Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 15-17, 20-23, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (Patent No: US 2024/0162976 A1), hereinafter, Ye.
Regarding Claim 1, Ye teaches,
An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to: -Fig. 4; Paragraph [0085] ( Fig. 4 shows system block diagram employable at the UE including processors (410) and coupled with memory (430))
transmit, to a distributed unit (DU) of a network node associated with a non-terrestrial network (NTN), an uplink transmission, wherein the DU is onboard a satellite and a central unit (CU) of the network node is on ground; -Paragraph [0033][0119] ([0119] recites, “the UE 110 sends the PRACH to access the network, which can include the BFRQ comprising a beam index of a new beam. The network or gNB 120, for example, can respond by send back a random access response, a RAR message. However, the RAR message could reach the UE late in NTN due to the large propagation delay in NTN….”[0033] recites, “…As a gNB 120, the RAN 120 can comprise one or more Distributed Units/Components (DU(s)) and a Central Unit/Components (CU)) and communicatively couple to CN 130 as a 5GC via satellite 160. …Instead of placing an entire gNB 120 on a satellite 160, in an aspect, an architecture can have a component of the gNB 120 (e.g., the DU) located on satellite 160. The components of the gNB therefore can be directly connected to the processing circuitry of the satellite 160, while being communicatively coupled to the CU at a ground level gNB part. “)
and receive, from the DU, a downlink transmission based at least in part on a delayed downlink channel monitoring window, -Fig. 5; Paragraph [0096] ( Fig. 5 shows UE receives DL transmission (516) in delayed downlink monitoring window (Desired BFR monitoring window) [0096] recites, “Once the UE 110 sends a PRACH for a BFRQ at slot n of UE UL 518, the UE 110 can initiate monitoring for the BFRR in the “BFR monitoring window” in UL or DL. Here, if the UE 110 initiates the BFR monitoring window at only four slots based on the UL timing signaling 518, this would be too early because the UL message (e.g., BFRQ) has just reached the gNB 110 at slot n in the received signaling 514 because of the large propagation delay over NTNs. Thus, a time offset 532 can be configured in addition to four or more slots 534 to enable the “desired BFR monitoring window” instead of the “undesired beam failure recovery monitoring window”. Such a time offset 532 can also be configured for initiating monitoring in the UL in UL 518, which is not shown here for explanation purposes, as in the UE DL 516 signaling with the “desired BFR monitoring window”.)
wherein the delayed downlink channel monitoring window is based at least in part on a first time offset and a second time offset, the first time offset is associated with a UE-DU round-trip time (RTT), and the second time offset is associated with a CU-DU RTT. -Fig. 5; Paragraph [0096-0098] ([0097-0098] recites, “ the time offset 532 can comprise a K offset, K mac, or both so that the UE begins to monitor for the BFRR at four or more slots plus the time offset. Depending on where a time reference point is at with respect to an RTT between a UE, gNB or satellite node, the K mac can be added to the K offset as an additional time offset, or used as the time offset alone. The K mac can be equal to time offset used for a MAC CE activation time for DL configuration. In an aspect, different time offset alternatives can be configured dynamically or statically depending on an RTT between the UE 110 and gNB 120, each configured with four or more slots and a K offset, K mac or both K offset plus K mac…” RTT between UE and gNB is equal to RTT between UE and DU (at the satellite) and RTT between CU-DU RTT as gNB may be distributed between DU (at the satellite) and CU (at the ground) as recited in [0033].)
Regarding Claim 2, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Ye further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: receive, via a broadcast, a system information block (SIB) that includes an indication of the CU-DU RTT. -Paragraph [0162-0163] ([0162-0163] recites, “wherein the time offset is based on a random access response (RAR) window offset derived from a minimum round trip time (RTT) of a cell for the NTN, or wherein the time offset is based on a maximum RTT of the cell that is broadcast for an initial access. A fourth example can include any one or more of the first through third examples, wherein the time offset comprises at least one of: a K offset that is a cell specific timing offset or a beam specific offset, based on a maximum RTT broadcast from a network for an initial access…”)
Regarding Claim 3, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Ye further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission is a message 3 (Msg3) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message 4 (Msg4) of the RACH procedure. -Paragraph [0123] ([0123] recites, “…Then after getting the RAR message, the UE 110 can send a message Contention Resolution message 3 (Msg 3) and wait for message (Msg 4) in the contention resolution. Msg 3 is from UE 110 to network and Msg 4 is from network to the UE 110….”)
