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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
3. Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11, 13-15, 18-21, 24-25 and 29-31 are amended. Claims 1-30 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 4/9/2026, with regards to claims 1-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant asserts that the combination of Wigard and Charbit does not teach or suggest: “receive first signaling indicating a first part of a scheduling offset associated with a common timing advance (TA); receive second signaling indicating a second part of the scheduling offset, the second signaling being separate from the first signaling”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard, teaches adjusting the timing advance (TA) of the non-terrestrial networking (NTN) scheduled delay. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the network node may determine a reference delay for a cell. For example, the network node may determine a reference delay for its cell coverage area. The network node may calculate a service link common delay. The network node may calculate the service link common delay based on an orbit of a satellite and a reference surface as a function of time. The network node may calculate a feeder link delay. The network node may calculate the feeder link delay based on the orbit of the satellite and a position of the network node as a function of time. The UE may receive, information that identifies the service link common delay and/or the feeder link delay (and/or that identifies a delay difference associated with the service link common delay or the feeder link delay) [Link common delay or the feeder link delay are received by the UE in a first signal] (See Wigard; Par. [42]-[48] and Fig. 1)
On the other hand, Charbit teaches, As illustrated in Fig. 5, the UE receives, from the network side, a DCI indicating an NTN offset for a scheduling delay. The network side adjust the NTN offset for a scheduling delay. Then the UE receives a second signaling, in response to adjusting the NTN offset, a DCI indicating the adjusted NTN offset [Therefore, the UE 110 receives a DCI indicating the adjusted non-terrestrial networking (NTN) offset. DCI transmitted at step 620 indicating the adjusted NTN offset is different from the DCI transmitted at step 510 that indicates configured (NTN) offset for a scheduling delay, ad also different from first signaling [Link common delay or the feeder link delay] disclosed in Wigard] (See Charbit; Par. [46]-[48], [54]-[56] and Fig. 5 & 6)
Therefore, and for the reasons set above, the combination of Wigard and Charbit teaches the claimed invention. The rejection of claims 1-30 is sustained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
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.
5. Claims 1-10, 13-24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0273717 A1) in view of Charbit et al. (US. Pub. No. 2020/0295824 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wigard discloses an apparatus for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE) (See Wigard; Fig. 8B; UE 20), comprising: at least one memory (See Wigard; Fig. 8B; Memory 24) and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (See Wigard; Fig. 8B; Processor 22), and configured to cause the apparatus to:
receive first signaling indicating a first part of a scheduling offset associated with a common timing advance (TA) (See Par. [34], [41]-[44], [52] and Fig. 1 of Wigard for a reference to receiving, by the UE, from the network node, information identifying the service link common delay [offset] associated with the common timing advance (TA));
Wigard does not explicitly disclose receive second signaling indicating a second part of the scheduling offset, the second signaling being separate from the first signaling; transmit an uplink transmission based on the first and second parts of the scheduling offset.
However, Charbit discloses receive second signaling indicating a second part of the scheduling offset, the second signaling being separate from the first signaling (See Par. [46], [54]-[56] and Fig. 5 & 6 of Charbit for a reference the UE 110 receives a DCI indicating the adjusted non-terrestrial networking (NTN) offset. DCI transmitted at step 620 indicating the adjusted NTN offset is different from the DCI transmitted at step 510 that indicates configured (NTN) offset for a scheduling delay); transmit an uplink transmission based on the first and second parts of the scheduling offset (See Par. [7]-[9], [54]-[56] and Fig. 6 of Charbit for a reference to decomposition of scheduling delay into a standard component plus a non-terrestrial networking (NTN) [delay-related] offset applied to UL transmission, and performing UL transmission according to the decomposed delay [offset]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Charbit to Wigard. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing bits to be transmitted per bandwidth resource within a scheduling time interval. (Charbit; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein the second part of the scheduling offset is associated with a service link delay (See Par. [45]-[47], [50] and Fig. 1 of Wigard for a reference to the UE receives, from the network node, information that identifies the service link common delay).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is associated with at least a feeder link delay (See Par. [46]-[47], [49]-[50] and Fig. 1 of Wigard for a reference to the UE receives, from the network node, information that identifies the feeder link delay as a function of time based on the orbit and the position of the network node).
Regarding claim 4, Wigard does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission.
However, Charbit discloses wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission (See Par. [21]-[24] of Charbit for a reference to the UL transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Charbit to Wigard. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing bits to be transmitted per bandwidth resource within a scheduling time interval. (Charbit; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 5, Wigard does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission.
However, Charbit discloses wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission (See Par. [27], [30], [42] of Charbit for a reference to the UL transmission comprises a UL grant for data on physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Charbit to Wigard. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing bits to be transmitted per bandwidth resource within a scheduling time interval. (Charbit; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 6, Wigard does not explicitly disclose wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission.
However, Charbit discloses wherein the uplink transmission comprises a physical random access channel (PRACH) transmission (See Par. [27]-[28], [50] of Charbit for a reference to the UL transmission comprises a UL HARQ-ACK transmitted in a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Charbit to Wigard. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing bits to be transmitted per bandwidth resource within a scheduling time interval. (Charbit; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein the at least one memory and the at least one processor are further configured to cause the apparatus to determine the scheduling offset as a sum of the first and second parts of the scheduling offset (See Par. [25], [43], [45]-[47] and of Wigard for a reference to the UE determines the scheduling offset [cell-specific common delay] as the sum of the feeder link delay and the service link common delay [First and second parts of offset]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is equal to the common TA (See Par. [34], [52] and of Wigard for a reference to the first part of scheduling offset is equal to the common timing advance (TA)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is determined based on function that involves the common TA (See Par. [34], [41]-[44], [52] and Fig. 1 of Wigard for a reference to receiving, by the UE, from the network node, information identifying the service link common delay [offset] associated with the common timing advance (TA)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is determined based on a ceiling function that involves the common TA (See Par. [35], [56] of Wigard for a reference to determining the first part of scheduling offset by producing a ceiling value for the common delay [Common TA]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein receiving the first signaling indicating the first part of the scheduling offset comprises receiving an indication of the common TA as system information (SI) in a system information block (SIB) (See Par. [35], [45]-[46], [49] and of Wigard for a reference to the information indicating the cell-specific common delay [Offset] is broadcasted in a system information block (SIB)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wigard and Charbit, specifically Wigard discloses wherein receiving the second signaling indicating the second part of the scheduling offset comprises receiving an indication of the second part of the scheduling offset via at least one of system information (SI) in a system information block (SIB) or via a random access channel (RACH) message (See Par. [35], [45]-[46], [49] and of Wigard for a reference to the information indicating both the service link common delay and the feeder delay [1st and 2nd parts of scheduling offset] is broadcasted in a system information block (SIB)).
Regarding claim 15, Wigard discloses an apparatus for wireless communications by a network entity (See Wigard; Fig. 8A; Network Node 10), comprising: at least one memory (See Wigard; Fig. 8A; Memory 14) and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (See Wigard; Fig. 8A; Processor 12), and configured to cause the apparatus to:
transmit first signaling indicating a first part of a scheduling offset associated with a common timing advance (TA) (TA) (See Par. [34], [41]-[44], [52] and Fig. 1 of Wigard for a reference to transmitting, from the network node, to the UE, information identifying the service link common delay [offset] associated with the common timing advance (TA));
Wigard does not explicitly disclose transmit second signaling indicating a second part of the scheduling offset, the second signaling being separate from the first signaling; and monitor for an uplink transmission from a user equipment (UE) based on the first and second parts of the scheduling offset.
However, Charbit discloses transmit second signaling indicating a second part of the scheduling offset, the second signaling being separate from the first signaling (See Par. [46], [54]-[56] and Fig. 5 & 6 of Charbit for a reference the UE 110 receives a DCI indicating the adjusted non-terrestrial networking (NTN) offset. DCI transmitted at step 620 indicating the adjusted NTN offset is different from the DCI transmitted at step 510 that indicates configured (NTN) offset for a scheduling delay); and monitor for an uplink transmission from a user equipment (UE) based on the first and second parts of the scheduling offset (See Par. [7]-[9], [54]-[56] and Fig. 6 of Charbit for a reference to decomposition of scheduling delay into a standard component plus a non-terrestrial networking (NTN) [delay-related] offset applied to UL transmission, and monitoring UL transmission according to the decomposed delay [offset]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Charbit to Wigard. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing bits to be transmitted per bandwidth resource within a scheduling time interval. (Charbit; Par. [31])
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 6.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 7.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 8.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 9.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 10.
Regarding claim 27, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 13.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 14.
Regarding claim 29, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 1.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 15.
6. Claims 11-12 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigard et al. in view of Charbit et al. and further in view of Shin et al. (US. Pub. No. 2023/0189088 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wigard and Charbit does not explicitly disclose wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is determined based on the ceiling function applied to the common TA divided by a unit offset.
However, Shin discloses wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is determined based on the ceiling function applied to the common TA divided by a unit offset (See Par. [13], [257], [272] of Charbit for a reference to determining the common scheduling delay [Offset] by dividing the TA value into service link common delay and feeder link delay).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shin to the combination of Wigard and Charbit. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing signalling overhead of a BS by classifying the offset into a common offset and residual offset. (Shin; Par. [265])
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wigard and Charbit does not explicitly disclose wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is determined based on ceiling function applied to the common TA divided by a unit offset and a positive number greater than 1.
However, Shin discloses wherein the first part of the scheduling offset is determined based on ceiling function applied to the common TA divided by a unit offset and a positive number greater than 1 (See Par. [13], [257], [272] of Charbit for a reference to determining the common scheduling delay [Offset] by dividing the common TA value into N times interval. N is an integer number greater than 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shin to the combination of Wigard and Charbit. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by reducing signalling overhead of a BS by classifying the offset into a common offset and residual offset. (Shin; Par. [265])
Regarding claim 25, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 11.
Regarding claim 26, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth
in claim 12.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rico Alvarino et al, (US. Pub. No. 2024/0276404 A1) discloses timing aspects for wireless communications systems.
Zhang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2022/0085964 A1) discloses techniques and apparatuses for enhanced timing advance (TA) offset value indications.
Murray et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0168862 A1) discloses a method that perform random access subject to Listen-Before-Talk (LBT) in an NR-U Sewing Cell with multiple models.
8. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the supervisory Examiner, Un Cho can be reached on (571)272-7919. 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.
/R.K.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights