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 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 11, 16-18, 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 16, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir et al. (WO 2025165742 A1) in view of Suh et al. (US 20240179592 A1).
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 the SIB19 based at least in part on the configuration; and
Ghadir fails to teach,
receive a configuration that includes scheduling information for a system information block 19 (SIB 19);
transmit an uplink transmission that has an uplink synchronization based at least in part on the SIB 19.
receive the SIB19 based at least in part on the configuration; and
Suh teaches,
receive a configuration that includes scheduling information for a system information block 19 (SIB 19); (Figures 8, 9, labels S901-S903, S1001-S1003, paragraphs 0097 – 0115 – The UE receives scheduling information including an SIB19 with a scheduling offset.)
transmit an uplink transmission that has an uplink synchronization based at least in part on the SIB 19. (paragraph 0126 – The uplink transmission is based on at least partly the scheduling offset. Paragraph 0107 – The scheduling offset may be an SIB19.)
receive the SIB19 based at least in part on the configuration; (paragraph 0102 – The UE receives the system information and scheduling offset and uses it to determine timing of uplink transmission based on downlink transmission.)
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 transmission teachings of Suh. The purpose of doing so is to perform uplink transmissions more efficiently to improve performance by using a scheduling offset (paragraph 0028, Suh).
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 (Figure 15, label 1514, paragraph 0213)
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the network node to: (Figure 15, label 1508, paragraph 0213)
Ghadir fails to teach,
transmit a configuration that includes scheduling information for a system information block 19 (SIB19); and
receive an uplink transmission that has an uplink synchronization based at least in part on the SIB19.
Suh teaches,
transmit a configuration that includes scheduling information for a system information block 19 (SIB19); and (Figures 8, 9, labels S901-S903, S1001-S1003, paragraphs 0097 – 0115 – The UE receives scheduling information from the base station including an SIB19 with a scheduling offset.)
receive an uplink transmission that has an uplink synchronization based at least in part on the SIB19. (paragraph 0126 – The uplink transmission is based on at least partly the scheduling offset. Paragraph 0107 – The scheduling offset may be an SIB19.)
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 transmission teachings of Suh. The purpose of doing so is to perform uplink transmissions more efficiently to improve performance by using a scheduling offset (paragraph 0028, Suh).
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 21 is a method of claim 11 and is thus rejected.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir-Suh, 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-Suh 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-Suh 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, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir-Suh, in as applied above, view of Khoskholgh Dashtaki et al. (US 20230209647 A1), hereinafter Dashtaki.
Regarding claim 6, Ghadir-Suh 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-Suh 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 the scheduling information.
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 the scheduling information. (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-Suh 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-Suh 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-Suh 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-Suh 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-Suh 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.
Claim 22 is a method of claim 12 and is thus rejected.
Claims 9, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir-Suh in view of Jiang et al. (US 20220078791 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 9, Ghadir-Suh 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-Suh 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-Suh 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-Suh 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).
Claims 4, 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir-Suh in view of Cozzo et al. (US 20230131305 A1), hereinafter Cozzo.
Regarding claim 4, Ghadir-Suh teaches the reception of a SIB 19 (paragraph 0262).
Ghadir-Suh 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-Suh to incorporate the uplink interruption rate teachings of Cozzo, updating timing adjustments using the uplink slots to account for phase discontinuity and power consistency (paragraph 0089).
Regarding claim 5, Ghadir-Suh 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, 13, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghadir-Suh in view of Dashtaki.
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.)
Claim 23 is a method of claim 13 and is thus rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 CRIGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights