DETAILED ACTION
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 5/4/2026.
In the amendment, Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings and they are persuasive. Examiner has withdrawn the objection to the drawings.
Examiner has fully considered Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 but they are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the newly-cited Zhu reference for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (US 2024/0090015) in view of Kunt et al (US 2023/0189179) in view of Zhu (US 2025/0247879).
Regarding claim 1: Ye discloses a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (disclosed throughout; see memory 450 of Figure 4, for example); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to (disclosed throughout; see the processor 404 and co-processor(s) 474 of Figure 4, for example);
receive, in accordance with a half-duplex reduced capability (RedCap) communications capability of the UE, first control signaling scheduling reception of a downlink transmission in first time resources (disclosed throughout; see the downlink grant(s) or SPS disclosed throughout; for example, see [0037] “A first scenario of the first conflict type occurs when the UE 102 has received a dynamic downlink grant and a dynamic uplink grant”; see also [0040] and [0042], for example; further, as indicated in [0030] and [0033], for example, the conflict occurs in half-duplex RedCap devices (“HD-FDD UEs (e.g., RedCap devices)”));
receive, in accordance with the half-duplex RedCap communications capability of the UE, second control signaling scheduling an uplink transmission in second time resources (disclosed throughout; see the uplink grant(s) disclosed throughout; for example, see [0037] “A first scenario of the first conflict type occurs when the UE 102 has received a dynamic downlink grant and a dynamic uplink grant”; see also [0040] and [0042], for example; further, as indicated in [0030] and [0033], for example, the conflict occurs in half-duplex RedCap devices (“HD-FDD UEs (e.g., RedCap devices)”)); and
drop the uplink transmission or the downlink reception based at least in part on at least a portion of the uplink transmission overlapping in time with at least a portion of the downlink transmission (disclosed throughout; see [0049]-[0056] and Figure 2, for example, which describe various alternatives avoiding the overlap and involve dropping one or more of the scheduled uplink or downlink transmissions; see also Figure 3 and the corresponding description in the text, for example).
Ye does not explicitly disclose transmit a UE-specific report associated with operation of Red Cap UEs in non-terrestrial networks, the UE-specific report indicating a timing advance value associated with the uplink transmission and a time period with which the timing advance value is associated. However, Kunt discloses “methods for reporting timing advance in non-terrestrial network communications” (see title). Kunt further discloses in [0029] “to allow network node 125 to schedule UE 110 without collision between DL transmission(s) and UL transmission(s), UE 110, which is capable of auto-compensation of time delays in signaling, may report its TA to network node 125. UE 110 may provide a TA report which indicates a TA value to network node 125”. (TA is timing advance). The TA value is associated with the uplink transmission as it is transmitted to allow the network to adjust the scheduling of uplink transmissions such that they do not collide with downlink transmissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye to send a report including the timing advance (TA) value for the UE (UE-specific). The rationale for doing so would have been to “allow network node 125 to schedule UE 110 without collision between DL transmission(s) and UL transmission(s)” as suggested by Kunt in [0029].
Ye, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the UE-specific report further indicates a time period with which the timing advance value is associated. However, Zhu discloses a system that reports TA values to a network device (see the abstract, for example). Zhu further discloses that the TA value is transmitted along with information regarding a “valid time” (see [0058]-[0059], for example) or a “time when a TA value determined by the terminal is applied” (see abstract). See also [0037]-[0041], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye, modified, to include a valid time/a time the TA value is applied in the UE-specific report as suggested by Zhu. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable “have a consistent understanding of the TA value” and so that “an accuracy of scheduling of the network device is improved” as suggested by Zhu in [0041], for example.
Regarding claim 10: Ye discloses a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), the method comprising:
receiving, in accordance with a half-duplex reduced capability (RedCap) communications capability of the UE, first control signaling scheduling reception of a downlink transmission in first time resources (disclosed throughout; see the downlink grant(s) or SPS disclosed throughout; for example, see [0037] “A first scenario of the first conflict type occurs when the UE 102 has received a dynamic downlink grant and a dynamic uplink grant”; see also [0040] and [0042], for example; further, as indicated in [0030] and [0033], for example, the conflict occurs in half-duplex RedCap devices (“HD-FDD UEs (e.g., RedCap devices)”));
receiving, in accordance with the half-duplex RedCap communications capability of the UE, second control signaling scheduling an uplink transmission in second time resources (disclosed throughout; see the uplink grant(s) disclosed throughout; for example, see [0037] “A first scenario of the first conflict type occurs when the UE 102 has received a dynamic downlink grant and a dynamic uplink grant”; see also [0040] and [0042], for example; further, as indicated in [0030] and [0033], for example, the conflict occurs in half-duplex RedCap devices (“HD-FDD UEs (e.g., RedCap devices)”)); and
dropping the uplink transmission or the downlink reception based at least in part on at least a portion of the uplink transmission overlapping in time with at least a portion of the downlink transmission (disclosed throughout; see [0049]-[0056] and Figure 2, for example, which describe various alternatives avoiding the overlap and involve dropping one or more of the scheduled uplink or downlink transmissions; see also Figure 3 and the corresponding description in the text, for example).
Ye does not explicitly disclose transmitting a UE-specific report associated with operation of Red Cap UEs in non-terrestrial networks, the UE-specific report indicating a timing advance value associated with the uplink transmission and a time period with which the timing advance value is associated. However, Kunt discloses “methods for reporting timing advance in non-terrestrial network communications” (see title). Kunt further discloses in [0029] “to allow network node 125 to schedule UE 110 without collision between DL transmission(s) and UL transmission(s), UE 110, which is capable of auto-compensation of time delays in signaling, may report its TA to network node 125. UE 110 may provide a TA report which indicates a TA value to network node 125”. (TA is timing advance). The TA value is associated with the uplink transmission as it is transmitted to allow the network to adjust the scheduling of uplink transmissions such that they do not collide with downlink transmissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye to send a report including the timing advance (TA) value for the UE (UE-specific). The rationale for doing so would have been to “allow network node 125 to schedule UE 110 without collision between DL transmission(s) and UL transmission(s)” as suggested by Kunt in [0029].
Ye, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the UE-specific report further indicates a time period with which the timing advance value is associated. However, Zhu discloses a system that reports TA values to a network device (see the abstract, for example). Zhu further discloses that the TA value is transmitted along with information regarding a “valid time” (see [0058]-[0059], for example) or a “time when a TA value determined by the terminal is applied” (see abstract). See also [0037]-[0041], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye, modified, to include a valid time/a time the TA value is applied in the UE-specific report as suggested by Zhu. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable “have a consistent understanding of the TA value” and so that “an accuracy of scheduling of the network device is improved” as suggested by Zhu in [0041], for example.
Regarding claim 19: Ye discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communications, comprising:
means for receiving, in accordance with a half-duplex reduced capability (RedCap) communications capability of the UE, first control signaling scheduling reception of a downlink transmission in first time resources (disclosed throughout; see the downlink grant(s) or SPS disclosed throughout; for example, see [0037] “A first scenario of the first conflict type occurs when the UE 102 has received a dynamic downlink grant and a dynamic uplink grant”; see also [0040] and [0042], for example; further, as indicated in [0030] and [0033], for example, the conflict occurs in half-duplex RedCap devices (“HD-FDD UEs (e.g., RedCap devices)”));
means for receiving, in accordance with the half-duplex RedCap communications capability of the UE, second control signaling scheduling an uplink transmission in second time resources (disclosed throughout; see the uplink grant(s) disclosed throughout; for example, see [0037] “A first scenario of the first conflict type occurs when the UE 102 has received a dynamic downlink grant and a dynamic uplink grant”; see also [0040] and [0042], for example; further, as indicated in [0030] and [0033], for example, the conflict occurs in half-duplex RedCap devices (“HD-FDD UEs (e.g., RedCap devices)”)); and
means for dropping the uplink transmission or the downlink reception based at least in part on at least a portion of the uplink transmission overlapping in time with at least a portion of the downlink transmission (disclosed throughout; see [0049]-[0056] and Figure 2, for example, which describe various alternatives avoiding the overlap and involve dropping one or more of the scheduled uplink or downlink transmissions; see also Figure 3 and the corresponding description in the text, for example).
Ye does not explicitly disclose means for transmitting a UE-specific report associated with operation of Red Cap UEs in non-terrestrial networks, the UE-specific report indicating a timing advance value associated with the uplink transmission and a time period with which the timing advance value is associated. However, Kunt discloses “methods for reporting timing advance in non-terrestrial network communications” (see title). Kunt further discloses in [0029] “to allow network node 125 to schedule UE 110 without collision between DL transmission(s) and UL transmission(s), UE 110, which is capable of auto-compensation of time delays in signaling, may report its TA to network node 125. UE 110 may provide a TA report which indicates a TA value to network node 125”. (TA is timing advance). The TA value is associated with the uplink transmission as it is transmitted to allow the network to adjust the scheduling of uplink transmissions such that they do not collide with downlink transmissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye to send a report including the timing advance (TA) value for the UE (UE-specific). The rationale for doing so would have been to “allow network node 125 to schedule UE 110 without collision between DL transmission(s) and UL transmission(s)” as suggested by Kunt in [0029].
Ye, modified, does not explicitly disclose the limitation that the UE-specific report further indicates a time period with which the timing advance value is associated. However, Zhu discloses a system that reports TA values to a network device (see the abstract, for example). Zhu further discloses that the TA value is transmitted along with information regarding a “valid time” (see [0058]-[0059], for example) or a “time when a TA value determined by the terminal is applied” (see abstract). See also [0037]-[0041], for example. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye, modified, to include a valid time/a time the TA value is applied in the UE-specific report as suggested by Zhu. The rationale for doing so would have been to enable “have a consistent understanding of the TA value” and so that “an accuracy of scheduling of the network device is improved” as suggested by Zhu in [0041], for example.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 20: Ye, modified, further discloses wherein dropping the uplink transmission or the downlink reception is based at least in part on the timing advance value (see [0030] of Ye, for example, which discloses that “continuous change of the UE’s TA” and the fact that the gNB “is unaware of the UE’s TA”, “is likely to result in scheduling conflicts” such as “simultaneous uplink and downlink reception”).
Regarding claims 3 and 12: the combination of Ye and Kunt further discloses wherein a resolution of a plurality of candidate timing advance values from which the timing advance value is selected is less than one millisecond (see Kunt [0039]-[0042], for example, which discloses that the TA may one of set of indexes KI (candidate timing advance values), where the index KI corresponds to the equation reported_TA=t0 + KI * (quantization step); further, the quantization step may be “0.1 µs”; thus, the resolution (difference between the TA represented by each successive KI value) is less than one millisecond).
Regarding claims 6 and 15: the combination of Ye and Kunt further discloses wherein the UE-specific report is transmitted in accordance with a reporting periodicity (Kunt [0030] -– “UE 110 may be configured to autonomously transmit its TA report to network node 125 periodically”), in response to receiving a request to transmit the UE-specific report (Kunt [0030] – “TA reporting by UE 110 may be trigger-based or request-based (e.g., based on a trigger signal or a request from network node 125)”), or in response to the timing advance value differing from a previous timing advance value by at least a threshold amount after transmitting a previous report associated with the previous timing advance value (Kunt [0030] – “UE 110 may be configured to transmit a TA report to network node 125 in response to a value of TA deviating from a threshold by at least a predefined amount”).
Regarding claims 7 and 16: Ye, modified, further discloses the limitations drop communication of the uplink transmission or the downlink reception based at least in part on a dropping rule configured for the UE by a network entity associated with a non-terrestrial network (disclosed throughout Ye; see [0038], for example, which discloses that “the prioritization between the uplink and downlink communications is configured by the RAN 110, perhaps using RRC configuration or any other signaling method”; see also [0039] and [0040], for example; further, as disclosed throughout, the RAN 110 is associated with a non-terrestrial network, see [0062], for example (“the UE 102 may operate in a wireless communication system 100 that includes a non-terrestrial network (NTN) that serves the UE 102”)).
Regarding claims 8 and 17: Ye, modified, further discloses the limitations that the dropping rule is configured on a per-UE basis or a per-cell basis (disclosed throughout Ye; for example, see [0038] (“[t]he RAN 110 may configure the prioritization per cell or per UE”)).
Regarding claims 9 and 18: Ye, modified, further discloses the limitations wherein: the half-duplex RedCap communications capability of the UE comprises support for wireless communications over one or more new radio (NR) non-terrestrial network bands, transmission of [[the]] a UE-common report associated with operation of RedCap UEs in non-terrestrial networks, transmission of a UE-specific report associated with operation of RedCap UEs in non-terrestrial networks, the UE-specific report indicating [[the]] a timing advance value, or any combination thereof (disclosed throughout Ye; see at least [0002], [0027], [0028], [0030], [0032], and [0033], which disclose that the RedCap UE is capable of being served by NTNs, which are implemented according to 5G/NR standards and thus utilize one or more NR non-terrestrial bands).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (US 2024/0090015) in view of Kunt et al (US 2023/0189179) in view of Zhu (US 2025/0247879) in view of MolavianJazi et al (US 2025/0112813).
Regarding claims 4 and 13: Ye, modified, does not explicitly disclose wherein a resolution of a plurality of candidate timing advance values from which the timing advance value is selected is based at least in part on a subcarrier spacing value. However, MolavianJazi discloses a system that includes transmitting timing advance information by using a plurality of candidate timing advance values (see the TA index values 0…63 in [0177]). Further, the resolution (granularity) of these values is based at least in part on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) value. See [0178], for example – “…the timing advance granularity for the UL BWP with the lower SCS…”. This clearly indicates a different timing advance granularity for different SCSs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye to adjust the resolution/granularity of the TA values based on the SCS as suggested by MolavianJazi. The rationale for doing so would have been to maximize the information included in the TA index to match the particular configuration of the BWP including the subcarrier spacing.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye et al (US 2024/0090015) in view of Kunt et al (US 2023/0189179) in view of Zhu (US 2025/0247879) in view of Sun et al (US 2026/0025775).
Regarding claims 5 and 14: Ye, modified, does not explicitly disclose transmit, via the UE-specific report, an indication of a drift rate of the timing advance value, wherein the drift rate is associated with operation of the UE in association with a non-terrestrial network. However, Sun discloses a method “to enhance communications for NTN” (see abstract). Sun further discloses that a UE communicating with a non-terrestrial network (NTN) “reports TA and a drift rate of TA” and the “drift rate may be derived from TA change overtime or changes of UE's location and satellite's location over time” (see [0044], for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ye, modified, to include a drift rate of the timing advance value associated with the operation of the UE in an NTN as suggested by Sun and discussed above. The rationale for doing so would have been to reduce the TA (and TA drift rate) reporting as suggested by Sun in [0044].
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 Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights