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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 6, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Go in view of You and Guo do not disclose “determining that the first TAT not running and that the second TAT not running; in response to the determining: applying the TAC for both: the first TAG to determine a first timing advance (TA) value; and the second TAG to determine a second TA value.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previously cited portions of Go in view of You disclose applying a TAC if a TAT is not running, but ignoring the TAC if the TAT is running. Go in view of You do not disclose multiple TAGs and TATs, but Gou discloses this in paragraph 92, and thus in combination Go in view of You and Guo disclose all the features of the instant claim.
Examiner emphasizes that there is no substantial difference between the instant claim language where the determining and applying for each TAT is done as part of the same limitation, and claim language where the determining and applying for each TAT is done in separate limitations (i.e. “determining that the first TAT not running; in response to determining that the first TAT not running: applying the TAC for the first TAG to determine a first timing advance (TA) value; determining that the second TAT not running; in response to determining that the second TAT not running: applying the TAC for the second TAG to determine a second TA value”). The claim language does not require that determinations for both TATs occur before either TAC application, nor that if either TAT was running that it would require that the TAC not be applied for either TAG.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go (US 20250151063 A1) in view of You (US 20220053570 A1) and further in view of Guo (US 20250048294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Go discloses:
“A method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, configuration parameters indicating: a first time alignment timer (TAT) for a first timing advance group (TAG) of a cell; and a second TAT for a second TAG of the cell;” ([para 0202]: “The UE may receive configuration information related to the serving cell from the base station (S1010).” ; [para 0203]: “Here, configuration information related to the serving cell may include information about a plurality of timing advance groups (TAGs) associated with the serving cell.” ; [para 0146]: “ Additionally, the timeAlignmentTimer field (parameter) indicates the timealignmenttimer value ([ms]) for the TAG with tag-Id.”)
“receiving a random access response (RAR) comprising a timing advance command (TAC)…” ([para 0314]: “As another example, control information (e.g., random access response or TA command MAC CE) may include a TA command for each TAG, and the TA command for each TAG may individually indicate a TA value (e.g., NTA value) used to control uplink timing adjustment.”)
“…starting the first TAT; and” ([para 0158-0161]: “The MAC entity shall: 1> when a Timing Advance Command MAC CE is received and if an N.sub.TA has been maintained with the indicated TAG; 2> apply the Timing Advance Command for the indicated TAG; 2> start or restart the timeAlignmentTimer associated with the indicated TAG…”)
“…transmitting, via the cell: a first uplink signal based on the first TA value of the first TAG; and a second uplink signal based on a second TA value of the second TAG.” ([para 01030]: “The UE may perform at least one of first uplink transmission or second uplink transmission based on at least one of the first indication information or the second indication information (S1030).”)
Go also discloses that TAT are associated with respective TAGs ([para 0156-0157]: “The following parameters may be configured for maintenance of UL time alignment by RRC signaling for the UE: timeAlignmentTimer (per TAG) which controls how long the MAC entity considers the Serving Cells belonging to the associated TAG to be uplink time aligned…”)
Go does not explicitly disclose “determining that the first TAT not running and that the second TAT not running; in response to the determining: applying the TAC for both: the first TAG to determine a first timing advance (TA) value; and the second TAG to determine a second TA value: and starting both the first TAT and the second TAT.”
However, You discloses the missing feature “in response to… the… TAT not running… applying the TAC … and starting… the.. TAT…” (para 0135]: “Optionally, when receiving the TA command, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command. For example, if the TAT is running, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Go and You, to modify the application of TAC as disclosed by Go, to only occur if the TAT for the TAG is running as disclosed by You. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents transmission misalignment, thus decreasing errors and improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Go with You to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
You does not explicitly disclose the applying the TAC to two separate TAGs.
However, Guo disclose the missing feature applying the TAC to two separate TAGs ([para 0092]: “In this way, the UE 120 can use a single timing advance command (T.sub.TA1) to determine transmissions to both the first TRP and the second TRP (e.g., by deriving a second timing advance command T.sub.TA2 using the timing advance offset value)… In this way, the UE 120 reuses the timing advance offset value across carriers and across TAGs.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Go, You, and Guo to modify the application of TAC as disclosed by Go, such that the same TAC is used for multiple TAGs as disclosed by Guo. The motivation for doing so is that it increases efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Go with You and Guo to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go does not disclose “ignoring the TAC for the second TAG by not applying the TAC for the second TAG.”
However, You discloses the missing feature “ignoring the TAC for the second TAG by not applying the TAC for the second TAG.” (para 0135]: “Optionally, when receiving the TA command, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command. For example, if the TAT is running, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Go and You, to modify the application of TAC as disclosed by Go, to only occur if the TAT for the TAG is running as disclosed by You. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents transmission misalignment, thus decreasing errors and improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Go with You to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go further discloses “wherein the cell is a special cell.” ([para 0143]: “The TAG containing the SpCell of the MAC entity is referred to as the primary TAG (PTAG: Primary Timing Advance Group), while the secondary TAG (STAG: Secondary Timing Advance Group) refers to other TAGs.”)
Regarding claim 4, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go further discloses “wherein the RAR is a message B (MsgB).” ([para 0162]: “When a Timing Advance Command is received in a Random Access Response message for a serving cell belonging to a TAG or in a Message B (MSGB) for an SpCell…”)
Regarding claim 5, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go does not disclose “maintaining the second TAT.”
However, You discloses the missing feature “maintaining the second TAT.” (para 0135]: “Further, the terminal device may perform uplink transmission by using the TA value maintained by the terminal device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Go and You, to modify the application of TAC as disclosed by Go, to only occur if the TAT for the TAG is running as disclosed by You. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents transmission misalignment, thus decreasing errors and improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Go with You to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go further discloses “receiving second configuration parameters indicating: a third TAT for a third TAG of a second cell; and a fourth TAT for a fourth TAG of the second cell;” ([para 0202]: “The UE may receive configuration information related to the serving cell from the base station (S1010).” ; [para 0203]: “Here, configuration information related to the serving cell may include information about a plurality of timing advance groups (TAGs) associated with the serving cell.” ; [para 0146]: “ Additionally, the timeAlignmentTimer field (parameter) indicates the timealignmenttimer value ([ms]) for the TAG with tag-Id.”)
“receiving, a second RAR comprising a second TAC; and…([para 0314]: “As another example, control information (e.g., random access response or TA command MAC CE) may include a TA command for each TAG, and the TA command for each TAG may individually indicate a TA value (e.g., NTA value) used to control uplink timing adjustment.”)
Go does not disclose “ignoring the second TAC in response to both: the third TAT running; and the fourth TAT running.”
However, You discloses the missing feature “ignoring the second TAC in response to both: the third TAT running; and the fourth TAT running.” (para 0135]: “Optionally, when receiving the TA command, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command. For example, if the TAT is running, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Go and You, to modify the application of TAC as disclosed by Go, to only occur if the TAT for the TAG is running as disclosed by You. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents transmission misalignment, thus decreasing errors and improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Go with You to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go further discloses “receiving third configuration parameters indicating: a fifth TAT for a fifth TAG of a third cell; and a sixth TAT for a sixth TAG of the third cell;” ([para 0202]: “The UE may receive configuration information related to the serving cell from the base station (S1010).” ; [para 0203]: “Here, configuration information related to the serving cell may include information about a plurality of timing advance groups (TAGs) associated with the serving cell.” ; [para 0146]: “ Additionally, the timeAlignmentTimer field (parameter) indicates the timealignmenttimer value ([ms]) for the TAG with tag-Id.”)
“receiving, a third RAR comprising a third TAC; and…” ([para 0314]: “As another example, control information (e.g., random access response or TA command MAC CE) may include a TA command for each TAG, and the TA command for each TAG may individually indicate a TA value (e.g., NTA value) used to control uplink timing adjustment.”)
Go does not disclose “applying the third TAC for both the fifth TAG and the sixth TAG in response to both: the fifth TAT not running; and the sixth TAT not running.”
However, You discloses the missing feature “applying the third TAC for both the fifth TAG and the sixth TAG in response to both: the fifth TAT not running; and the sixth TAT not running.” (para 0135]: “Optionally, when receiving the TA command, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command. For example, if the TAT is running, the terminal device may ignore, discard, or skip using the TA command.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Go and You, to modify the application of TAC as disclosed by Go, to only occur if the TAT for the TAG is running as disclosed by You. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents transmission misalignment, thus decreasing errors and improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Go with You to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Go in view of You and Guo discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Go further discloses “starting both: the fifth TAT; and the sixth TAT.” ([para 0158-0161]: “The MAC entity shall: 1> when a Timing Advance Command MAC CE is received and if an N.sub.TA has been maintained with the indicated TAG; 2> apply the Timing Advance Command for the indicated TAG; 2> start or restart the timeAlignmentTimer associated with the indicated TAG…”)
Claims 9-16 are substantially similar to claims 1-8 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-8 are directed towards a method while claims 9-16 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Go in paragraph 327. Thus, claims 9-16 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-8.
Claims 17-20 are substantially similar to claims 1-4 with the differences amounting to that claims 1-4 are directed towards a method while claims 17-20 are directed towards a generic non-transitory computer-readable medium. Such a medium is taught by Go in paragraph 333. Thus, claims 17-20 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights