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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example using measurement received from a mobile device, transmitting from the source relay node to a donor access node.
The apparatus and the method claim 1, 14 and 20 recites limitation, “receive configuration parameters comprising a validity duration of a satellite ephemeris; based on receiving the configuration parameters, start a timer associated with the validity duration; and in response to the timer associated with the validity duration of the satellite ephemeris running in a radio resource configuration (RRC) idle mode, transmit, in the RRC idle mode, an uplink signal via a preconfigured uplink resource (PUR)”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites receive configuration parameters; start a timer associated with the validity duration; and transmit, in the RRC idle mode, an uplink signal via a preconfigured uplink resource (PUR). The receiving configuration step and starting a timer and then transmitting step recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving and transmitting, etc. i.e., claim fails to recite the details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) clearly explains that the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-9, 13-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shrestha et al. Pub. No. US 20220321206 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Shrestha teaches a wireless device (Fig. 7 Unit 700, UE) comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 7 Unit 702 and Para 98, processor); and a memory storing instructions that (Fig. 7 Unit 704 having Unit 706, and Para 100 memory having instructions), when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to:
receive configuration parameters (Fig. 5 Step 504 and Para 77, 504 satellite 110 transmits the PUR configuration to the UE 115) a validity duration of a satellite ephemeris (Para 73, UE 115 may be configured to re-calculate the validation parameter by obtaining new or updated location information from the satellite i.e., epheremis data);
based on receiving the configuration parameters, start a timer associated with the validity duration (Para 81, the UE 115 may initiate the PUR configuration validation at action 510 based on a PUR configuration validation timer configuration. For example, in some aspects, the UE 115 may configure a timer with a duration according to the timer configuration. The UE 115 may determine whether the PUR configuration is valid upon an expiration of the timer. In one example, the UE 115 may receive the PUR configuration validation timer configuration, for example, from the BS 105, and determine whether the PUR configuration is valid based at least on the timer configuration); and in
response to the timer associated with the validity duration of the satellite ephemeris running in a radio resource configuration (RRC) idle mode, transmit, in the RRC idle mode, an uplink signal via a preconfigured uplink resource (PUR) (Para 83 and Fig. 5 Step 514, in response to the validation parameter satisfying the threshold and validating the PUR configuration, the UE 115 transmits UL data in a PUR occasion to the satellite 110. In some aspects, the UE 115 may transmit the UL data in a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) without performing a RACH procedure. Further, the UE 115 may transmit the UL data while in an idle mode. The PUR occasions may have a relatively large periodicity, such as 81.92 s or longer. The UE 115 may transmit the UL data based on the validation parameter determined in action 510, in some aspects. For example, the UE 115 may transmit the UL data based on a timing advance to compensate for the propagation delay, such that the BS 105 receives the UL data at the correct time associated with the PUR configuration i.e., response to the timer associated with the validity duration of the satellite ephemeris running in a radio resource configuration (RRC) idle mode, transmit, in the RRC idle mode, an uplink signal via a preconfigured uplink resource (PUR)).
Regarding Claim 2, Shrestha teaches wherein the configuration parameters comprise NTN-related parameters (Para 30).
Regarding Claim 3, Shrestha teaches wherein the NTN-related parameters comprise the satellite ephemeris (Para 73).
Regarding Claim 5, Shrestha teaches wherein the transmitting is further in response to a time alignment timer running (Para 30).
Regarding Claim 6, Shrestha teaches wherein the time alignment timer is a PUR-specific time alignment timer (Para 30).
Regarding Claim 7, Shrestha teaches wherein the time alignment timer and the timer associated with the validity duration are not the same (Para 30).
Regarding Claim 8, Shrestha teaches wherein the transmitting is further in response to a difference between a measured reference signal received power (RSRP) and a stored RSRP being less than a threshold (Para 70).
Regarding Claim 9, Shrestha teaches wherein the configuration parameters indicate the threshold (Para 82).
Regarding Claim 13, Shrestha teaches wherein the wireless device is in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Para 58).
Regarding Claim 14, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches a base station (Fig. 5 Unit BS 105 and Fig. 8 Unit 800) comprising: one or more processors (Fig. 8 Unit 802, processor); and a memory storing instructions that (Fig. 8 Unit 804 having instruction 806).
Regarding Claim 15, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 19, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 and further teaches Para 109, the memory 804 may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium) comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 8 Unit 802).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. Pub. No. US 20220321206 A1 in view of Chen et al. Pub. No. US 20240196348 A1.
Regarding Claim 4, Shrestha does not specifically teach wherein the wireless device is not uplink synchronized when the timer is not running.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches if the first terminal device cannot receive the system message in a connected state, after the first timer stops timing, the network device sends, to the first terminal device, the indication information used to update the first synchronization information. If the first terminal device receives the indication information, the first terminal device starts the first timer, and determines the common TA information and the location of the serving satellite based on the updated first synchronization information during running of the first timer. If the first terminal device receives no indication information, or the quantity of transmissions of the indication information is greater than or equal to the maximum quantity of transmissions, and the first terminal device is still in the connected state, the first terminal device determines that the uplink out-of-synchronization or the wireless link failure occurs, enters the idle state, and initiates the random access procedure, to obtain the updated first synchronization information (Para 214).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Shrestha in view of Chen so as to improve the communication reliability (See Chen Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, it has been rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming 35 USC 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art reference fails to teach the limitation of “wherein memory storing instructions further cause the wireless device to, in response to the timer not running, determine a timing alignment value to be invalid for a second transmission via a second preconfigured uplink resource”. These limitation in combination of other elements are neither found nor disclosed in prior art as a whole.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. Pub. No. US 20240314876 A1 - APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR IDLE MODE UPLINK TRANSMISSION IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Li et al. Pub. No. US 20240064851 A1 - MESSAGE TRANSMISSION VIA NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK
Huang et al. Pub. No. US 20230413364 A1 - METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR HANDLING VALIDITY TIMER FOR HANDOVER IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Krishnamurthy et al. Pub. No. US 20230135149 A1 - COMMON TIMING OFFSET SIGNALING IN A NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK
Cheng et al. Pub. No. US 20220232503 A1 - METHOD OF CHANNEL SCHEDULING FOR NARROWBAND INTERNET OF THINGS IN NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK AND USER EQUIPMENT USING THE SAME
Xu et al. Pub. No. US 20220224406 A1 - RECONFIGURED UPLINK RESOURCE (PUR) FOR NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORKS (NTN)
Tsai et al. Pub. No. US 20220086780 A1 - REPORTING USER EQUIPMENT SPECIFIC TIMING ADVANCE IN A NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORK
WO 2022036502 A1 - METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR UPLINK TIMING AND BEAM ADJUSTMENT WITH PRECONFIGURED UPLINK RESOURCES
WO 2020222180 A1 - ENHANCING TIMING ADVANCE VALIDITY IN PRECONFIGURED UPLINK RESOURCE FOR WIRELESS NETWORKS
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #94b R1- 1811697 Chengdu, China, October 8 - 12, 2018
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAR N SIVJI whose telephone number is (571)270-7462. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
NIZAR N. SIVJI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/NIZAR N SIVJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647