]), the TA reporting is triggered multiple times in the terminal, previous triggers may be cancelled after the TA reporting is completed once]);
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose:
in a case that the at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether at least one uplink resource is available for a new transmission, and the at least one uplink resource accommodates a TAR Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) and a subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of a logical channel prioritization (LCP), the TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation applied by the UE; and in a case that no uplink resource is available for the new transmission, or the at least one uplink resource available for the new transmission does not accommodate the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP, determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the
However, D2 discloses a
in a case that the at least one TAR has been triggered and not canceled, determining whether at least one uplink resource is available for a new transmission ([see, page 28, lines 25-35], triggers a scheduling request (SR) for TRP-specific beam failure recovery for each TRP that triggers BFR and does not cancel; determine the uplink resources are available for a new transmission)];
the at least one uplink resource accommodates a TAR Media Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) and a subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of a logical channel prioritization (LCP) ([see, page 25, lines [10-20], when the uplink resource is available for a new transmission and the result of LCP is that the uplink resource can accommodate the Truncated BFR MAC CE plus its subheader]),
the TAR MAC CE comprising an amount of TA pre-compensation applied by the UE ([see, page 52, lines 1-25, a value of 1 bit in the MAC CE indicates that the beam failure detection or trigger beam failure is detected at the transmission and reception point corresponding to the beam failure detection reference signal set (BFD-RS set) with index 0]); and
in a case that no uplink resource is available for the new transmission, or
the at least one uplink resource available for the new transmission does not accommodate the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP ([see, page 28, lines [25-35], when there are no uplink resources available for a new transmission, or if uplink resources are available for a new transmission and if the result of the LCP is that the TRP-specific beam fails to recover the MAC CE plus its subheader]), and
determining whether to trigger the SR based on whether the
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide measures as the cell beam and generating and reporting beam failure information results enhanced the efficiency of the network, and avoiding waste of resources (D2, page 5, lines 5-10]).
As per Claim 18, D1 and D2 disclose the BS of claim 15, and D1 further discloses wherein in a case that the parameter is set to true, the TA report configuration further causes the UE to: trigger the SR ([see, [0061, 0064, 0069], (EP [0057]), and Fig. 1, in the case that the terminal determines that the change amount of the current TA is greater than the threshold value, the scheduling request is triggered in response to no available resource for reporting the TA]).
As per Claim 19, D1 and D2 disclose the BS of claim 15, and D1 appears to be silent to the instant claim, however D2 discloses wherein in a case that the at least one uplink resource is available for the new transmission and the at least one uplink resource accommodates the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as the result of the LCP ([see, page 28, lines [25-35], when there are no uplink resources available for a new transmission, or if uplink resources are available for a new transmission and if the result of the LCP is that the TRP-specific beam fails to recover the MAC CE plus its subheader]),
the TA report configuration further causes the UE to:
instruct a multiplexing and assembly entity to generate the TAR MAC CE ([see, page 23, lines (15-20), the medium access control (MAC) entity of the terminal device instructs the multiplexing and assembly process to generate a TRP-specific MAC CE]).
. In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D2. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide measures as the cell beam and generating and reporting beam failure information results enhanced the efficiency of the network, and avoiding waste of resources (D2, page 5, lines 5-10]).
As per Claim 20, D1 discloses the BS of claim 15, and D1 further discloses wherein the TAR MAC CE is associated with one of the at least one TAR that has been triggered and not.
Claims 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, and further in view of Babaei et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0215870), hereinafter "D3”).
As per Claim 5, D1 and D2 disclose the method of claim 1, and D1 further discloses further comprising: in a case of determining that the at least one uplink resource is available for the new transmission and the at least one uplink resource accommodates the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of LCP ([see, [0091-0093, 0097, 0205], (EP [0084-0087]), wherein determining the priority, the base station may allocate an uplink resource to the TA according to the logical channel priority of the TA and the logical channel priority of the other information, and also a logical channel priority of a TA to be transmitted is determined and the terminal may report the TA via a MAC CE, and the TA may have a corresponding logical channel]).
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: instructing a multiplexing and assembly procedure to generate the TAR MAC CE.
However, D3 discloses instructing a multiplexing and assembly procedure to generate the TAR MAC CE ([see, [0223], wherein a logical channel or MAC CE may be configured for the wireless device by the base station, the logical channel prioritization procedure may allocate the uplink resources to one or more first logical channels in one or more MAC Control Elements, the MAC layer at the wireless device may multiplex one or more MAC CEs]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide accurate timing advance results improved uplink resource utilization with reduced interference (D3, ¶ [0651]).
As per Claim 12, D1 discloses the UE of claim 8, and D1 further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the UE to in a case of determining that the at least one uplink resource is available for the new transmission and the at least one uplink resource accommodates the TAR MAC CE and the subheader of the TAR MAC CE as a result of LCP ([see, [0091-0093, 0097, 0205], (EP [0084-0087]), wherein determining the priority, the base station may allocate an uplink resource to the TA according to the logical channel priority of the TA and the logical channel priority of the other information, and also a logical channel priority of a TA to be transmitted is determined and the terminal may report the TA via a MAC CE, and the TA may have a corresponding logical channel]).
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: instruct a multiplexing and assembly procedure to generate the TAR MAC CE.
However, D3 discloses instruct a multiplexing and assembly procedure to generate the TAR MAC CE ([see, [0223], wherein a logical channel or MAC CE may be configured for the wireless device by the base station, the logical channel prioritization procedure may allocate the uplink resources to one or more first logical channels in one or more MAC Control Elements, the MAC layer at the wireless device may multiplex one or more MAC CEs]).
In view of the above, having the system of D1 and then given the well-established teaching of D3, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the system of D1 as taught by D3. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide accurate timing advance results improved uplink resource utilization with reduced interference (D3, ¶ [0651]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU D BELETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm, Alt. Friday, and EDT.
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, JEONG, MOO R. can be reached on (571) 272-9617. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERHANU D BELETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/WUTCHUNG CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418