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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 14, 17, 18, 1, 4, 27, 30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,324 in view of Rajagopalan et al PG PUB 2018/0083694.
Re Claims 1, 2, 9, 10,16 and 17 of instant application, Claims 14, 1 and 27 of patent, recites “transmit a PUSCH associated with a RACH to a non-terrestrial network node; monitoring, after transmission with the RACH procedure and after a variable time period, PDCCH for a contention resolution message…wherein the variable time period is based at least in part on: a feeder link delay, a service link delay…”. Claims 14, 1 and 27 of patent fails to explicitly recite “receive a downlink message indicating a network-configured value;”. However, Rajagopalan et al teaches the UE receiving a RRC configuration (a downlink message) which includes HARQ timing information used to dynamically configure or adjust a HARQ timeline implemented by the UE [0101-0104]. Based on the received RRC configuration, the UE can monitor the PDCCH based on the configured/adjusted HARQ timeline to reduce latency [See figure 9]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have received the RRC configuration.
Re Claims 4, 12, 27 of instant application, See Claims 17, 4, 27 of patent.
Re Claims 5, 30 of instant application, See Claims 18, 30 of patent.
Re Claims 22, 23 of instant application, Claim 17 of patent recites “the service link delays (differential delays)” a beam between the UE and the non-terrestrial network node.
Re Claims 25, 26 of instant application, Rajagopalan et al teaches the dynamic HARQ RTT is adjusted based on changes in both feeder-link delay and service-link delay [0101] wherein the delays are calculated.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-13, 16-19, 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedin et al PG PUB 2022/0006514 in view of Rajagopalan et al PG PUB 2018/0083694.
Re Claims 1, 9 and 16, Sedin et al teaches satellite-based RAN in figure 4, UE 408 (a processor and memory) is coupled to the satellite 406 (a non-terrestrial node) via Service/access link and feeder link to the Gateway 404 [0084-0091] wherein the Contention resolution timer (window) is determined based on a variable amount of RTT value (time period). Prior to the RA triggered, the eNB transmits a RRC signaling (a downlink message) to configure the UE with UE-specific RTT/Offset (a network-configured value) [0091 0126]. Figure 5 teaches RACH procedure adapted for a satellite-based radio access network. After receiving the RRC signaling for the UE-specific RTT/Offset, step 500, a RA trigger as applied to figure 4, whereby the UE 408 can transmit a MSG3 510 (PUSCH) to the satellite 406 and after Offset by RTT/UE-specific RTT 512 (a variable time period), the UE performs monitoring for the PDCCH 514 for the MSG4 (a contention resolution message) during Mac- Contention Resolution (window) 514 after OFFSET by RTT/ 512/UE-specific RTT (a network-configured value).
Sedin fails to explicitly teach “the variable time period is based at least in part on: a feeder link delay, a service link delay and the network-configured value.”.
However, Rajagopalan et al teaches in figure 9, a UT receiving a RRC configuration message indicating a HARQ TI whereby a propagation delay (the variable time period) is based in part on: the Feeder link delay between the GW and SAT, a Service link delay between the SAT and UT and Dynamic HARQ RTT [0100-0104] wherein the UT adjusts the HARQ timeline based on the HARQ TI to reduce latency in the network. By combining the teachings, the RRC configuration message in Sedin can be modified to have determined the Offset of RTT based in part on: the feeder link, service link and the UE-specific RTT to reduce the latency in the RACH procedure over the satellite network. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have mitigated for the propagation delay (the variable time period) based on part on: the feeder link delay, the service link delay, and the configured UE specific RTT to reduce the latency in the RACH procedure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, Rajagopalan et al teaches the propagation delay is based on sum the feeder link delay and the service link delay [0101].
Re Claims 4, 12, 18, Sedin et al teaches the RAP window start time [0067] is based on in part on the propagation delay association with HARQ RTT value [0072].
Re Claim 5, Sedin et al teaches the RTT specific to the UE can be RRC configured [0106].
Re Claim 6, Sedin et al teaches the UE specific RTT (the network configure value) is based on the propagation delay [0124].
Re Claims 7, 13, 19, Rajagopalan et al teaches feeder link delay is based on the deployment type such as GEO, LEO deployment type [0004].
Re Claims 22, 23, Rajagopalan et al teaches in figure 9, the propagation delay (the variable time period) is based on Service link delay (differential delay) in a beam interval [0102] between the UE and Satellite [0101].
Re Claim 24, Sedin et al teaches the propagation delay (the variable time period) based in part on timing advance command [0106] for the MSG4 message (RAR message) of the RACH procedure, also See figure 7, whereby the UE adjusts RTT based on the timing advance command from the eNnodes.
Re Claims 25 and 26, Rajagopalan et al teaches calculating the feeder link delay and the service link delay [0101].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 9-13, 16-19, 22-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM 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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475