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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/23/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. “Kim” US 2020/0153500 in view of Hsieh et al. “Hsieh” US 2021/0297149.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Kim teaches a method and an apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine one or more timings for transmissions within a NTN and associated with a random access procedure based on a slot and a timing advance value (a terminal acquires timing advance (TA) values from a PRACH. This is for satellite (i.e. NTN) communication of data; Paragraph 189. To determine timing of transmission, the UE uses Lc_os (which represent a time difference) and v which indicates v slots. The terminal uses these values to determine when to perform a transmission; Paragraphs 142-143);
apply a configured slot offset to adjust the slot within the NTN (the terminal can use a time offset for a new transmission Paragraph 143. Further yet, paragraphs 150-157 show various timing advance commands with respect to adjustment of uplink transmission timings); and
perform at least one of the transmissions during the random access procedure based on the determined one or more transmission timings (the offset is applied for the transmission of messages for PRACH; Paragraph 143).
Kim does not expressly disclose adjusting a slot based on a slot offset to take into account RTT and applying a timing advance value to an UL transmission timing relative to the adjusted slot; however, Hsieh teaches NTN devices aligning timing between the base stations and UEs by setting slot offsets. The NTN device calculates both the TA (timing advance) value and slot number offset corresponding to the UE device such that delay is compensated which can include round trip delay; Paragraphs 124-125. The Timing advance value is applied to the UL transmissions to the NTN device; Paragraph 124. Thus one can see there is an offset for round trip delay timing and also an application of a TA to a UL transmission as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Kim to include adjusting transmission slots by a slot offset to take into account round trip time and applying a timing advance to UL transmission as taught by Hsieh.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can compensate for propagation delay in NTN devices as taught by Hsieh; paragraph 124.
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Kim teaches the messages include a PRACH preamble message that is retransmitted with the TA value for NTN (the offset is applied for the transmission of messages for PRACH; Paragraph 143. The time offset reflects the time different when retransmitting the PRACH; Paragraph 144).
Kim does not expressly disclose a timing advance value to take into account RTT for NTN; however, Hsieh teaches NTN devices aligning timing between the base stations and UEs by setting slot offsets. The NTN device calculates both the TA (timing advance) value and slot number offset corresponding to the UE device such that delay is compensated which can include round trip delay; Paragraphs 124-125.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Kim to include the TA value is applied to adjust for round trip time as taught by Hsieh.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can compensate for propagation delay in NTN devices as taught by Hsieh; paragraph 124.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches an apparatus, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine a slot offset to adjust for a time within a NTN and transmit the slot offset for communicating messages within the NTN wherein the transmission timings associated with a RACH are determined, based on a transmission slot and TA value, the slot adjusted by the slot offset to adjust for a time within the NTN (the terminal can use a time offset for a new transmission Paragraph 143. Further yet, paragraphs 150-157 show various timing advance commands with respect to adjustment of uplink transmission timings. A terminal acquires timing advance (TA) values from a PRACH. This is for satellite (i.e. NTN) communication of data; Paragraph 189); and
receive at least one transmission during the RACH based on the transmission timings (a terminal acquires timing advance (TA) values from a PRACH. This is for satellite (i.e. NTN) communication of data; Paragraph 189. To determine timing of transmission, the UE uses Lc_os (which represent a time different) and v which indicates v slots. The terminal uses these values to determine when to perform a transmission; Paragraphs 142-143
Kim does not expressly disclose adjusting a slot based on a slot offset to take into account RTT and applying a timing advance value to an UL transmission timing relative to the adjusted slot; however, Hsieh teaches NTN devices aligning timing between the base stations and UEs by setting slot offsets. The NTN device calculates both the TA (timing advance) value and slot number offset corresponding to the UE device such that delay is compensated which can include round trip delay; Paragraphs 124-125. The Timing advance value is applied to the UL transmissions to the NTN device; Paragraph 124. Thus one can see there is an offset for round trip delay timing and also an application of a TA to a UL transmission as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Kim to include adjusting transmission slots by a slot offset to take into account round trip time and applying a timing advance to UL transmission as taught by Hsieh.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the system can compensate for propagation delay in NTN devices as taught by Hsieh; paragraph 124.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 11, 12, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hsieh and further in view of Li US 2024/0314749.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, the prior art does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 3 and 10; however, Li teaches teaches the messages include a PUSCH that is sent in response to a RAR, wherein the slot is determined based on an ending slot of DL including scheduling for the PUSCH, time-domain scheduling and configured slot offset (a RAR is received and the UE determines the position of the PUSCH according to slot offset values, indication information and the DL slot number of the PDSCH (i.e. ending slot of DL). The information includes the time domain position for the uplink transmission; Paragraphs 140-141. Thus one can see the PUSCH is send in response to a RAR and the time scheduling information and slot offset is determined).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include the transmission slot being based on an endling slot of DL including time domain scheduling and configured slot offset as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine a time domain position of the PUSCH as taught by Li; Paragraph 140.
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Kim teaches the TA value is equal to NT1 + NT2 + 0.5ms (Paragraph 18). The prior art does not expressly disclose the PUSCH is a transmission scheduled by RAR UL grant included in the RAR however, Li teaches the PUSCH is a transmission scheduled by a UL grant in the RAR (a RAR is received and the UE determines the position of the PUSCH according to slot offset values, indication information and the DL slot number of the PDSCH (i.e. ending slot of DL). The information includes the time domain position for the uplink transmission; Paragraphs 140-141. The RAR contains a UL grant which indicates when the PUSCH is transmit; Paragraph 86).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include the PUSCH transmission is scheduled by a UL grant in the RAR as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE can determine a time domain position of the PUSCH as taught by Li; Paragraph 140.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the PRACH is transmit with a TA based on a common signaled information (RACH-ConfigCommon IE; Paragraph 121, Figure 5).
The prior art does not expressly state this information is common TA information; however, Li teaches the network broadcasts common TA values based on round trip information; Paragraphs 78-79.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include common TA values as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that when a terminal doesn’t have initial TA compensation capability, the terminal can be indicated the TA value from the network as taught by Li; Paragraph 78.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not teach monitoring a PDCCH on an occasion of a UE specific search space until a first time instance during the RACH; however, Li teaches a terminal monitors a PDCCH in a search space within a RAR time window; Paragraph 71, see also Figure 2 which is performing RACH.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include monitoring the PDCCH for UE specific search space until a first time instance during RACH as taught by Li.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a RAR can be properly received as taught by Li; Paragraph 71.
Claim(s) 5, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hsieh and further in view of Kim US2021/0360610 hereinafter “Kim-1”.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the prior art does not disclose the message includes a HARQ-ACK in response to a successRAR wherein the slot is determined based on a slot of a PDSCH with successRAR, PDSCH-to-HARQ feedback timing in the successRAR and configured slot offset; however, Kim-1 teaches that a RAR is classified into a successRAR which includes information regarding the resources used by the terminal to send the HARQ-ACK. The resource is with respect to the PDCH (i.e. downlink channel). The successRAR also includes information on slot offset for feedback timing; Paragraphs 737-739.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include the successRAR and corresponding information of the claims as taught by Kim-1.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the UE knows what resources to use for transmission of HARQ-ACK as taught by Kim-1; Paragraph 739.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hsieh and further in view of Zhang et al. “Zhang” US 2015/0237648.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach initiating random access for expiry of an UL timing alignment timer in response to the arrival of uplink data; however, Zhang teaches a RACH is sent to the base station when time alignment timer expires and UL data arrives; Paragraph 131 see Figure 6 step 190. Thus one can see the RACH is initiated in response to the UL data being received/arriving.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include initiating RACH for timer expiration in response to UL received data as taught by Zhang.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that UL signaling can be controlled thus reducing the sending of useless UL signals as taught by Zhang; Paragraph 134.
Claim(s) 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Hsieh and further in view of Zhang in view of Hu et al. “Hu” US 2020/0170063.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art does not teach initiating RACH in response to SR failures; however, Hu teaches one or more SRs fails and the system can initiate the RACH procedure on a default BWP; Paragraph 72.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include initiating RACH in response to SR failures as taught by Hu.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the RACH procedure can be initiated on a default BWP as taught by Hu; Paragraph 72.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not teach sending a SR on an active UL BWP in response to a start time with the TA value applied prior to expiry of a timing alignment timer; however, Hu teaches initiating sending a SR on a BWP before a timer expires; Paragraphs 65 and 72. Thus the timing information is applied prior to the expiration of a timer as claimed.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include sending SR on a BWP prior to the expiration of a timer as taught by Hu.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the BWP selection process can be completed before the timer expires as taught by Hu; Paragraph 65.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 14, 20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues the prior art doesn’t teach the amended limitations because the prior art does not teach slot-level adjustments. In particular, Applicant argues Kim is directed to fixed slot structures in as used in terrestrial networks. Applicant further argues Hsieh teaches UL scheduling and timing coordination relative to predefined slot structures and does not teach the claimed separation between slot determination and UL timing adjustment. Kim merely applies TA and Hsieh doesn’t modify the slot boundaries.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hsieh expressly teaches, in paragraph 124, that the NTN device calculates the timing advance (TA) value and a slot number offset such that the delay is compensated for. In particular, the TA value may be equal to the round-trip signal delay and the TA value is applied to the UL transmission. Thus, one can see there is both a slot offset and a TA value (separate two step process) wherein the TA value is applied to UL transmission with respect to round trip delay in the system. Therefore, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm EST.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights