DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 1/31/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-7,9-17,19 and 20 are rejected.
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to for having allowable subject matter.
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 § 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 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.
Claims 1-4,9,11-14,19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ciochina et al. (WO 2024/018688)(C1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, C1 teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE)[refer Fig. 8], comprising: one or more memories (i.e. computer readable medium)[paragraph 0079]; and one or more processors [paragraph 0079], coupled to the one or more memories [paragraph 0080] and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a closed loop timing advance command message (i.e. timing advance command comprising closed loop information) that includes an indicator (i.e. data related to timing advance adjustment value) associated with the closed loop timing advance command message [paragraph 0025], the indicator includes at least one of a timing advance value (i.e. timing advance adjustment value)[paragraph 0025]; and
transmit one or more communications on an uplink in accordance with an interpretation (i.e. data related to) of the closed loop timing advance command message [paragraph 0026], the interpretation of the closed loop timing advance command message being based on the indicator (i.e. timing adjustment)[paragraph 0026].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, C1 teaches the closed loop timing advance command message is a closed loop timing advance command medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) [paragraph 0025].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, C1 teaches the indicator is a codepoint (i.e. bit values) that conveys a value that maps to at least one of the timing advance value [paragraph 0106] or the uplink transmission extension (i.e. postponed time) indication [paragraph 0033].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, C1 teaches the uplink transmission extension indication is associated with an application of an uplink transmission extension update (i.e. updated assistance time)[paragraph 0055].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, C1 teaches the interpretation of the closed loop timing advance command message is based on a configuration of a UE capability (i.e. hardware capability)(UE may be able to retrieve such updated assistance information and/or updated timing advance command before the transmission deadline time, the user equipment UE may also proceed to perform updated measurements at an updated measurement time MN+I providing its hardware capabilities and/or the preconfigured time opportunities to do so)[paragraph 0163].
Regarding claim 11, C1 teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node (i.e. base station)[paragraph 0018] , comprising:
one or more memories (it is inherent that a device, such as a base station, would comprise of memories to implement the processes)[paragraph 0081]; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories [paragraph 0081] and configured to cause the network node to:
transmit a closed loop timing advance command message (i.e. timing advance command comprising closed loop information) that includes an indicator (i.e. data related to timing advance adjustment value) associated with the closed loop timing advance command message [paragraph 0025], the indicator includes at least one of a timing advance value (i.e. timing advance adjustment value)[paragraph 0025]; and
receive one or more communications on an uplink in accordance with an interpretation (i.e. data related to) of the closed loop timing advance command message [paragraph 0026], the interpretation of the closed loop timing advance command message being based on the indicator (i.e. timing adjustment)[paragraph 0026].
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 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5,6,15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ciochina et al. (WO 2024/018688)(C1 hereafter) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2014/0086219)(S1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, C1 fails to disclose that the uplink transmission extension update is applied to an uplink transmission extension timer after an expiration of the uplink transmission extension timer.
S1, in the field of applying a timing advance command [refer Abstract], discloses the use of a timing adjustment timer (i.e. transmission extension timer), and the timing advance can be adjusted based on the amount of time transmission timing has changed to define the adjusted timing advance, in which the timing advance can be stored after the expiration of the timing alignment timer (TAT)[paragraph 0116].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for handling timing advance commands [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate the. One would be motivated to do so to control the timing of uplink signals from wireless devices that are time aligned to counteract propagation delay [refer S1; paragraph 0004].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, C1 fails to disclose that the uplink transmission extension update is applied to an uplink transmission extension timer before an expiration of the uplink transmission extension timer.
S1, in the field of applying a timing advance command [refer Abstract], discloses the use of a timing alignment timer in which the timer increments win time until being restarted due to receiving a new timing command (i.e. applied to timer before expiration) [paragraph 0069], a UE is able to store a timing advance upon expiry of an associated TAT, and applies a timing advance command MAC CE and starts the associated TAT when the TAT isn’t running [paragraph 0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for handling timing advance commands [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate the. One would be motivated to do so to control the timing of uplink signals from wireless devices that are time aligned to counteract propagation delay [refer S1; paragraph 0004].
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of Prasad et al. (US Pub. 2025/0386311)(P1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, C1 fails to explicitly disclose the indicator is associated with a timing advance group (TAG) identity field.
P1 discloses that a timing advance command can comprise of a field, such as a TAG ID, for identifying a timing advance group [paragraph 0222].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for handling timing advance commands [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate the identification of a timing advance group via an explicit field as taught by P1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique, such as explicit identification, within the field of endeavor of timing advance command transmission to yield predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over C1 in view of Jung et al. (WO 2025/127665)(J1 hereafter).
Regarding claim 10, C1 fails to disclose the interpretation of the closed loop timing advance command message is based on a configured logical channel identity codepoint (i.e. bit) value associated with the closed loop timing advance command message.
J1, in the same field of endeavor regarding timing advance commands [paragraph 0110], discloses that a timing advance reporting MAC CE is identified by a subheader with a logical channel ID with a codepoint/index [paragraph 0201].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for handling timing advance commands [refer C1; Abstract] to incorporate the identification of a logical channel identifier with a codepoint/index as taught by J1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique, such as explicit identification, within the field of endeavor of timing advance command transmission to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or make obvious an indicator associated with a timing advance group (TAG) identity field in which a first value of the TAG identity field indicates that a closed loop timing advance command message conveys a timing advance value and an uplink transmission extension indication, and a second value of the TAG identity field indicates that the closed loop timing advance command message conveys the timing advance value and does not convey the uplink transmission extension indication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Deghel et al. (US Pub. 2025/0338237) discloses the timing of UL transmissions using timing advance commands in a closed loop manner for a given timing advance group [paragraph 0055].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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 C Jiang can be reached on 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412