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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claims 1,2,19, and 20, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the boundaries" inline 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reference boundary " in line15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the length of one temporal segment " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the number of target communication " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the same magnitude " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: communication means for , propagation delay time means for and adjustment determining means for in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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) 1,6, 10, 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim et al. (US Application 2023/0051034, hereinafter Ibrahim) in view of Zhang et al. (US Application 2022/0078738, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claims 1, 19,20, Ibrahim discloses a base station apparatus, a method (Figs. 1,2, 7,10, item 110), comprising:
antenna circuitry , communication means for(234) configured to, during a communication session, transmit downlink messages (702, 1004) to a target communication apparatus (120) and receive uplink messages (708,1006) from the target communication apparatus (120), wherein the downlink and uplink messages comprise temporal segments (As described on [0087], [0089],[0115]-[0116] downlink and uplink messages having temporal segments such as time advance, time retard an plurality of time periods);
propagation delay determination circuitry, propagation delay determining means for (112) configured to determine an indication of a propagation delay in messages sent between the base station apparatus and the target communication apparatus ([0042], which recites BS 110a includes a timing manager 112 configured to transmit, to the UE 120a, an indication of a first uplink timing advance (TA) determined based on a first propagation delay between the BS 110a and the UE 120a.);
the boundaries between temporal segments in the received uplink message align with reference boundaries (As shown on fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065], the BS 510 may determine a timing correction for each UE in order to align the timing (e.g., slot and/or symbol boundaries) of uplink transmissions as received by the BS 110 with downlink transmissions); wherein
the time adjustment determination circuitry (inherent feature of the device [0062],[0065], which recites a BS 110 of the wireless communication network 100 may transmit timing advance information to a UE 120 to provide for time alignment of uplink and downlink communications. the BS 510 may determine a timing correction for each UE in order to align the timing (e.g., slot and/or symbol boundaries) of uplink transmissions as received by the BS 110 with downlink transmissions) is arranged to determine the time adjustment such that the reference boundary that a given boundary within the uplink message to which the time adjustment has been applied aligns with is dependent on which of a plurality of defined ranges the indication of the propagation delay falls within(As shown on fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065], the BS 510 may determine a timing correction for each UE in order to align the timing (e.g., slot and/or symbol boundaries) of uplink transmissions as received by the BS 110 with downlink transmissions).
Ibrahim does not explicitly discloses based on a request received from the target communication apparatus requesting to initiate a communication session with the base station apparatus and; time adjustment determination circuitry configured to determine a time adjustment to be communicated to the target communication apparatus in response to the request, wherein the time adjustment is to be applied to uplink messages by the target communication apparatus, and the time adjustment is determined based on the indication of the propagation delay such that when an uplink message to which the time adjustment has been applied is received at the base station apparatus.
However, Zhang teaches based on a request received from the target communication apparatus requesting to initiate a communication session with the base station apparatus (as shown on fig. 12 and described [0141], UE item 1202 send a PRACH item 1206 as request to base station 1204 to initiate communication);
time adjustment determination circuitry, time adjustment determining means for (fig. 16, 1642 see [0179]) configured to determine a time adjustment to be communicated to the target communication apparatus in response to the request, wherein the time adjustment is to be applied to uplink messages by the target communication apparatus([0203],which recites a variable compensation factor to applied as a time adjustment in response to the request to the uplink message as claimed by the instant application), and the time adjustment is determined based on the indication of the propagation delay such that when an uplink message to which the time adjustment has been applied is received at the base station apparatus(Fig. 7, [0122], which recites a time adjustment based on an indication propagation delay as claim by the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Ibrahim by using the above features such as based on a request received from the target communication apparatus requesting to initiate a communication session with the base station apparatus and; time adjustment determination circuitry configured to determine a time adjustment to be communicated to the target communication apparatus in response to the request, wherein the time adjustment is to be applied to uplink messages by the target communication apparatus, and the time adjustment is determined based on the indication of the propagation delay such that when an uplink message to which the time adjustment has been applied is received at the base station apparatus as taught by Zhang for the purpose of reducing latency and enhance the spectrum efficiency in a cell, full duplex (FD) communications may be used in 5G systems([0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time adjustment determination circuitry is configured to determine a time adjustment that can take either a positive value corresponding to a time advance or a negative value corresponding to a time retard(Fig. 5, [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 6 as addressed above, except wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, the time adjustment is encoded as a two's complement value in a field including an additional bit.
However, Zhang teaches wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, the time adjustment is encoded as a two's complement value in a field including an additional bit([0126],[0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Ibrahim by using the above features such as wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, the time adjustment is encoded as a two's complement value in a field including an additional bit as taught by Zhang for the purpose of reducing latency and enhance the spectrum efficiency in a cell, full duplex (FD) communications may be used in 5G systems([0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time adjustment determination circuitry is arranged to determine a time adjustment which is periodic with respect to the indication of the propagation delay([0062],[0065]).
Regarding claim 13, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the antenna circuitry is configured to communicate with two or more target communication apparatuses, and wherein the time adjustment determination circuitry is arranged to use the same reference boundaries to determine a time adjustment for each target communication apparatus (fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065]).
Regarding claim 14, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the reference boundaries used by the time adjustment determination circuitry are selected to align with boundaries between temporal segments in downlink messages sent from the base station apparatus(fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the time adjustment determination circuitry is arranged to determine a time adjustment to be applied to uplink messages by the target communication apparatus as an offset with respect to boundaries in a downlink message received at the target communication apparatus(fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065]).
Regarding claim 16, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the propagation delay determination circuitry is configured to determine an indication of the propagation delay based on an elapsed time between a reference time and receipt of the request(fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065]).
Regarding claim 17, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the uplink and downlink messages are split into temporal frames comprising two or more sub-frames, and each temporal segment corresponds to a sub-frame(fig. 5 and described on [0062], [0065]).
Regarding claim 18 Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the target communication apparatus is mounted on a moving vehicle([0044]).
Claim(s) 7-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ibrahim in view of Zhang as applied above, and further in view of Li et al. (US Application 2022/0007323, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ibrahim and Zhang discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 6 as addressed above, except wherein the time adjustment determination circuitry is configured to determine a maximum positive time adjustment which is equal to the largest time advance representable in an encoding of the Random Access Response message according to the 3GPP Standard.
However, Li teaches the time adjustment determination circuitry is configured to determine a maximum positive time adjustment which is equal to the largest time advance representable in an encoding of the Random Access Response message according to the 3GPP Standard(Figs. 7, and 8,[0009],[0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li with the teaching of Ibrahim and Zhang by using the above features such as the time adjustment determination circuitry is configured to determine a maximum positive time adjustment which is equal to the largest time advance representable in an encoding of the Random Access Response message according to the 3GPP Standard as taught by Li for the purpose of transmission-timing adjustment mechanisms for a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) ([0002]).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ibrahim and Zhang discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 6 as addressed above, except wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, a negative time adjustment is encoded as a positive time adjustment with a magnitude larger than a threshold value; wherein the threshold value corresponds to a maximum positive time adjustment.
However, Li teaches wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, a negative time adjustment is encoded as a positive time adjustment with a magnitude larger than a threshold value; wherein the threshold value corresponds to a maximum positive time adjustment (Figs. 7, and 8, [0009],[0019],[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li with the teaching of Ibrahim and Zhang by using the above features such as wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, a negative time adjustment is encoded as a positive time adjustment with a magnitude larger than a threshold value; wherein the threshold value corresponds to a maximum positive time adjustment as taught by Li for the purpose of transmission-timing adjustment mechanisms for a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) ([0002]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ibrahim and Zhang discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 6 as addressed above, except wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, a negative time adjustment is encoded as a positive time adjustment having the same magnitude as the negative time adjustment, and an additional bit is set to indicate the sign of the time adjustment value.
However, Li teaches wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, a negative time adjustment is encoded as a positive time adjustment having the same magnitude as the negative time adjustment, and an additional bit is set to indicate the sign of the time adjustment value (Figs. 7, and 8, [0009],[0019],[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Li with the teaching of Ibrahim and Zhang by using the above features such as wherein in an encoding of a response to the request, a negative time adjustment is encoded as a positive time adjustment having the same magnitude as the negative time adjustment, and an additional bit is set to indicate the sign of the time adjustment value as taught by Li for the purpose of transmission-timing adjustment mechanisms for a Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) ([0002]).
Regarding claim 11, Ibrahim discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 9 as addressed above, except wherein the response to the request is a Random Access Response message according to the 3GPP Standard, wherein a positive time adjustment is encoded in the Timing Advance Command field and the additional bit is a reserved bit.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the response to the request is a Random Access Response message according to the 3GPP Standard, wherein a positive time adjustment is encoded in the Timing Advance Command field and the additional bit is a reserved bit ([0126],[0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Ibrahim by using the above features such as wherein the response to the request is a Random Access Response message according to the 3GPP Standard, wherein a positive time adjustment is encoded in the Timing Advance Command field and the additional bit is a reserved bit as taught by Zhang for the purpose of reducing latency and enhance the spectrum efficiency in a cell, full duplex (FD) communications may be used in 5G systems([0005]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DADY CHERY whose telephone number is (571)270-1207. The examiner can normally be reached M to T, 8 am to 5pm.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at 571-272-9617. 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.
/DADY CHERY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418