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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/01/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1, Applicant argues.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1,3-8,10-14,16-21 and 23-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11968640 (P11968640). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
For claim 1, P11968640 discloses a communication method, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, a first TA value (claim 1 “receiving, from a base station and by a terminal, an updated timing advance (TA) value”);
receiving, a common TA change rate (claim 1“… the terminal obtains … a round-trip transmission delay change rate …”; note that “a round-trip transmission delay change rate” is interpreted as “a common TA change rate”);
obtaining a second TA value by compensating for the first TA value based on the common TA change rate (claim 1 “performing, by the terminal, TA compensation in a TA update period based on the updated TA value”); and
sending an uplink signal based on the second TA value (claim 1 “sending, by the terminal, uplink data by using a TA value obtained after TA compensation is performed”).
P11968640 does not specifically state that the common TA change rate is included in SIB. In the same field of endeavor of wireless communication, LASELVA discloses system information block (SIB) comprising TA related parameters ([0045] “… in the broadcasted SIBs, additional information about one or more of the following: a) a TA offset parameter; b) a TA scaling parameter; c) a processing-delay compensation parameter; and d) a TA extension parameters enabling threshold/condition.”). OOSA would have been motivated to include a parameter “round-trip transmission delay change rate” by P11968640 in a SIB by LASELVA to yield a predictable result of adjust TA values because the parameter is related to one or more of “TA offset”, “processing-delay compensation” and “TA extension”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine P11968640 with LASELVA for the benefit of updating TA value ([0045] of LASELVA).
Claim 8 is rejected because it is the corresponding sending method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Claim 14 is rejected because it is a claim of an apparatus that performs the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Claim 21 is rejected because it is a claim of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded instructions that perform the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
As to claims 3, 10, 16 and 23, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, LASELVA further discloses wherein at least one of the following information is received in a the SIB: the common TA change rate, common TA change rate indication information or equivalent information ([0045] “The eNBs or gNBs, which are configured to provide extreme coverage beyond 100 km, such as connectivity for ship-to-shore communications, or eNBs or gNBs on satellite platforms, include, for example, in the broadcasted SIBs, additional information about one or more of the following: a) a TA offset parameter; b) a TA scaling parameter; c) a processing-delay compensation parameter; and d) a TA extension parameters enabling threshold/condition.”). The motivation of combining P11968640 and LASELVA is the same as stated in the parent claims.
As to claims 4, 11, 17 and 24, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 3, 10, 16 and 23,: P11968640 further discloses: wherein the equivalent information includes at least one of the following: a Doppler frequency offset; an orbital and an elevation angle between a terminal and a network device; an orbital altitude and a flare angle between a terminal and a network device; or an orbital altitude and a geocentric angle between a terminal and a network device (claim 14 “… wherein the TA compensation information comprises reference data, wherein the reference data comprises a maximum TA offset and a minimum transmission delay TA offset of a current beam cell, and the reference data comprises a satellite orbital altitude of a satellite and Doppler frequency offset of the current beam cell …”).
As to claims 5, 12, 18 and 25, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 3, 10, 16 and 23, P11968640 further discloses: wherein the common TA change rate indication information corresponds to at least one of a coverage area or a reference location (claim 2 “… a transmission delay TA offset based on the round-trip transmission delay change rate and a unidirectional transmission delay between the satellite and the location corresponding to the geocentric angle data …”).
As to claims 6, 19 and 26, P11968640 in view of LASELVA in view of Michaels discloses claims 5, 18 and 25, P11968640 further discloses: wherein the coverage area comprises one or more cells covered by a network device (claim 1 “… current beam cell …”).
As to claims 7, 13, 20 and 27, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, LASELVA further discloses: wherein the common TA change rate comprises a scaling value of the common TA change rate based on a unit step ([0004] “… network signaling including information about one or more of a timing advance scaling parameter ...” or [0045]). The motivation of combining P11968640 and LASELVA is the same as stated in the parent claims.
As to claims 28, 30, 32 and 34, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, P11968640 further discloses: wherein a unit of the common TA change rate is us/s (us/s is one of finite units used for rate change, it would have been an obvious try to choose it according to MPEP 2143(E)).
As to claims 29, 31, 33 and 35, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, P11968640 further discloses: wherein the first TA value and the common TA change rate are included in a same message (as disclosed in the parent claim).
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10, 13-14, 16, 20-21, 23 and 27-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LASELVA (US 20190342845 A1).
For claims 1, LASELVA discloses a timing advance update method, comprising:
receiving, a first TA value ([0020] “First, in the random access response (RAR) message, the base station, eNB for LTE or gNB for NR, indicates the successfully received preamble(s), along with the timing advance (TA) information and the uplink resource allocation information, which the UE should use for transmission” in view of FIG. 4);
obtaining a TA related parameter (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as [0076] “… In block 404, the user equipment receives a timing advance index from the base station. ...”);
obtaining a second TA value by compensating for the first TA value based on the TA related parameter (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as “[0076] … block 406, the user equipment adjusts parameters for uplink transmissions using the received timing advance index for the one or more of the timing advance scaling parameter, the processing-delay compensation parameter, and the timing advance extension parameters enabling threshold/condition …”; or [0021] “the UE uses the TA information to adjust its uplink (UL) timing. …”);
sending an uplink signal based on the second TA value (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as “[0076] … In block 408, the user equipment performs uplink transmissions according to the configured and adjusted parameters.”; or “[0021] … This means that the UE can send UL data only after acquiring the UL timing synchronization, and that the UE does so based on the network indication” in view of FIG. 4).
LASELVA does not specifically state: the TA related parameter is a common TA change rate; and receiving, from a network device, system information block (SIB) comprising the common TA change rate. However, LASELVA teaches a SIB may include TA related parameters ([0045] “… in the broadcasted SIBs, additional information about one or more of the following: a) a TA offset parameter; b) a TA scaling parameter; c) a processing-delay compensation parameter; and d) a TA extension parameters enabling threshold/condition.”). The “common TA change rate” is a TA related parameters associated with c) a processing-delay compensation parameter. It would have been an “obvious to try” to include the TA related parameter “common TA change rate” in a SIB because it is a TA related parameter to yield a predictable result of updating TA value. Furthermore, different TA change rates are used to compensate TA value for satellite communication and Examiner takes an official notice on this statement (For example, CN 111385013 teach it in Abstract “… satellite base station obtains a plurality of data to be broadcasted, a rate of change of the compensation value of the Doppler frequency deviation of respectively corresponding to multiple beams of said plurality of data generated is a satellite base station, the Doppler frequency offset, transmission time delay, rate of change of transmission time-delay, time advance amount TA, angle rate of change of TA and the plurality of beams in the same kind of data, satellite base station according to said plurality of data, determining each data in the reference data and the plurality of data relative to the offset of reference data …” ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to include a TA related parameter “common TA change rate” in a SIB for the benefit of updating TA value ([0045] of LASELVA).
Claim 8 is rejected because it is an apparatus for the corresponding sending (in comparison to receiving( method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Claim 14 is rejected because it is a claim of an apparatus that performs the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
Claim 21 is rejected because it is a claim of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded instructions that perform the method of claim 1 and has the same subject matter.
As to claims 3, 10, 16 and 23, LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, LASELVA further discloses: wherein at least one of the following information is received in a the SIB: the common TA change rate, common TA change rate indication information or equivalent information ([0045] “The eNBs or gNBs, which are configured to provide extreme coverage beyond 100 km, such as connectivity for ship-to-shore communications, or eNBs or gNBs on satellite platforms, include, for example, in the broadcasted SIBs, additional information about one or more of the following: a) a TA offset parameter; b) a TA scaling parameter; c) a processing-delay compensation parameter; and d) a TA extension parameters enabling threshold/condition. …” in view of the parent claims).
As to claims 7, 13, 20 and 27, LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, , LASELVA further discloses: wherein the common TA change rate comprises a scaling value of the common TA change rate based on a unit step ([0045] “… in the broadcasted SIBs, additional information about one or more of the following: a) a TA offset parameter; b) a TA scaling parameter; c) a processing-delay compensation parameter; and d) a TA extension parameters enabling threshold/condition.”).
As to claims 28, 30, 32 and 34, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, , LASELVA further discloses: wherein a unit of the common TA change rate is us/s (us/s is one of finite units used for rate change, it would have been an obvious try to choose it according to MPEP 2143(E)).
As to claims 29, 31, 33 and 35, P11968640 in view of LASELVA discloses claims 1, 8, 14 and 21, LASELVA further discloses: wherein the first TA value and the common TA change rate are included in a same message (as disclosed in the parent claim).
Claims 4-6, 11-12, 17-19 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LASELVA (US 20190342845 A1) in view of Michaels (S 20180241464 A1).
As to claims 4, 11, 17 and 24, LASELVA discloses claims 3, 10, 16 and 23, and is silent but Michaels, in the same field of satellite data communication, discloses: wherein the equivalent information includes at least one of the following: a Doppler frequency offset; an orbital and an elevation angle between a terminal and a network device; an orbital altitude and a flare angle between a terminal and a network device; or an orbital altitude and a geocentric angle between a terminal and a network device ([0018] “the orbital altitude”, [0025] “Doppler shift”, [0066] “… high elevation angles are designed to support fast random access within the mobile standard defined timing constraints” in view of FIG. 1). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Michaels regarding satellite communication parameters to the satellite communication by LASELVA to yield a predictable result of determining the positions of UE or satellite according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Michaels and LASELVA for the benefit of determining the positions of UE or satellite (Fig. 1 of Michaels).
As to claims 5, 12, 18 and 25, LASELVA discloses claims 3, 10, 16 and 23, and is silent but Michaels, in the same field of satellite data communication, discloses: wherein the common TA change rate indication information corresponds to at least one of a coverage area or a reference location ([0006] “The LEO satellites carry multiple radio transceivers and multiple antennas which support multiple and preferably all spectrum allocations in use by all participating MNO's in a coverage area simultaneously. Most market areas are served by one or more MNO's which may have one or more licensed spectrum allocations in use concurrently in the same or different geographic coverage areas”). OOSA would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Michaels regarding satellite communication parameters to the satellite communication by LASELVA to yield a predictable result of determining the positions of UE or satellite according to MPEP 2143(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to OOSA before the effective filing date of the application to combine Michaels and LASELVA for the benefit of determining the positions of UE or satellite (Fig. 1 of Michaels).
As to claims 6, 19 and 26, LASELVA in view of Michaels discloses claims 5, 18 and 25, Michaels further discloses: wherein the coverage area comprises one or more cells covered by a network device (FIG. 1 shows cells 106-108), a projection area of one or more beams of a network device on the ground (FIG. 1 shows beams 103-105), some areas of one cell covered by a network device, or some areas of projection of one beam of a network device on the ground (see FIG. 1). The motivation of combining LASELVA and Michaels implementing satellite wireless communication (see FIG. 1 of Michaels).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANYE WU whose telephone number is (571)270-1665. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8am-6pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached on (571) 272-3927. 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.
/JIANYE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462