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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 3/26/2026 is acknowledged.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0254794 (Park et al.) in view of US 2016/0028519 (Wei).
As to claim 1, Park teaches a method of a satellite (see paragraph 174 and figure 10, satellite has all base station functions), the method comprising:
transmitting first system information including a first scheduling offset to a user equipment (UE) (see paragraph 16, K offset sent through system information);
determining a first update periodicity of the first scheduling offset; and transmitting a second message including information on a scheduling offset updated according to the first update periodicity to the UE (see paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278, updated K offset sent periodically via MAC-CE signaling),
wherein each of the first scheduling offset and the updated scheduling offset is used to determine an uplink transmission timing at the UE (see paragraph 16, K offset used for uplink random access).
What is explicitly lacking from Park is transmitting a first message including information on the first update periodicity to the UE.
In analogous art, Wei teaches using RRC signaling (Park teaches using MAC-CE to periodically send the updated K offset) to adaptively indicate an update periodicity for a configurable parameter used by the UE for wireless communication with the network (see Wei, paragraphs 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Park, so as to ensure that the network and UE are utilizing the same update periodicity.
As to claim 9, Park teaches a method of a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving first system information including a first scheduling offset from a satellite (see paragraph 16, K offset sent through system information);
receiving a second message including information on a scheduling offset updated according to the first update periodicity from the satellite (see paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278, updated K offset sent periodically via MAC-CE signaling);
determining an uplink transmission timing based on the updated scheduling offset; and performing uplink transmission based on the uplink transmission timing (see paragraph 16, K offset used for uplink random access).
What is explicitly lacking from Park is receiving a first message including information on a first update periodicity of the first scheduling offset from the satellite.
In analogous art, Wei teaches using RRC signaling (Park teaches using MAC-CE to periodically send the updated K offset) to adaptively indicate an update periodicity for a configurable parameter used by the UE for wireless communication with the network (see Wei, paragraphs 47-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Park, so as to ensure that the network and UE are utilizing the same update periodicity.
As to claim 2, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate transmitting a third message including information on a second update periodicity of the first scheduling offset to the UE; and transmitting a fourth message including information on a scheduling offset updated according to the second update periodicity to the UE, wherein the second update periodicity is different from the first update periodicity (see Park, paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, the update periodicity may be adaptively configured based on factors such as the orbit of the satellite).
As to claim 3, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate when a preset condition is satisfied, changing an update periodicity of the first scheduling offset from the first update periodicity to the second update periodicity (see Park, paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, the update periodicity may be adaptively configured based on factors such as the orbit of the satellite).
As to claim 5, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate transmitting second system information including a second scheduling offset to the UE; determining a third update periodicity of the second scheduling offset; transmitting a fifth message including information on the third update periodicity to the UE; and transmitting a sixth message including information on a scheduling offset updated according to the third update periodicity to the UE, wherein the third update periodicity is different from the first update periodicity (see Park, paragraphs 16, 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, K offset and update periodicity are repeated each time the UE reconnects to the network and are adapted based on factors such as the orbit of the satellite).
As to claims 6 and 13, Park further teaches wherein the first scheduling offset is at least one of a cell-specific K offset or a UE-specific K offset (see paragraph 259).
As to claims 7 and 14, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate wherein: the first message is a radio resource control (RRC) message; and the second message is a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (see Park, paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, the update periodicity may be sent via RRC signaling while the updated K offset sent via MAC-CE).
As to claims 8 and 15, Park further teaches wherein the information on the updated scheduling offset indicates at least one of an increase amount or a decrease amount compared to the first scheduling offset or a previous scheduling offset (see Park, paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278, updated K offset would either be larger or smaller than previous K offset).
As to claim 10, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate receiving a third message including information on a second update periodicity of the first scheduling offset from the satellite; and receiving a fourth message including information on a scheduling offset updated according to the second update periodicity from the satellite, wherein the second update periodicity is different from the first update periodicity (see Park, paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, the update periodicity may be adaptively configured based on factors such as the orbit of the satellite).
As to claim 11, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate wherein an update periodicity of the first scheduling offset is changed from the first update periodicity to the second update periodicity when a preset condition is satisfied in the satellite (see Park, paragraphs 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, the update periodicity may be adaptively configured based on factors such as the orbit of the satellite).
As to claim 12, Park in view of Wei’s cited teachings further anticipate receiving second system information including a second scheduling offset from the satellite; receiving a fifth message including information on a third update periodicity of the second scheduling offset from the satellite; and receiving a sixth message including information on a scheduling offset updated according to the third update periodicity from the satellite, wherein the third update periodicity is different from the first update periodicity (see Park, paragraphs 16, 271-272 and 277-278 and Wei, paragraphs 47-48, K offset and update periodicity are repeated each time the UE reconnects to the network and are adapted based on factors such as the orbit of the satellite).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0324422 (Awad et al.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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 Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights