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 § 102
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 1-3, 11, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KHOSHKHOLGH DASHTAKI MOHAMMAD GHADIR et al. (WO 2025165742 A1) hereinafter Ghadir.
Regarding claim 1, Ghadir teaches: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories; and (paragraph 0213 – The processing system to include the UE contains memory that stores instructions to be executed by the processing system)
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: (paragraph 0213 – The processing system to include the UE contains memory that stores instructions to be executed by the processing system)
receive a configuration associated with a system information block 19 (SIB19);
(paragraphs 0250, 251, figure 18 – The base station transmits to the UE a NTN-SIB19 comprising the confirmation parameters of the cell.)
receive the SIB19 based at least in part on the configuration; and
(paragraph 0250-0257 – The SIB-19 is based on the configuration)
transmit an uplink transmission having an uplink synchronization based at least in part on the SIB19. (paragraph 0172 – UE may transmit to request one or more SIBs, UE request uplink timings in addition to the SIBs for the purpose of synchronization)
Regarding claim 2, Ghadir teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
drop an uplink transmission that overlaps in time with the SIB19 based at least in part on the configuration, wherein the uplink transmission is associated with a dynamically or semi-statically scheduled uplink channel or signal. (paragraph 0303 – The wireless device may drop the transmission for the PDSCH. The HARQ-ACK codebook is semi-static. Paragraph 0145 – the PDSCH may contain the SIB).
Regarding claim 3, Ghadir teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the dynamically or semi-statically scheduled uplink channel or signal is associated with one or more repetitions for a same hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) process identifier (ID), and the drop is for an entire uplink transmission of the HARQ process ID or a portion of the entire uplink transmission. (paragraph 0303 – The HARQ may be a semi-statically scheduled uplink signal. Paragraph 0302 - The PUCCH transmission may be dropped depending if the multiplexing conditions are satisfied.)
Regarding claim 11, Ghadir teaches:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the network node to:
transmit a configuration associated with a system information block 19 (SIB19); and (paragraphs 0250, 251, figure 18 – The base station transmits to the UE a NTN-SIB19 comprising the confirmation parameters of the cell.)
receive an uplink transmission that has an uplink synchronization based at least in part on the SIB19. (paragraph 0172 – UE may transmit to request one or more SIBs, UE request uplink timings in addition to the SIBs for the purpose of synchronization)
Regarding claim 16, Ghadir teaches:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the network node is associated with a non-terrestrial network (NTN). (paragraph 0353 – The HARQ-ACK is associated with a NTN.)
Claim 17 is a method of claim 1 and is thus rejected.
Claim 18 is a method of claim 2 and is thus rejected.
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir, as applied above, in view of Shrestha et al., (US 20210251012 A1), hereinafter Shrestha.
Regarding claim 10 Ghadir teaches the use of a FDD scheme in a NTN (paragraph 0048).
Ghadir fails to teach the use of a half-duplex FDD being used.
Shrestha teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE is a half-duplex frequency division duplexing (FDD) UE in a non-terrestrial network (NTN). (paragraph 0048 – The use of half duplex communications).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the half-duplex teachings of Shrestha. Doing so would reduce power consumption of the system as it only transmits or receives one at a time and not simultaneously (paragraph 0048).
Claims 6, 8, 12, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir, in as applied above, view of Khoskholgh Dashtaki et al. (US 20230209647 A1), hereinafter Dashtaki.
Regarding claim 6, Ghadir does not teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration indicates one or more SIB19 update windows, wherein a SIB19 update window of the one or more SIB19 update windows is configured as a multiple of a system information (SI) periodicity, and the SIB19 update window is assigned based at least in part on an explicit radio resource control (RRC) configuration, a defined rule based at least in part on a UE identifier, or a timer associated with an expiry of an uplink synchronization validity duration.
Dashtaki teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration indicates one or more SIB19 update windows, wherein a SIB19 update window of the one or more SIB19 update windows is configured as a multiple of a system information (SI) periodicity, and the SIB19 update window is assigned based at least in part on an explicit radio resource control (RRC) configuration, a defined rule based at least in part on a UE identifier, or a timer associated with an expiry of an uplink synchronization validity duration. (Paragraph 0345 – The use of multiple SIB update windows that are assigned based on the timer with an uplink synchronization validity duration.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the SIB window update teachings of Dashtaki. The purpose of doing so would be to ensure wireless device is synchronized and to acquire new data or parameters in order to restart the validity timers (paragraph 0345).
Regarding claim 8 Ghadir fails to teach:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein an uplink transmission within the SIB19 update window and a SIB19 reception are at different times based at least in part on a scheduling.
Dashktaki teaches:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein an uplink transmission within the SIB19 update window and a SIB19 reception are at different times based at least in part on a scheduling. (paragraph 0345 – in response to the validity period of the update window being expired the UE acquires updated SIB19 reception and information).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the update window teachings of Dashtaki. The purpose of doing so would be that the wireless device needs to acquire the updated satellite information in order for it not to become unsynchronized (paragraph 0345).
Regarding claim 12 Ghadir fails to teach:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the configuration indicates one or more SIB19 update windows, wherein a SIB19 update window of the one or more SIB19 update windows is configured as a multiple of a system information (SI) periodicity, and the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to:
assign the SIB19 update window based at least in part on an explicit radio resource control (RRC) configuration, a defined rule based at least in part on a UE identifier, or a timer associated with an expiry of an uplink synchronization validity duration.
Dashtaki teaches:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the configuration indicates one or more SIB19 update windows, wherein a SIB19 update window of the one or more SIB19 update windows is configured as a multiple of a system information (SI) periodicity, and the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to:
assign the SIB19 update window based at least in part on an explicit radio resource control (RRC) configuration, a defined rule based at least in part on a UE identifier, or a timer associated with an expiry of an uplink synchronization validity duration. (Paragraph 0345 – The use of multiple SIB update windows that are assigned based on the timer with an uplink synchronization validity duration.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the update window teachings of Dashtaki. The purpose of doing so would be that the wireless device needs to acquire the updated satellite information in order for it not to therefore become unsynchronized (paragraph 0345).
Regarding claim 15 Ghadir fails to teach:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: avoid an uplink scheduling that overlaps with the sub-window within the SI window associated with the SIB19.
Dashtaki teaches:
The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: avoid an uplink scheduling that overlaps with the sub-window within the SI window associated with the SIB19. (paragraph 0345 – in response to the validity period of the update window being expired the UE acquires updated SIB19 reception and information).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the uplink scheduling teachings of Dashtaki. The purpose of doing so would be that the wireless device needs to acquire the updated satellite information in order for it not to become unsynchronized (paragraph 0345).
Claim 19 is a method of claim 6 and is thus rejected.
Claims 9, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir in view of Jiang et al. (US 20220078791 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 9, Ghadir fails to teach:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration indicates a sub-window within a system information (SI) window associated with the SIB19, and the sub-window is based at least in part on a sub-window offset and a sub-window length.
Jiang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration indicates a sub-window within a system information (SI) window associated with the SIB19, and the sub-window is based at least in part on a sub-window offset and a sub-window length. (paragraph 0017 – The use of a sub-frame that can be offset and of a reference duration).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the sub-window teachings of Jiang. The purpose of doing so would be that the UL timing can avoid interference and can delay transmissions as needed (paragraph 0012, 0017).
Claim 20 is a method of claim 9 and is thus rejected.
Regarding claim 14, Ghadir fails to teach:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the configuration indicates a sub-window within a system information (SI) window associated with the SIB19, and the sub-window is based at least in part on a sub-window offset and a sub-window length.
Jiang teaches:
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the configuration indicates a sub-window within a system information (SI) window associated with the SIB19, and the sub-window is based at least in part on a sub-window offset and a sub-window length. (paragraph 0017 – The use of a sub-frame that can be offset and of a reference duration).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the sub-window teachings of Jiang. The purpose of doing so would be that the UL timing can avoid interference and can delay transmissions as needed (paragraph 0012, 0017).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir in view of Cozzo et al. (US 20230131305 A1), hereinafter Cozzo.
Regarding claim 4, Ghadir teaches the reception of a SIB 19 (paragraph 0262).
Ghadir fails to teach: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein an uplink interruption rate associated [with a reception of the SIB19] is specified as a number of uplink slots per a non-terrestrial network (NTN) uplink synchronization validity duration.
Cozzo teaches: The apparatus of claim 2, wherein an uplink interruption rate associated with a reception of the SIB19 is specified as a number of uplink slots per a non-terrestrial network (NTN) uplink synchronization validity duration. (paragraph 0120 – Timing adjustment is made based on the uplink slots. The timing adjustment can cause a modification to the existing validity duration. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ghadir to incorporate the uplink interruption rate teachings teachings of Cozzo, updating timing adjustments using the uplink slots to account for phase discontinuity and power consistency (paragraph 0089).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cozzo in view of Ghadir.
Regarding claim 5, Ghadir teaches:
The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
determine a number of system information (SI) periodicities based at least in part on a parameter, wherein the parameter is defined in a specification, the parameter is received via a common radio resource control (RRC) signaling, or the parameter is received via a UE-specific RRC signaling. (Paragraph 0251 – The parameters are transmitted by the base station and received by the UE using RRC signaling. Paragraph 0252 – The parameters are configured)
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dashtaki in view of Ghadir.
Regarding claim 7, Ghadir teaches:
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
drop an uplink transmission within the SIB19 update window based at least in part on the configuration, wherein the uplink transmission is associated with a dynamically or semi-statically scheduled uplink channel or signal. (paragraph 0303 – The HARQ may be a semi-statically scheduled uplink signal. Paragraph 0302 - The PUCHH transmission may be dropped depending if the multiplexing conditions are satisfied.)
Regarding claim 13, Ghadir teaches:
The apparatus of claim 12, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: avoid an uplink scheduling that overlaps with the SIB19 update window. (paragraph 0301-0305 – Overlapping PUCCH and PUSCH may cause the signals to be multiplexed to avoid any conflicts.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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 ALEXANDER CRIGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472