Regarding Claim 4, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
Ye further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: delay a Msg4 radio resource control (RRC) monitoring by the CU-DU RTT in accordance with the delayed downlink channel monitoring window, -Paragraph [0123] ([0123] recites, “The CRtimer can be a time initiated at Msg 3 in contention resolution that is a configured value between 8 and 64 ms. In one embodiment, the CRtimer can be enhanced/enlarged by configuring an additional Contention Resolution timer time offset added to the CRtimer as a function of the TA and the K offset based on the UE specific RTT between the UE 110 and gNB 120” enhanced/enlarged CRtimer is equivalent to moving/delaying downlink channel monitoring window. TA includes UE to DU RTT, K offset is dependent on CU-DU RTT for NTN where the DU resides in the satellite)
wherein: the Msg4 RRC monitoring is delayed by the CU-DU RTT after an end of a reception of a contention resolution identifier medium access control control element (MAC-CE), -Paragraph [0168-0169] ([0168-0169] recites, “transmit an UL message comprising a random access message 3 for a random access procedure in the NTN; and monitor a reception of a contention resolution message 4 in response to the RAR message 3 based on a contention resolution timer (CRtimer) and a K mac derived from a drifting rate in the NTN and at least one of: a timing advance (TA) or a K offset that is broadcasted for an initial access… the time offset comprises a cell specific, a beam specific or a UE specific K offset that is received via a radio resource control (RRC) message, a MAC CE, or a DCI”)
or the Msg4 RRC monitoring is delayed by the CU-DU RTT after an end of a transmission of an acknowledgement associated with the contention resolution identifier MAC-CE.
Regarding Claim 5, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 3.
Ye further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: delay a Msg4 radio resource control (RRC) monitoring by a UE-CU RTT in accordance with the delayed downlink channel monitoring window, wherein the Msg4 RRC monitoring is delayed by the UE-CU RTT after an end of a Msg3 transmission, and the UE-CU RTT is the UE-DU RTT plus the CU-DU RTT. -Paragraph [0033, 0096-0098] ([0096-0098] recites, “At NTN signaling 506, a larger TA 530 is utilized than the TA 520 in TN signaling 504, for example. Once the UE 110 sends a PRACH for a BFRQ at slot n of UE UL 518, the UE 110 can initiate monitoring for the BFRR in the “BFR monitoring window” in UL or DL. Here, if the UE 110 initiates the BFR monitoring window at only four slots based on the UL timing signaling 518, this would be too early because the UL message (e.g., BFRQ) has just reached the gNB 110 at slot n in the received signaling 514 because of the large propagation delay over NTNs. Thus, a time offset 532 can be configured in addition to four or more slots 534 to enable the “desired BFR monitoring window” instead of the “undesired beam failure recovery monitoring window”. Such a time offset 532 can also be configured for initiating monitoring in the UL in UL 518, which is not shown here for explanation purposes, as in the UE DL 516 signaling with the “desired BFR monitoring window”. As discussed above, the time offset 532 can comprise a K offset, K mac, or both so that the UE begins to monitor for the BFRR at four or more slots plus the time offset. Depending on where a time reference point is at with respect to an RTT between a UE, gNB or satellite node, the K mac can be added to the K offset as an additional time offset, or used as the time offset alone. The K mac can be equal to time offset used for a MAC CE activation time for DL configuration. In an aspect, different time offset alternatives can be configured dynamically or statically depending on an RTT between the UE 110 and gNB 120, each configured with four or more slots and a K offset, K mac or both K offset plus K mac.” ….”[0033] recites, “..As a gNB 120, the RAN 120 can comprise one or more Distributed Units/Components (DU(s)) and a Central Unit/Components (CU)) and communicatively couple to CN 130 as a 5GC via satellite 160. The DU(s) and CU can be separated out from one another geographically, for example, and a CU can control multiple DUs to enable one or more DUs to be placed closer to the UE 110 with connectivity to the CU as an S1 interface, for example, as a gNB on-board based station, in which at least a part of the gNB 120 as a system or device is located on the satellite 160. Instead of placing an entire gNB 120 on a satellite 160, in an aspect, an architecture can have a component of the gNB 120 (e.g., the DU) located on satellite 160. The components of the gNB therefore can be directly connected to the processing circuitry of the satellite 160, while being communicatively coupled to the CU at a ground level gNB part. “ As explained above gNB can be distributed with DU in satellite and CN in ground. Therefore, communication from UE to CE goes through satellite, i.e., from UE to DU in satellite and from DU to CU at ground level. Therefore, UE-CU RTT is equal to UE-DU RTT plus CU-DU RTT)
Claim 15 is very similar to Claim 1 and the only difference is that Claim 15 is seen from network node (DU) perspective (e.g., DU receives etc.), while Claim 1 is from UE perspective (e.g., UE transmits etc.). The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Claim 16 is very similar to Claim 2 and the only difference is that Claim 16 is seen from network node (DU) perspective, while Claim 1 is from UE perspective. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 2 above which is rejected. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claim 17 is very similar to Claim 3. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 3 above which is rejected. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 1. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 1 above which is rejected. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 21.
Ye further teaches,
The method of claim 20, wherein the uplink transmission is a message 3 (Msg3) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message 4 (Msg4) of the RACH procedure. -Paragraph [0123] ([0123] recites, “ Then after getting the RAR message, the UE 110 can send a message Contention Resolution message 3 (Msg 3) and wait for message (Msg 4) in the contention resolution. Msg 3 is from UE 110 to network and Msg 4 is from network to the UE 110…”)
Claim 22 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 4. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 4 above which is rejected. Claim 22 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 4.
Claim 23 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 5. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 5 above which is rejected. Claim 23 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 5.
Claim 28 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 15. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 15 above which is rejected. Claim 28 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 15.
Claim 29 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 16. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 16 above which is rejected. Claim 29 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 16.
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.
Claims 6-9, 18, 24-27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye
in view of Tripathi et al. (Patent No: US 2021/0144581 A1), hereinafter, Tripathi.
Regarding Claim 6, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Ye does not explicitly mention,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission is a message A (MsgA) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message B (MsgB) of the RACH procedure.
However, in an analogous invention, Tripathi teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission is a message A (MsgA) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message B (MsgB) of the RACH procedure. -Paragraph [0213, 0216] ([0213] recites, “In step F8S11, the UE sends a RA preamble in case of the 4-step random access procedure or Msg A (i.e., Message A) in case of the 2-step random access procedure…” [0216] recites, “ In step F8S13, the T-gNB sends RAR in case of the 4-step RA procedure and Msg B (i.e., Message B) in case of the 2-step RA procedure.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY TIMING IN A NONTERRESTRIAL NETWORK (NTN)” proposed by Ye to include the concept of “the uplink transmission is a message A (MsgA) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message B (MsgB) of the RACH procedure.” of Tripathi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to providing efficient service for delay tolerant services and/or for large cells with high capacity requirements per cell [0010].
Regarding Claim 7, Ye and Tripathi teach the limitations of Claim 6.
Ye further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: delay a downlink channel monitoring by the CU-DU RTT in accordance with the delayed downlink channel monitoring window based at least in part on the RACH procedure being successful, -Paragraph [0123] ([0123] recites, “The CRtimer can be a time initiated at Msg 3 in contention resolution that is a configured value between 8 and 64 ms. In one embodiment, the CRtimer can be enhanced/enlarged by configuring an additional Contention Resolution timer time offset added to the CRtimer as a function of the TA and the K offset based on the UE specific RTT between the UE 110 and gNB 120” enhanced/enlarged CRtimer is equivalent to moving/delaying downlink channel monitoring window. TA includes UE to DU RTT, K offset is dependent on CU-DU RTT for NTN where the DU resides in the satellite)
Although implicit, Ye does not explicitly mention,
wherein the downlink channel monitoring is delayed for an initial access in which the UE is in an idle mode, a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment, or during a handover in which an RRC reconfiguration message is transmitted in the MsgA.
However, in an analogous invention, Tripathi teaches,
wherein the downlink channel monitoring is delayed for an initial access in which the UE is in an idle mode, a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment, or during a handover in which an RRC reconfiguration message is transmitted in the MsgA. -Fig. 11; Paragraph [0213] ([0213] recites, “In step F8S11, the UE sends a RA preamble in case of the 4-step random access procedure or Msg A (i.e., Message A) in case of the 2-step random access procedure, processes the received RRC reconfiguration message to the UE, and prepares to implement the method(s) to reduce the traffic interruption using the configurations specified by the S-gNB and the T-gNB.” As shown is Fig. 11, Msg A is transmitted during RRC reestablishment/handover (F8S12))
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY TIMING IN A NONTERRESTRIAL NETWORK (NTN)” proposed by Ye to include the concept of “the downlink channel monitoring is delayed for an initial access in which the UE is in an idle mode, a radio resource control (RRC) reestablishment, or during a handover in which an RRC reconfiguration message is transmitted in the MsgA.” of Tripathi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to providing efficient service for delay tolerant services and/or for large cells with high capacity requirements per cell [0010].
Regarding Claim 8, Ye and Tripathi teach the limitations of Claim 6.
Claim 8 is similar to Claim 4. While Claim 4 is for 4 step RACH process, Claim 8 is for 2 step RACH process and it is easily understandable to an ordinary person with the skill in the art that delaying the downlink monitoring window by CU-DU RTT equally apply to 2 step RACH process as it is to 4 step RACH process as the delay is mainly because of satellite on-board DU and ground CU and does not have any binding on whether the RACH process is 2 or 4 steps. Although Ye does not explicitly mention 2 step RACH process, Tripathy mentions 2 step RACH process. Applicant’s attention is directed to Claim 4 above which is rejected. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 4.
Claim 9 is very similar to Claim 8 and it is not a new feature. Ye and Tripathi teach the limitations of Claim 6.
Ye further teaches,
The apparatus of claim 6, wherein: the downlink channel monitoring is delayed by the CU-DU RTT. -Fig. 5; Paragraph [0090-0091] (As shown in Fig 5. For NTN with large propagation delay TA is adjusted (delayed) by additional Time Offset (532). [0090-0091] recites, “time offset that is defined by a slot n+4+Koffset+Kmac, if Koffset, Kmac is provided, and referenced/initiated from a slot that starts from a first slot after an UL transmission (e.g., a PRACH for BFR). For example, BFR where the beam recovery signaling occurs via a PCell or PSCell on an NTN as a PCell/PSCell BFR a time offset can be configured that comprises at least one of: a K offset or a K mac (e.g., K mac, K offset, or K offset+K mac), in addition to four or more transmission slots. In other words, the UE 110 can start to monitor the BFRR slot(s) at four slots plus the time offset after a BFRQ transmission via PRACH. Here, the time offset can be based on a round trip time (RTT) between the UE 110 and the gNB 120, for example…..In an aspect, the time offset can be configured based on whether a timing reference point is located at a base station of a non-terrestrial network (NTN) in a primary cell (PCell) or a primary secondary cell group cell (PSCell). For example, if a timing reference point of an RTT is designated at the gNB 120, then the time offset can comprise the K offset; if designated at another point other than the gNB, then the time offset can be derived as K offset plus K mac (K offset+K mac=time offset) or as the K mac. The K mac can be an additional time offset that is used for a MAC CE activation time for DL configuration.” As explained above the additional time offset depends upon the reference point considered. This additional time offset is for any downlink channel for the extended propagation delay of NTN)
Although implicit, Ye does not explicitly mention,
after an end of a transmission of an acknowledgement associated with a success random access response (RAR) in the MsgB.
However, in an analogous invention, Tripathi teaches,
after an end of a transmission of an acknowledgement associated with a success random access response (RAR) in the MsgB. -Paragraph [0216] ([0216] recites, “In step F8S13, the T-gNB sends RAR in case of the 4-step RA procedure and Msg B (i.e., Message B) in case of the 2-step RA procedure.” It is well known that Msg B contains the contents of Msg 2 and Msg 4 including RAR which also indicates the initial uplink grant.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY TIMING IN A NONTERRESTRIAL NETWORK (NTN)” proposed by Ye to include the concept of “after an end of a transmission of an acknowledgement associated with a success random access response (RAR) in the MsgB” of Tripathi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to providing efficient service for delay tolerant services and/or for large cells with high capacity requirements per cell [0010].
Claim 18 is very similar to Claim 6. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 6 above which is rejected. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claim 24 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 6. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 6 above which is rejected. Claim 24 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 6.
Claim 25 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 7. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 7 above which is rejected. Claim 25 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 7.
Claim 26 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 8. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 8 above which is rejected. Claim 26 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 8.
Claim 27 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus claim 9. The applicant’s attention is directed towards claim 9 above which is rejected. Claim 26 is rejected under the same rational as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 30, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 28.
Ye further teaches,
The method of claim 28, wherein: the uplink transmission is a message 3 (Msg3) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message 4 (Msg4) of the RACH procedure; -Paragraph [0123] ([0123] recites, “…Then after getting the RAR message, the UE 110 can send a message Contention Resolution message 3 (Msg 3) and wait for message (Msg 4) in the contention resolution. Msg 3 is from UE 110 to network and Msg 4 is from network to the UE 110….”)
Although implicit, Ye does not explicitly mention,
the uplink transmission is a message A (MsgA) of the RACH procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message B (MsgB) of the RACH procedure;
or the uplink transmission is a radio resource control (RRC) resume request message associated with a small data transmission (SDT), and the downlink transmission is an RRC release message.
However, in an analogous invention Tripathi teaches,
the uplink transmission is a message A (MsgA) of the RACH procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message B (MsgB) of the RACH procedure; -Paragraph [0213, 0216] ([0213] recites, “In step F8S11, the UE sends a RA preamble in case of the 4-step random access procedure or Msg A (i.e., Message A) in case of the 2-step random access procedure…” [0216] recites, “ In step F8S13, the T-gNB sends RAR in case of the 4-step RA procedure and Msg B (i.e., Message B) in case of the 2-step RA procedure.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY TIMING IN A NONTERRESTRIAL NETWORK (NTN)” proposed by Ye to include the concept of “the uplink transmission is a message A (MsgA) of a random access channel (RACH) procedure, and the downlink transmission is a message B (MsgB) of the RACH procedure.” of Tripathi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to providing efficient service for delay tolerant services and/or for large cells with high capacity requirements per cell [0010].
Claims 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye
in view of AGIWAL et al. (Patent No: US 2024/0155725 A1), hereinafter, AGIWAL.
Regarding Claim 10, Ye teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Although implicit, Ye does not explicitly teach,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission is a radio resource control (RRC) resume request message associated with a small data transmission (SDT), and the downlink transmission is an RRC release message.
However, in an analogous invention, AGIWAL teaches,
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the uplink transmission is a radio resource control (RRC) resume request message associated with a small data transmission (SDT), and the downlink transmission is an RRC release message. -Paragraph [0253, 0259] ([0259] recites, “The method may comprise: transmitting, to a terminal, a radio resource control (RRC) release message including a parameter indicating a timer that triggers a radio access network based notification area (RNA) update, wherein the terminal transitions to an RRC inactive state and the timer is started, based on the RRC release message; and in case that criteria for small data transmission (SDT) are met while the timer is running, receiving, from the terminal, an RRC resume request message for the SDT, wherein the timer is not stopped when the RRC resume request message is transmitted, and wherein in case that the timer expires while the SDT is ongoing, a variable indicating whether the RNA update is pending, is set to a true value.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the “BEAM FAILURE RECOVERY TIMING IN A NONTERRESTRIAL NETWORK (NTN)” proposed by Ye to include the concept of “the uplink transmission is a radio resource control (RRC) resume request message associated with a small data transmission (SDT), and the downlink transmission is an RRC release message” of AGIWAL. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve NR UE Power Saving, Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN) which is UE-satellite direct communication for providing coverage in an area in which communication with terrestrial networks is unavailable, and positioning [0004].
Claim 19 is very similar to Claim 10. The Applicant’s attention is directed towards Claim 10 above which is rejected. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED SAIFUDDIN whose telephone number is (703)756-4581. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, KHALED M KASSIM can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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.
/AHMED SAIFUDDIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475