DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. Amendments filed on 03/02/2026 are entered for prosecution. Applicant’s amendments to the abstract have overcome the objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action. Claims 1-18, 20, and 22-28 remain pending in the application. The amendments change the scopes of the previously presented claims. New grounds of rejections are applied to the amended claims and the current Office Action is made FINAL as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection in the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-18, 20, and 22-28 and filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1:
The applicant respectfully contends that PALLE does not teach or suggest the recited claim element of independent claim 1 “(Remarks Page 13) The signal quality measurements of Palle Venkata are determined during the SCG deactivated state. For the signal quality measurements of Palle Venka to be determined during the SCG deactivated state, the SGC deactivation message is received before the determination of the signal quality measurements. In contrast, independent claim 1 recites that the secondary cell deactivation message is received after determination of the first signal quality measurements”.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees because the rejection does not solely rely on PALLE but rather, PALLE in combination of CHRITOFFERSSON for the limitation. PALLE discloses a first signal quality metric measurement at the time to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters… As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors;[0114] Thus, in some aspects, the UE may use… to determine if the TA parameters can be reused or not. For example, the decision may be based on deviation of the measured PSCell signal strength throughout the deactivated SCG state. In some aspects, the baseline signal strength (from which the deviation is measured) may be the last signal quality measurement value at the time of deactivation, the moving average at the time of deactivation, or another value, as desired) and the timing advance value is determined at the time or prior to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message (Fig. 11 – 1114 “cases where UE would use the existing TA”; [0108] Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation)).
In summary, PALLE discloses the first signal quality metric and the timing advance value, wherein the timing advance value is determined prior to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message.
PALLE does not explicitly disclose the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses a determination of a timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of a first signal quality metric (RSRP1); ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first signal quality metric of PALLE to include the determination of the timing advance value is at the time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined and at the time that the TA value is being validated (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Therefore, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON, in combination, disclose the timing advance value is determined prior to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message and wherein the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric. Hence, the first signal quality metric is also determined prior to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message.
The examiner applies similar reasoning and rationale for the second signal quality metric as the first signal quality metric.
4. The applicant has similar arguments regarding independent claims 18 and 24. Therefore, the examiner applies similar reasoning from claim 1 to claims 18 and 24.
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.
5. Claims 1-10, 13, 15-18, 20, and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALLE in view of Christoffersson et al. (US 20240137886 A1, hereinafter, CHRISTOFFERSSON).
Regarding claim 1, PALLE discloses:
A user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2; Fig. 11 – UE 1102), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code ([0007] a non-transitory memory medium may include program instructions executable by a UE); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories ([0062] The UE 106 may include a processor that is configured to execute program instructions stored in memory) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to ([0062] The UE 106 may perform any of the method aspects described herein by executing such stored instructions):
receive a secondary cell de-activation message (Fig. 11 - 1108) associated with a secondary cell ([0105] In 1108, a secondary cell (e.g., in an SCG) and/or the SCG may be deactivated for a UE… the PCell may provide an SCG deactivation indication (e.g., via one or more messages) to the UE), the secondary cell de-activation message received after (Fig. 11 - 1108) determination by the UE of a timing advance value (Fig. 11 – 1106; (note that timing advance and TA will be used interchangeably from hereinafter)) for an uplink transmission to the secondary cell ([0104] The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network… In general, the TA parameters discussed herein may primarily apply to cell(s) of the SCG (the secondary cell is in the SCG));
determine a first signal quality metric associated with wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters… As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; [0114] Thus, in some aspects, the UE may use this filtered or long-term averaged signal strength to determine if the TA parameters can be reused or not. For example, the decision may be based on deviation of the measured PSCell signal strength throughout the deactivated SCG state. In some aspects, the baseline signal strength (from which the deviation is measured) may be the last signal quality measurement value at the time of deactivation, the moving average at the time of deactivation, or another value, as desired);
receive a secondary cell activation message associated with the secondary cell (Fig. 1112; [0006] At a second time, the cellular network may provide an indication to activate the SCG to the wireless device); and
determine, in response to receiving the secondary cell activation message (Fig. 11- 1112), whether the timing advance value determined prior to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message is valid (Fig. 11 – 1114 “cases where UE would use the existing TA”) for the wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell after receipt of the secondary cell activation message ([0108] the UE may not know if the previous TA values or parameters are still valid during the deactivated state. Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation)) based at least in part on a difference between the first signal quality metric and a second signal quality metric (Fig. 12; [0115] UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements… the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14).
PALLE further discloses the determination by the UE of the timing advance value is at a time different from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric associated with wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time different from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
PALLE does not explicitly disclose the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses a determination of a timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of the first signal quality metric (RSRP1) and a determination of whether a timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for a determination of a second signal quality metric (RSRP2) ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first and second signal quality metrics of PALLE to include the determination of the timing advance value is at the time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at the time same from the time for the determination of the second signal quality metric as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined and at the time that the TA value is being validated (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 2, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
Specifically, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the UE of claim 1, wherein, to determine whether the timing advance value is valid for the wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell after receipt of the secondary cell activation message.
PALLE further discloses:
the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
determine that the difference between the first signal quality metric and the second signal quality metric is less than or equal to a threshold ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters. In the example of FIG. 12, the UE may reuse the TA parameters because the average signal quality remains above the threshold. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14. [0141] Example 11. The of apparatus Example 10, wherein said comparing the moving average of the plurality of signal quality measurements comprises comparing the moving average to a lower threshold and an upper threshold, wherein said communicating with the second base station is performed using the stored one or more TA parameters based on the moving average of the two or more of the plurality of signal quality measurements being above the lower threshold and below the upper threshold.), the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
reuse the timing advance value based at least in part on the difference satisfying the threshold ([0115] In the example of FIG. 12, the UE may reuse the TA parameters because the average signal quality remains above the threshold; [0141] communicating with the second base station is performed using the stored one or more TA parameters).
Regarding claim 3, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 2, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
receive a control signaling that indicates the threshold ([0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters… the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters; [0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.). The moving average may be compared to one or more thresholds to determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., the last TA parameters used for the SCG prior to deactivation, among other possibilities) or perform a different process).
Regarding claim 4, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
receive a control signaling that indicates a first duration of time ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.); [0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC (e.g., control signaling) or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters. Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation or even during SCG deactivation, as desired… For example, the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters) associated with a determination of the first signal quality metric (Fig. 12; the first signal quality metric measured at the first duration (first column); [0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values).
Regarding claim 5, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 4, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
determine the timing advance value at a first time (Fig. 11 – 1106; [0104] The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network… In general, the TA parameters discussed herein may primarily apply to cell(s) of the SCG (the secondary cell is in the SCG)); and
determine the first signal quality metric within a first time window ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values) based at least in part on the first duration ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.)).
PALLE does not disclose determine the first time window is based at least in part on the first time.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses determine a first time window is based at least in part on a first time, wherein the determine of a timing advance value is at the first time ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first time window of PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON to include the first time window is based at least in part on the first time as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 6, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 4, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 4, wherein the first duration is based in part on a measurement cycle of the secondary cell (Fig. 12; the first signal quality metric measured at the first duration (first column) is part of an interval signal quality measurements), a frequency range (the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz)), a scaling factor or a combination thereof (Fig.12; [0123] The network may configure the manner in which the UE averages or filters the signal quality measurements used for determining if the TA parameter(s) are valid. For example, the network may specify the time duration or number of measurements to use for the moving average. The parameters for this averaging may depend on the situation and/or environment of the UE and/or the PSCell. For example, these parameters may depend on the nature of the PSCell (e.g., if it is a small cell), the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz), the terrain surrounding the cell, the current or long-term interference associated with the cell, etc.).
Regarding claim 7, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to:
receive a control signaling that indicates a second duration of time ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.); [0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC (e.g., control signaling) or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters. Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation or even during SCG deactivation, as desired… For example, the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters) associated with a determination of the second signal quality metric (Fig. 12; the second signal quality metric measured at the second duration (fifth column); [0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values).
Regarding claim 8, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 7, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
determine the second signal quality metric within a second time window ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values) based at least in part on the second duration ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.)) based at least in part on the second duration ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.)).
and a time for which validity of the timing advance value is evaluated (Fig. 11 – 1114; [0109] Thus, in 1112 and 1114, at the transition to the SCG activated state (e.g., from the SCG deactivated state), the UE may determine to whether to use stored TA parameters or to perform a different process, such as RACH, to reestablish synchronization in communicating with cell(s) in the SCG).
PALLE does not explicitly disclose determine the second time window is based at least in part on the time for which the validity of the timing advance value is evaluated.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses a second time window is based at least in part on a time for which a particular validity of a timing advance value is evaluated ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the second time window of PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON to include the second time window is based at least in part on a time for which the validity of the timing advance value is evaluated, wherein the validity of the timing advance value is evaluated associated just the same way as the particular validity of a timing advance value is evaluated as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was being validated (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 9, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 7, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 7, wherein the second duration is based in part on a measurement cycle of the secondary cell (Fig. 12; the second signal quality metric measured at the second duration (fifth column) is part of an interval signal quality measurements), a frequency range (the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz)), a scaling factor or a combination thereof (Fig.12; [0123] The network may configure the manner in which the UE averages or filters the signal quality measurements used for determining if the TA parameter(s) are valid. For example, the network may specify the time duration or number of measurements to use for the moving average. The parameters for this averaging may depend on the situation and/or environment of the UE and/or the PSCell. For example, these parameters may depend on the nature of the PSCell (e.g., if it is a small cell), the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz), the terrain surrounding the cell, the current or long-term interference associated with the cell, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the first signal quality metric is determined based at least in part on a cell defining synchronization signal block, a non- cell defining synchronization signal block, a tracking reference signal or a channel state information reference signal ([0112] These signal quality measurements may be any of various signal quality measurements, e.g., SINR (signal to interference and noise ratio), SNR (signal to noise ratio), RSRP (reference signal received power)… These measurements may be performed with regard to reference signals transmitted by the SCG (e.g., the PSCell). For example, the cell may transmit CRS (cell specific reference signals), SS (synchronization signals), CSI (channel state information) reference signal (CSI-RS), etc. and the UE may perform measurements of those signals to determine one or more signal quality metric(s), such as those discussed above. Thus, the signal quality measurements could include SS-RSRP, CSI-RSRP, NR-RSSI, CSI-RSSI, SS-RSRQ, CSI-RSRQ, SS-SINR, CSI-SINR, etc).
Regarding claim 13, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the first signal quality metric and the second signal quality ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values) metric are determined based at least in part on a same type of downlink reference signal ([0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters… the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters) or a different type of downlink reference signal ([0112] These signal quality measurements may be any of various signal quality measurements, e.g., SINR (signal to interference and noise ratio), SNR (signal to noise ratio), RSRP (reference signal received power), RSRQ (reference signal received quality), RSSI (received signal strength indicator), path loss, BLER (block error rate), and/or any desired signal quality measurement. These measurements may be performed with regard to reference signals transmitted by the SCG (e.g., the PSCell)).
Regarding claim 15, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein:
the secondary cell is configured with physical uplink control channel resources ([0104] In some aspects, the UE may be communicating with the network while in connected mode. The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network… In general, the TA parameters discussed herein may primarily apply to cell(s) of the SCG, although these aspects may also be applied to cell(s) of the MCG, as appropriate; [0106] In the control plane, for the deactivated state of SCG, uplink communication with the PSCell may not be permitted (meaning uplink communication with the PSCell is performed when permitted). In some aspects, all of the SCells in the SCG (or the SCG itself) may be deactivated; hence, even in the deactivated state, SCell in the SCG is configured with channel resources for uplink communication in the control plane via the PSCell).
Regarding claim 16, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the first signal quality metric and the second signal quality metric are both reference signal received power (RSRP) determinations ([0112] These signal quality measurements may be any of various signal quality measurements, e.g., SINR (signal to interference and noise ratio), SNR (signal to noise ratio), RSRP (reference signal received power), RSRQ (reference signal received quality)… These measurements may be performed with regard to reference signals transmitted by the SCG (e.g., the PSCell). For example, the cell may transmit CRS (cell specific reference signals), SS (synchronization signals), CSI (channel state information) reference signal (CSI-RS), etc).
Regarding claim 17, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the UE is in a radio resource control (RRC) connected mode during the determination the timing advance value (Fig. 11 – 1106; [0104] In some aspects, the UE may be communicating with the network while in connected mode (it is implied that the connected mode is an RRC connected mode/state – see [0106]). The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network; [0106] In some aspects, all of the SCells in the SCG (or the SCG itself) may be deactivated. In some aspects, there may not be any radio resource control (RRC) signaling to the UE on the SCG… Additionally, the UE may still remain in the RRC connected state (e.g., when communicating with cell(s) in the MCG). Thus, the UE may be configured to continue to perform communication with the MCG while the SCG is in the deactivated state, as desired) and during the determination of the first signal quality metric.
PALLE does not explicitly disclose the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of the first signal quality metric.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses the determination of a timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of the first signal quality metric ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first signal quality metric of PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON to include the determination of the timing advance value is at the time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 18, PALLE discloses:
A network entity (Fig. 11 – 1104 network; Fig. 4 – Base station; Fig 8;), comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (Fig. 4 – memory 460); and
one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity (Fig. 4 – 404 processor(s); [0077] the base station 102 may include processor(s) 404 which may execute program instructions for the base station 102. The processor(s) 404 may also be coupled to memory management unit (MMU) 440, which may be configured to receive addresses from the processor(s) 404 and translate those addresses to locations in memory (e.g., memory 460 and read only memory (ROM) 450) or to other circuits or devices) to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2; Fig. 11 – UE 1102), a first control signaling that indicates a threshold associated with determining that a timing advance value is valid (Fig. 11 – 1106; [0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters. Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation or even during SCG deactivation, as desired… For example, the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters; [0113] The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.). The moving average may be compared to one or more thresholds to determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., the last TA parameters used for the SCG prior to deactivation, among other possibilities) or perform a different process) and that indicates a first duration of time associated with a determination of a first signal quality metric ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters… As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors;[0114] Thus, in some aspects, the UE may use… to determine if the TA parameters can be reused or not. For example, the decision may be based on deviation of the measured PSCell signal strength throughout the deactivated SCG state. In some aspects, the baseline signal strength (from which the deviation is measured) may be the last signal quality measurement value at the time of deactivation, the moving average at the time of deactivation, or another value, as desired) and a second duration of time for a measurement of a second signal quality metric (Fig. 12; [0115] UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements… the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14);
transmit, to the UE, after transmission of the first control signaling ([0121] Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation), a secondary cell de-activation message associated with a secondary cell (Fig 9 – 1108 SCG deactivation); and
transmit, to the UE, a secondary cell activation message associated with the secondary cell (Fig. 11 – 1112 NW moves UE to SCG activated state), wherein the secondary cell activation message is transmitted prior (Fig. 11 – 1112) to a determination that the timing advance value is valid (Fig. – 1114 “cases where UE would use the existing TA”; [0139] Example 9. The method of Example 1, wherein said comparing the one or more of the plurality of signal quality measurements of the second base station to the one or more signal quality thresholds is performed after receiving the indication to activate the SCG).
PALLE further discloses the determination of the timing advance value is at a time different from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time different from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
PALLE does not explicitly disclose the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses a determination of a timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of the first signal quality metric (RSRP1) and a determination of whether a timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for a determination of a second signal quality metric (RSRP2) ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first and second signal quality metrics of PALLE to include the determination of the timing advance value is at the time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at the time same from the time for the determination of the second signal quality metric as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined and at the time that the TA value is being validated (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 20, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 19, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The network entity of claim 18, wherein the first duration is based in part on a measurement cycle of the secondary cell (Fig. 12; the first duration (first column) is part of an interval signal quality measurements), a frequency range (the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz)), a scaling factor or a combination thereof (Fig.12; [0123] The network may configure the manner in which the UE averages or filters the signal quality measurements used for determining if the TA parameter(s) are valid. For example, the network may specify the time duration or number of measurements to use for the moving average. The parameters for this averaging may depend on the situation and/or environment of the UE and/or the PSCell. For example, these parameters may depend on the nature of the PSCell (e.g., if it is a small cell), the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz), the terrain surrounding the cell, the current or long-term interference associated with the cell, etc.).
Regarding claim 22, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 18, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The network entity of claim 21, wherein the second duration is based in part on a measurement cycle of the secondary cell (Fig. 12; the second duration (fifth column) is part of an interval signal quality measurements), a frequency range (the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz)), a scaling factor or a combination thereof (Fig.12; [0123] The network may configure the manner in which the UE averages or filters the signal quality measurements used for determining if the TA parameter(s) are valid. For example, the network may specify the time duration or number of measurements to use for the moving average. The parameters for this averaging may depend on the situation and/or environment of the UE and/or the PSCell. For example, these parameters may depend on the nature of the PSCell (e.g., if it is a small cell), the spectrum used (e.g., greater than 5 GHz), the terrain surrounding the cell, the current or long-term interference associated with the cell, etc.).
Regarding claim 23, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 18, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
the secondary cell is configured with physical uplink control channel resources ([0104] In some aspects, the UE may be communicating with the network while in connected mode. The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network… In general, the TA parameters discussed herein may primarily apply to cell(s) of the SCG, although these aspects may also be applied to cell(s) of the MCG, as appropriate; [0106] In the control plane, for the deactivated state of SCG, uplink communication with the PSCell may not be permitted (meaning uplink communication with the PSCell is performed when permitted). In some aspects, all of the SCells in the SCG (or the SCG itself) may be deactivated; hence, even in the deactivated state, SCell in the SCG is configured with channel resources for uplink communication in the control plane via the PSCell).
Regarding claim 24, PALLE discloses:
A method for wireless communication by user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2; Fig. 11 – UE 1102; [0004] Aspects are presented herein of apparatuses, systems, and methods for secondary cell group (SCG) re-activation), comprising:
receiving a secondary cell de-activation message (Fig. 11 - 1108) associated with a secondary cell ([0105] In 1108, a secondary cell (e.g., in an SCG) and/or the SCG may be deactivated for a UE… the PCell may provide an SCG deactivation indication (e.g., via one or more messages) to the UE), the secondary cell de-activation message received after (Fig. 11 - 1108) determination by the UE of a timing advance value (Fig. 11 – 1106; (note that timing advance and TA will be used interchangeably from hereinafter)) for an uplink transmission to the secondary cell ([0104] The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network… In general, the TA parameters discussed herein may primarily apply to cell(s) of the SCG (the secondary cell is in the SCG));
determining a first signal quality metric associated with wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters… As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; [0114] Thus, in some aspects, the UE may use this filtered or long-term averaged signal strength to determine if the TA parameters can be reused or not. For example, the decision may be based on deviation of the measured PSCell signal strength throughout the deactivated SCG state. In some aspects, the baseline signal strength (from which the deviation is measured) may be the last signal quality measurement value at the time of deactivation, the moving average at the time of deactivation, or another value, as desired);
receiving a secondary cell activation message associated with the secondary cell (Fig. 1112; [0006] At a second time, the cellular network may provide an indication to activate the SCG to the wireless device); and
determining, in response to receiving the secondary cell activation message (Fig. 11- 1112), whether the timing advance value determined prior to receipt of the secondary cell de-activation message is valid (Fig. 11 – 1114 “cases where UE would use the existing TA”) for the wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell after receipt of the secondary cell activation message ([0108] the UE may not know if the previous TA values or parameters are still valid during the deactivated state. Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation)) based at least in part on a difference between the first signal quality metric and a second signal quality metric (Fig. 12; [0115] UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements… the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14.), wherein the second signal quality metric is determined after receipt of the secondary cell activation message.
PALLE further discloses the determination by the UE of the timing advance value is at a time different from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric associated with wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time different from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
PALLE does not explicitly disclose the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses a determination of a timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of the first signal quality metric (RSRP1) and a determination of whether a timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for a determination of a second signal quality metric (RSRP2) ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first and second signal quality metrics of PALLE to include the determination of the timing advance value is at the time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at the time same from the time for the determination of the second signal quality metric as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined and at the time that the TA value is being validated (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 25, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 24, as shown in the rejection above.
Specifically, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the method of claim 24, wherein determining whether the timing advance value is valid for the wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell after receipt of the secondary cell activation message.
PALLE further discloses:
determining that the difference between the first signal quality metric and the second signal quality metric is less than or equal to a threshold ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters. In the example of FIG. 12, the UE may reuse the TA parameters because the average signal quality remains above the threshold. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14. [0141] Example 11. The of apparatus Example 10, wherein said comparing the moving average of the plurality of signal quality measurements comprises comparing the moving average to a lower threshold and an upper threshold, wherein said communicating with the second base station is performed using the stored one or more TA parameters based on the moving average of the two or more of the plurality of signal quality measurements being above the lower threshold and below the upper threshold.), the method further comprising:
reusing the timing advance value based at least in part on the difference satisfying the threshold ([0115] In the example of FIG. 12, the UE may reuse the TA parameters because the average signal quality remains above the threshold; [0141] communicating with the second base station is performed using the stored one or more TA parameters).
Regarding claim 26, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 24, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
receiving a control signaling that indicates a first duration of time ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.); [0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC (e.g., control signaling) or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters. Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation or even during SCG deactivation, as desired… For example, the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters) associated with a determination of the first signal quality metric (Fig. 12; the first signal quality metric measured at the first duration (first column); [0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values).
Regarding claim 27, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 26, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
determining the timing advance value at a first time (Fig. 11 – 1106; [0104] The network may provide TA parameters and/or adjustments to the UE, e.g., based on uplink communication from the UE to the network… In general, the TA parameters discussed herein may primarily apply to cell(s) of the SCG (the secondary cell is in the SCG)); and
determining the first signal quality metric within a first time window ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters…. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values) based at least in part on the first duration ([0113] In some aspects, the UE may perform a plurality of measurements over time and may determine a moving average of the signal quality. The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.)).
PALLE does not explicitly disclose determine the first time window is based at least in part on the first time.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses determine a first time window is based at least in part on a first time, wherein the determine of a timing advance value is at the first time ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first time window of PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON to include the first time window is based at least in part on the first time as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
Regarding claim 28, PALLE discloses:
A method for wireless communication by a network entity (Fig. 11 – 1104 network; Fig. 4 – Base station; [0004] Aspects are presented herein of apparatuses, systems, and methods for secondary cell group (SCG) re-activation), comprising:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2; Fig. 11 – UE 1102), a first control signaling that indicates a threshold associated with determining that a timing advance value is valid (Fig. 11 – 1106; [0121] In some aspects, the network may configure various parameters (e.g., in RRC or other messaging from the MCG, SCG, or another network node) that are used to determine whether to reuse the previously stored TA parameters. Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation or even during SCG deactivation, as desired… For example, the network may specify the set of reference signals the UE may measure for determining whether to reuse the TA parameters; [0113] The moving average may be based on a duration or a number of measurements (e.g., which may be configurable by the network (e.g., the MCG and/or the SCG), specified by 3GPP standards, implemented by the UE, etc.). The moving average may be compared to one or more thresholds to determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., the last TA parameters used for the SCG prior to deactivation, among other possibilities) or perform a different process) and that indicates a first duration of time associated with a determination of a first signal quality metric ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters… As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors;[0114] Thus, in some aspects, the UE may use… to determine if the TA parameters can be reused or not. For example, the decision may be based on deviation of the measured PSCell signal strength throughout the deactivated SCG state. In some aspects, the baseline signal strength (from which the deviation is measured) may be the last signal quality measurement value at the time of deactivation, the moving average at the time of deactivation, or another value, as desired) and a second duration of time associated with a measurement of a second signal quality metric (Fig. 12; [0115] UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements… the final UE distance from the PSCell is similar to the original distance from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14);
transmitting, to the UE and after transmission of the first control signaling ([0121] Such configuration(s) may be provided… at other times, e.g., prior to SCG deactivation), a secondary cell de-activation message associated with a secondary cell (Fig 9 – 1108 SCG deactivation); and
transmitting, to the UE, a secondary cell activation message associated with the secondary cell (Fig. 11 – 1112 NW moves UE to SCG activated state), wherein the secondary cell activation message is transmitted prior (Fig. 11 – 1112) to a determination that the timing advance value is valid (Fig. – 1114 “cases where UE would use the existing TA”).
PALLE further discloses the determination of the timing advance value is at a time different from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time different from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
PALLE does not explicitly disclose the determination of the timing advance value is at a time same from a time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for the determination of the second signal quality metric.
However, CHRISTOFFERSSON discloses a determination of a timing advance value is at a time same from a time for a determination of the first signal quality metric (RSRP1) and a determination of whether a timing advance value is valid is at a time same from a time for a determination of a second signal quality metric (RSRP2) ([0176] Serving cell measurement (e.g. RSRP) changes e.g. based on signal level change (e.g. RSRP change). In this case for example the TA is considered to be valid if the magnitude of the difference between the RSRP measured (RSRP1) at or around time (T1) when TA was configured and the RSRP measured (RSRP2) at or around time (T2) when TA is being validated (for data transmission), is below or equal to certain threshold (G); otherwise the TA is invalid).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the determination of the first and second signal quality metrics of PALLE to include the determination of the timing advance value is at the time same from the time for the determination of the first signal quality metric and the determination of whether the timing advance value is valid is at the time same from the time for the determination of the second signal quality metric as taught by CHRISTOFFERSSON in order to improve the accuracy of the determination of whether the timing advance is valid by including the measurements of the RSRP at the time the TA value was determined and at the time that the TA value is being validated (CHRISTOFFERSSON - [0176];).
6. Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALLE in view of CHRISTOFFERSSON and in further view of Yuan et al. (US 20240089885 A1, YUAN) and Yang et al.( US 20140192798 A1, hereinafter YANG).
Regarding claim 11, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
Specifically, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose The UE of claim 1, wherein, to determine whether the timing advance value is valid for the wireless communications between the UE and the secondary cell after receipt of the secondary cell activation message.
PALLE further discloses:
the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
determine that the difference between the first signal quality metric and the second signal quality metric ([0115] FIG. 12 illustrates an exemplary UE movement over time with corresponding signal quality measurements, average signal-quality measurement over time, and a threshold for determining whether to use the previously stored TA parameters. In the example of FIG. 12, the UE may reuse the TA parameters because the average signal quality remains above the threshold. As shown in the Figure, the final UE distance (based on second signal quality metric) from the PSCell is similar to the original distance (based on first signal quality metric) from the PSCell, so reusing the TA parameters should not cause any signal reception errors and allows the UE to skip RACH or another process to redetermine appropriate TA values; Fig.14; [0122] In one aspect, the network may configure a “mean deviation” instead of low/high thresholds, and if the UE's signal strength deviates away from its prior signal quality by more than this value in either direction, the UE may consider the TA value as not valid. This aspect may be particularly relevant to the example shown in FIG. 14.) is greater than a threshold ([0115] [0122]; it is implied that if the final UE distance and the original distance are different based on the threshold; then the TA parameters will not be reused), the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
discard the timing advance value ([0108] Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation) or to initiate a RACH or other process in order to obtain new TA parameters (obtain the TA parameters would replace (discard) the previous parameters); [0121] the UE may consider the TA value as not valid); and
transmit, to a network entity, a first control signaling that requests the network entity to issue an order for an uplink SRS to acquire a second timing advance value ([0124] the network may configure the UE to inform the network (e.g., using the MCG) that the TA is not valid for the SCG. The UE may be configured to inform the network as soon as it determines this… such as when the network reactivates SCG. In some aspects, the network (e.g., in response to the UE informing the network that the TA parameters are not valid) may trigger uplink SRS (e.g., with the PSCell) in order to update the TA parameters. When the UE performs uplink SRS during the deactivated state, the UE may then receive TA parameters (e.g., a TA adjustment for the previously stored TA parameters) from the PSCell. The UE can then use these updated TA parameters when SCG reactivation occurs. [0108] Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation) or to initiate a RACH (includes transmitting the preamble) or other process in order to obtain new TA parameters; [0144] Example 14. The apparatus of Example 10, wherein…the wireless device to: perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure in response to determining to obtain the new one or more TA parameters).
PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON do not explicitly disclose the uplink SRS is for a random access procedure.
However, YUAN discloses the uplink SRS is for a random access procedure ([0055] To be specific, the UE sends the uplink signal in advance based on a command transmitted through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and an uplink sounding reference signal (SRS). The access network device may send a timing advance command (TAC) to the terminal device through a random access response (RAR).).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the code for the UE and the uplink SRS of PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON to include the uplink SRS is for the random access procedure as taught by YUAN, in order to update the timing advance value (Yuan, [0055]; PALLE, [0124]).
PALLE, CHRISTOFFERSSON and YUAN do not explicitly disclose suspend an uplink transmission on a first timing advance group (TAG) associated with the secondary cell, the timing advance value is associated with the first TAG, and the second timing advance value is associated with the first TAG.
However, YANG discloses suspend an uplink transmission on a first timing advance group (TAG) associated with a secondary cell ([0014] In an embodiment, the configuring the current secondary cell with a new timing advance group indication information comprises: determining whether the new timing advance group to which the current secondary cell belongs has a valid timing advance value… and in response to determining that the new timing advance group has no valid timing advance value, indicating the user equipment to stop the uplink transmission until triggering the physical random access channel procedure on the current secondary cell to obtain a new timing advance value), a timing advance value is associated with the first TAG ([0014] in response to determining that the new timing advance group has no valid timing advance value), and a second timing advance value is associated with the first TAG ([0015] In another embodiment, the triggering a physical random access channel procedure on the secondary cell to obtain a new timing advance value comprises: determining whether the new timing advance value is the same as the timing advance value of an existing timing advance group; in response to determining that the new timing advance value is the same as the timing advance value of the existing timing advance group, reconfiguring the secondary cell into the existing timing advance group).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the code for the UE and the timing advance value of PALLE, CHRISTOFFERSSON, and YUAN to include suspend the uplink transmission on the first timing advance group (TAG) associated with the secondary cell, the timing advance value is associated with the first TAG, and the second timing advance value is associated with the first TAG as taught by YANG in order to effectively detect and support changes in TAG due to the UE’s movement (YANG - [0005] due to constant movement of the UE or other causes, the current secondary cell of the UE might belong to different TA groups so that the UE uses different new TA values, which inevitably involves the issue of a TA group change. How to detect such a TA group change and subsequently support such a TA group change is a problem that needs to be solved in the art).
Regarding claim 12, PALLE, CHRISTOFFERSSON, YUAN and YANG disclose the limitations of claim 11, as shown in the rejection above.
Specifically, PALLE, CHRISTOFFERSSON, YUAN and YANG disclose the first control signaling that requests the network entity to issue the order for the random access procedure is transmitted.
PALLE further discloses:
the control signaling is transmitted on an activated primary cell ([0124] the network may configure the UE to inform the network (e.g., using the MCG) (the primary cell is always activated according to [0099]) that the TA is not valid for the SCG. The UE may be configured to inform the network as soon as it determines this… such as when the network reactivates SCG. [0108] Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation) or to initiate a RACH (includes transmitting the preamble) or other process in order to obtain new TA parameters) or a second secondary cell associated with a second TAG and the second secondary cell has a valid timing advance value, and
the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE ([0062];) to:
initiate the random access procedure ([0108] Upon reactivation, the UE may determine whether to use the previous TA parameters (e.g., stored prior to deactivation and/or at the time of deactivation) or to initiate a RACH (includes transmitting the preamble) or other process in order to obtain new TA parameters).
PALLE, CHRISTOFFERSSON and YUAN do not explicitly disclose:
receive a second control signaling that indicates the order for the random access procedure; and
the random access procedure is initiated on the activated primary cell or the secondary cell associated with the first TAG.
However, YANG discloses receive a second control signaling that indicates an order for the random access procedure ([0056] the base station does not know the UE position when the TA changes, the PRACH procedure should be triggered on this new secondary cell for an uplink time alignment purpose, e.g., the new TA value is obtained either by a MAC CE or PDCCH order); and
initiate a particular random access procedure on an activated primary cell or a secondary cell ([0056] the PRACH procedure should be triggered on this new secondary cell) associated with a first TAG ([0056] After the new TA is obtained, if this TA value is the same as a value of an existing TA group, the base station will reconfigure this secondary cell into the existing TA group to decrease the number of the maintained TA groups).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the code of the UE of PALLE, CHRISTOFFERSSON, YUAN and YANG to include receive the second control signaling that indicates the order for the random access procedure and initiate the random access procedure on the secondary cell associated with the first TAG, wherein the initiate the random access procedure is associated just the same way as the initiate the particular random access procedure as taught by YANG in order to obtain the new TA value to achieve time alignment for uplink transmissions (YANG - [0056] In addition, for the above situation 2 or the base station does not know the UE position when the TA changes, the PRACH procedure should be triggered on this new secondary cell for an uplink time alignment purpose, e.g., the new TA value is obtained either by a MAC CE or PDCCH order; PALLE – [0101] Usually, during random access channel (RACH) attachment, the network (e.g., the gNB) may estimate the timing advance a UE needs to make, so that “all” the receptions from different UEs arrive at the same time at the gNB (as shown in FIG. 11)).
7. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PALLE in view of CHRISTOFFERSSON and in further view of NAGASAKA et al. (US 20180054846 A1, hereinafter, NAGASAKA).
Regarding claim 14, PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON disclose the limitations of claim 1, as shown in the rejection above.
PALLE further discloses:
The UE of claim 1, wherein the first signal quality metric and the second signal quality metric are determined on different cells in a same secondary cell group as the secondary cell ([0106] In the control plane, for the deactivated state of SCG, uplink communication with the PSCell may not be permitted. In some aspects, all of the SCells in the SCG (or the SCG itself) may be deactivated (the secondary cell is equated to any of the deactivated SCells other than the cell(s) in the SCG of which signal quality measurements are performed). In some aspects, there may not be any radio resource control (RRC) signaling to the UE on the SCG. However, the UE may still be expected to perform radio resource management (RRM), e.g., including signal quality measurements of cell(s) in the SCG. (the different cells are equated to the cell(s) in the SCG of which signal quality measurements are performed)).
PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON do not explicitly disclose the same secondary cell group having a same timing advance group.
However, NAGASAKA discloses a secondary cell group having a same timing advance group ([0086] The “communication state” includes a state of adjustment of a transmission timing (Timing Advance) of an uplink and a generation state of downlink data from the SeNB 200-S to the UE 100… It is noted that the “communication state” basically needs to take into consideration each cell configuring the SCG. Thus, it is preferable that the communication state information includes information on a communication state of each cell configuring the SCG. However, when each cell configuring the SCG belongs to the same TAG (timing advance group), the “communication state” may take into consideration the Special Cell only. In this case, the communication state information may only need to include the communication state information on the Special Cell).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the same cell group of PALLE and CHRISTOFFERSSON to include the same cell group having the same timing advance group as taught by NAGASAKA in order to simplify the communication between the UE and the network by using a single timing reference to transmit the timing advance to all the cells within the same group (NAGASAKA – [0086];).
Conclusion
8. 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 THERESA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, MOO JEONG can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/THERESA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418