DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-29 were cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination, of which claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10, 12, 14, 18-19 were amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/31/2023 and 06/13/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected due to following errors:
In Fig.5 and Fig.6, element “803b” should be labeled as “TRP2”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121 (d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
Claims 8-9, 14, and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 (line 2), it is confusing and ambiguous for reciting “and/or” since it is unclear as to what is the intended claim limitation. For examination purpose, the term will be treated as “or” only.
Dependent claim 9 is also rejected for being dependent on rejected claim 8.
Claim 14 improperly depends on claim 11. It should be changed from depending on "claim 11" to "claim 12", so as to avoid broadening the limitation “TA is always valid”.
Claim 18 improperly depends on claim 16, which depends on claim 11. It is broadening the limitation “TA is always valid” of claim 11. Claim 16 should be changed from depending on "claim 11" to "claim 12”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 claim 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 1-2, 4, 8-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 20210400586 A1), hereinafter referred to as Awoniyi, in view of Kim et al. (US 20170048835 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1:
Awoniyi discloses a method performed by a communication device configured with a plurality of transmission configurations associated with one or more cells (method performed by user equipment {UE}, e.g., communication device, configured with transmission configuration indicator {TCI} state for multiple serving cells [0091], e.g., transmission configurations), each cell associated with one or more physical cell identities (physical cell identifier {PCI} [0071, lines 13-15), the method comprising:
receiving a signal for lower layer mobility, the signal comprising an indication of a transmission configuration to be activated from the plurality of transmission configuration (receiving parameter change message, e.g., signal, at either medium access control {MAC} layer or physical {PHY} layer, e.g., for lower layer mobility, associated with MAC control element {MAC-CE} including a TCI state activation [0091]).
Also, Awoniyi discloses the parameter change message comprises a timing advance for the PSCell [0151].
However, Awoniyi does not explicitly disclose in response to the indicated transmission configuration, determining if a timing advance, TA, is valid or invalid; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Kim’s disclosure as below.
Kim, from the same field of endeavor, discloses in response to the indicated transmission configuration, determining if a timing advance, TA, is valid or invalid (if TA information is received, UE verified validity of TA [0047, lines 1-9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether TA is valid or not valid; thus facilitating the setting up of uplink communications with an eNB [Kim 0047].
Regarding claim 2:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Awoniyi further discloses obtaining the plurality of transmission configurations (configured with transmission configuration indicator {TCI} state for multiple serving cells [0091]).
Regarding claim 4:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Awoniyi further discloses the indication comprises at least one transmission configuration indicator, TCI, state configuration (including a TCI state activation [0091]).
Regarding claim 8:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Awoniyi further discloses the signal for lower layer mobility comprises a layer 1, L1, and/or layer 2, L2, signal (parameter change message, e.g., signal, associated with either medium access control {MAC} layer or physical {PHY} layer, e.g., for lower layer mobility, [0091]).
Regarding claim 9:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 8, and –
Awoniyi further discloses the signal comprises a medium access control, MAC, control element (CE) (comprising MAC control element {MAC-CE} including a TCI state activation [0091]).
Regarding claim 10:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Awoniyi does not explicitly disclose, while Kim discloses determining if the TA is valid or invalid is based on a configuration comprising a TA validity indication (verifying if TA is valid or invalid based on time alignment timer {TAT}, e.g., validity indication [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to verify the validity of TA by using a TAT as indication for validity; thus efficiently transferring uplink data following uplink TA timing acquired [Kim 0069].
Regarding claim 12:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Awoniyi does not disclose, while Kim discloses determining if the TA is valid or invalid is based on a timer (if TA information is received, UE verified validity of TA [0047, lines 1-9]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether TA is valid or not valid; thus facilitating the setting up of uplink communications with an eNB [Kim 0047].
Regarding claim 13:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Awoniyi does not explicitly disclose, while Kim further discloses the timer is a time alignment timer (timer is a time alignment timer {TAT} for verifying validity of the TA [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether TA is valid or not valid; thus facilitating the setting up of uplink communications with an eNB [Kim 0047].
Regarding claim 14:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Awoniyi does not explicitly disclose, while Kim further discloses determining if the TA is valid or invalid based on a timer comprises determining that the TA is valid when the timer is running (TA is valid before expiry of TAT [0047]) and determining that the TA is invalid when the timer is not running (validity of TA is not guaranteed after expiry of TAT [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to base on TAT states, e.g., running or not running, to validate TA; thus being able to come to the decision whether to use or not use the configured TA.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao (US 20230096215 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cao.
Regarding claim 3:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 1, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose the plurality of transmission configurations comprise a plurality of cells and a plurality of transmission configuration indicator, TCI, state configurations; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Cao’s disclosure as below.
Cao, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the plurality of transmission configurations comprise a plurality of non-serving cells and a plurality of transmission configuration indicator, TCI, state configurations (configuring multiple uplink TCI states of multiple non-serving cells for UE [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the plurality of transmission configurations comprising a plurality of transmission configuration indicator, TCI, state configurations for a plurality of non-serving cells; thus enabling UE to properly emit uplinks [Cao 0094].
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 20230319591 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhou.
Regarding claim 5:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 4, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose the TCI state configuration comprises an association to a quasi collocation, QCL, configuration associated to a non-serving cell; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Zhou’s disclosure as below.
Zhou, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the TCI state configuration comprises an association to a quasi collocation, QCL, configuration associated to a non-serving cell (determining an uplink spatial relationship parameter, e.g., QCL, associated with uplink TCI state based on received communication from non-serving neighbor cell receiving communication from a non-serving neighbor cell [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine QCL assumptions associated with TCI state configuration for non-serving cell; thus performing efficient uplink transmission on specified beam/ resources based on uplink TCI state [Zhou 0233].
Regarding claim 6:
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Zhou discloses all limitations of claim 5, and
Awoniyi in view of Kim does not disclose, while Zhou further discloses the QCL configuration comprises an identification of a frequency and a physical cell identity, PCI (TCI comprises UL beam/ channel, e.g., associated with frequency, and PCI [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the QCL configuration comprising an identification of a frequency and PCI; thus facilitating efficient uplink transmission on specified beam/ frequency, PCI [Zhou 0233].
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim and Zhou, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20230188283 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu’83.
Regarding claim 7:
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Zhou discloses all limitations of claim 5, and
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Zhou does not explicitly disclose determining that the TA is invalid when the indicated TCI state has a QCL configuration associated to a non-serving cell; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Liu’83 disclosure as below.
Liu’83, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining that the TA is invalid when the indicated TCI state has a QCL configuration associated to a non-serving cell (cause inaccurate uplink timing, e.g., when TA is invalid, of UE in communication with a TRP not configured as a serving cell, e.g., non-serving cell, if using same TA of TAG associated with the serving cell [0056, lines 1-15] wherein in TAG is indicated in configuration information, e.g., TCI states, with their corresponding QCL types [0005 and 0072, lines 9-10]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine TA is invalid when TCI state has QCL configuration associated to a non-serving cell ; thus allowing to take actions such as configuring a separate TA value and hence a separate TAG for the UE to communicate with the intended cell [Liu’83 - 0068, lines 3543]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20220201636 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu’36.
Regarding claim 11:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 10, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim does not disclose the configuration comprises an indication that the TA is always valid; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Liu’36 disclosure as below.
Liu’36, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the configuration comprises an indication that the TA is always valid (being notified of TA being always valid by base station through signaling [0047].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive an indication that the TA being always valid; thus allowing UE to judge TA validation in order to determine channel type used to transmit uplink data [Liu 0044].
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim, as applied to claims 13 and 12 above, respectively, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 20140198762 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Regarding claim 15:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 13, and –
Awoniyi does not explicitly disclose, while Kim discloses when the timer for time alignment (determining TAT [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine whether TA is valid or not valid; thus facilitating the setting up of uplink communications with an eNB [Kim 0047].
Awoniyi in view of Kim do not further disclose the timer for time alignment is associated to a non-serving cell associated with the indicated transmission configuration; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Yang’s disclosure as below.
Yang teaches the timer for time alignment is associated to a non-serving cell associated with the indicated transmission configuration (time alignment timer is associated with cells being in inactive status, e.g., non-serving cell [0016, lines 1-2 and 11-12]).
Thus, it is obvious to determine the timer for time alignment being associated to a non-serving cell associated with the indicated transmission configuration; thus being able to decide when to trigger a random access procedure to a non-serving cell [Yang 0016].
Regarding claim 18:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 12, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose determining if the TA is valid or invalid is based on a timer comprises determining that the TA is valid when the TAG timer is running for the TAG and determining that the TA is invalid when the TAG timer is not running for the TAG; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Yang’s disclosure as below.
Yang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining if the TA is valid or invalid is based on a timer comprises determining that the TA is valid when the TAG timer is running for the TAG (considering time alignment of secondary cell group is still valid, when time alignment timer has not expired [0006]) and determining that the TA is invalid when the TAG timer is not running for the TAG (considering time alignment of the secondary cell group is invalid, when time alignment timer expires [0021, lines 11-12 and 16-18]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the TA is valid when the TAG timer is running for the TAG, and determine the TA is invalid when the TAG timer is not running for the TAG ; thus efficiently controlling uplink transmissions over cells Yang [0021].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim and Liu’36, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 16:
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Liu’36 discloses all limitations of claim 11, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Liu’36 does not disclose the timer is a time alignment group, TAG, timer associated to a target non-serving cell; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Yang’s disclosure as below.
Yang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the timer is a time alignment group, TAG, timer associated to a target non-serving cell (each time alignment group is configured with a Time Alignment Timer {TAT} of secondary cell group [0005] wherein the secondary cell configured in the group of secondary cells being in inactive status, e.g., target non-serving cell [0016, lines 1-2 and 10-12]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine TAG timer associated to a target non-serving cell; thus facilitating the determination of whether to transmit uplink data [Yang 0067].
Regarding claim 17:
Awoniyi in view of Kim, Liu’36, and Yang discloses all limitations of claim 16, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim, and Liu’36 does not disclose, while Yang further discloses TAG comprises a serving cell and a non-serving cell (comprising activated, e.g., serving cell, and inactive cells, e.g., non-serving cells [0018]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a TAG comprising a serving cell and a non-serving cell; thus facilitating the uplink transmission to a cell that is in active or inactive status [Yang 0067].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Chen (US 20210377892 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 19:
Awoniyi in view of Kim discloses all limitations of claim 4, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim does not disclose determining that the TA is valid or invalid is based on a timing difference of downlink reference signals in current TCI state configuration and the indicated TCI state configuration; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Chen’s disclosure as below.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining that the TA is valid or invalid is based on a timing difference of downlink reference signals in current TCI state configuration and the indicated TCI state configuration (obtaining uplink TA of neighboring cell based on downlink signal time difference [0280, lines 1-3], wherein downlink signal time difference is a time difference between receive time when terminal device receives a downlink reference signal from neighboring cell and receive time when the terminal device receives a downlink reference signal from serving cell [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the TA is valid or invalid based on a timing difference of downlink reference signals in current TCI state configuration and the indicated TCI state configuration; thus improving performance and communications efficiency between the terminal and neighboring cell by using a valid TA [Chen 0302].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi in view of Kim and Chen, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 20220304036 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang and Dinan (20130258958 A1), hereinafter referred to as Dinan.
Regarding claim 20:
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Chen discloses all limitations of claim 19, and –
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Chen does not disclose the current TCI state configuration is associated with a CORESET pool index x; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Zhang’s disclosure as below.
Zhang, from the same field of endeavor, discloses the current TCI state configuration is associated with a CORESET pool index x (TCI is associated with CORESETPoolIndex [0052, lines 6-11]).
Also, Zhang discloses that if both CORESETPoolIndex and physical cell ID are provided for a signal, the signals associated with the same CORESETPoolIndex may be associated with the same physical cell ID [0052, lines 21-28].
Thus, it would be obvious to identify the CORESET pool index sent in TCI state configuration, so as to be able to determine a cell of a plurality of cells configured form multi-TRP operation [Zhang 0152]).
Awoniyi in view of Kim and Chen and Zhang do not disclose determining if the TA is valid or invalid comprises determining that the TA is valid when the indicated TCI state configuration has a PCI that is the same as the PCI of the currenTCI state configuration; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Dinan’s disclosure as below.
Dinan, from the same field of endeavor, discloses determining if the TA is valid or invalid comprises determining that the TA is valid when the indicated TCI state configuration has a PCI that is the same as the PCI of the current TCI state configuration (creating a new TA value for new TAG [0039, lines 1-15] that is determined in a modified TAG configuration, e.g., current configuration, by adding/ configuring) a new SCell with same physical cell ID and frequency with {old} SCell, e.g., in indicated TCI state configuration [0037, lines 1-14]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the current TCI state configuration is associated with a CORESET pool index x, and wherein determining if the TA is valid or invalid comprises determining that the TA is valid when the indicated TCI state configuration has a PCI that is the same as the PCI of the current TCI state configuration; thus allowing uplink transmissions on CORESET assigned in uplink grant using an updated valid TA value [Dinan 0049].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cirik (US-20200137821-A1 [0398]), Farmanbar (US-20200100201-A [0044, 0068]), Flore (US-20080070578-A1 [ 0009]), Kung (US-20220078670-A1 [0591, 0602, 0617]), You (US-20230328745-A1 [0241, 0249]), and Zhang (US-20210219255-A1 [0048 ]) are all cited to show that determining if a timing advance {TA}, is valid or invalid, in response to the indicated transmission configurations assoc associated with one or more cells – would facilitate the setting up of uplink communications with a receiving device – similar to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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 A. Abaza 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 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
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights