DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues Dai fails to teach a “candidate” TA list value set. Dai never refers to any timing advance values as “candidate” timing advance values.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Dai indicates TA values in the first of two or more TA lists, ¶0056, from which the UE selects TA values, thus considered candidate as a set of values are indicated for selection, and the UE may select certain values, thus each value in each list is up for selection for a specific role, corresponding to the general definition of candidate.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant argues Dai fails to teach a “transmit, via the first cell, a preamble using a TA value selected from the candidate TA values based on one or more measurement power values of reference signals of the cells.” Cited portion [0101] of Dai teaches RSRP measurements of the device’s serving cell. Thus, the TA list refer sot TA values of a serving cell, not candidate timing advance values for a first cell of cells.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As indicated above, any set of TA values may be considered candidate TA values, see Dai ¶0056. It is irrelevant whether this pertains to the serving cell, as the claim only recites the power values pertain to a “first cell of cells” which may be any cell, and the claim does not recite other cells as being neighboring cells or even recite using the other cells’ information in any way. Any cell is a cell of cells as it is known in the art by one of ordinary skill that are more than one cell in existence, thus a first cell of cells may be a serving cell. Further, Dai teaches ¶0062 other cells. The claim makes no mention of a handover, moving to a target cell, or any further information characterizing the other cell in the “cells” as claimed, thus the fact that Dai may pertain to a serving cell does not teach away from the claimed invention.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant further argues Dai fails to teach a “transmit, via the first cell, a preamble using a TA value selected from the candidate TA values based on one or more measurement power values of reference signals of the cells” as Dai pertains to a serving cell, thus there are no “cells” among which comparison can be made.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. It is not clear that the claim recites a comparison being made. The claim recites multiple cells, and only requires “one or more measurement power values of reference signals of the cells” thus it may be one measurement power value of reference signals of one cell, the claim failing to clearly indicate whether multiple power values of reference signals measured across or for each of multiple cells is used in the preamble transmission. Applicant appears to be taking a much narrower interpretation of the claim in arguing that there is any kind of comparison step being performed in claim 1 among a plurality of cells when the claim only requires a plurality of cells, a transmission of a preamble, and a measurement of a power value using reference signals from at least a cell of cells. Claim 6 appears to convey some type of comparison, but it is not clear to what the first and second measurements are referring. Further, ¶0089 of Dai even teaches “The measurement information is obtained by the terminal device by measuring a reference signal or channel of a serving cell and/or a neighboring cell, where the reference signal includes at least one of SSB or CSI-RS. The measurement information includes at least one of RSRP.” As in the rejections for claims 2-4, measurements on second cells may be performed to determine power values, but these dependent claims do not recite any form of comparison.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant further argues secondary reference Shin teaches sending preamble that is calculated, not using a TA value received in configuration parameters.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that Shin is only used to show that preambles made be transmitted for RACH in the NTN environment, modifying the preamble transmission in Dai where the cells are not expressly NTN, though the possibility of NTN is no specifically excluded. Thus, Shin’s method of determining the TA is irrelevant, as the modification is only used to show that preambles being sent as in Dai may be correspond to NTN as in Shin (regardless of how Shin determines the TA). Shin further shows examples ¶0147 where TA may be configured, but it is not pertinent to the modification because Shin is only used to show TA-based preambles may be sent in NTN without altering the intended outcome of the invention of Dai.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, 13-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Dai et al. (“Dai”) (US 20220417885 A1) in view of Shin et al. (“Shin”) (US 20250048291 A1, effective filing date of foreign priority application KR 10-2021-0060638 filed May 11, 2021).
Regarding claim 1, Dai teaches:
A wireless device comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [¶0120], cause the wireless device to:
receive one or more configuration parameters indicating candidate timing advance (TA) values for a first cell of cells [¶0056, network sends TA values to UE, for cell ¶0060]; and transmit, via the first cell, uplink using a TA value selected from the candidate TA values based on one or more measurement power values of reference signals of the cells [¶0080, TA lists obtained, selects suitable TA list based on SSB, then selects TA based on the RSRP, ¶0101, and ¶0105, and send uplink ¶0030 perform uplink transmission, wherein ¶0118 UE may be in random access preamble transmission stage].
Dai teaches sending the uplink based on selected TA value but does not teach sending a preamble and for NTN network.
Shin teaches transmit, via the first cell, a preamble using a TA value selected, for a non-terrestrial network (NTN) [¶0153-154, terminal acquires TA value, for NTN, and ¶0143-145, preamble transmitted in NTN network using TA value selected at UE].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the network being NTN for transmitting preamble based on TA as in Shin. Dai teaches determining TA values based on RSRP in context of random access and it would have been obvious to specify NTN for transmitting preambles based on TA values as in Shin who teaches this allows calculating TA values in NTN for a UE to access the network via random access when a distance between a satellite and a terminal is changed by movement of a satellite regardless of movement of a terminal ¶0142-143, ¶0148.
Regarding Claim 2, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the one or more configuration parameters further indicate: a first reference signal (RS) of the first cell; and a second RS of a second cell [Dai ¶0037, terminal measures CSI-RS of serving and neighboring cell (corresponding to first RS and second RS), CSI-RS indicated in configuration see ¶0046, ¶0084].
Regarding claim 3, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to determine a first measurement power value based on measuring the first RS of the first cell [Dai ¶0089 RSRP based on RS including CSI-RS].
Regarding claim 4, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 2, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to determine a second measurement power value based on measuring the second RS of the second cell [Dai ¶0037, terminal measures CSI-RS of serving and neighboring cell, CSI-RS indicated in configuration see ¶0084, ¶0089 determine RSRP measurements based on CSI-RS configured, thus for second cell].
Regarding claim 7, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to determine a total TA value based on the selected TA value [Dai ¶0080, TA list, selects suitable TA based on the RSRP, ¶0101, and ¶0105, considered total TA value as this is the TA value used].
Regarding claim 8, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 7.
Dai teaches a TA value but does not expressly teach total TA being a sum of multiple TA values.
Shin teaches wherein the total TA value is a sum of the selected TA value and one or more TA values indicated in the one or more configuration parameters [Shin ¶0178 “transmit a PRACH preamble based on an initial TA (i.e., a sum of a common TA and a UE-specific TA) reflecting an updated UE-specific TA”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the TA being a sum of two TAs as in Shin who teaches this as part of adjusting or updating a reference for a time and/or a frequency applied to uplink transmission or reception in a wireless communication system including a non-terrestrial network (NTN) in order to collect to a satellite ¶0261.
Regarding claim 9, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 1, wherein the NTN is at least one of: a low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite network; a medium earth orbit (MEO) satellite network; a geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellite network; a highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellite network; a high-altitude platform satellite (HAPS) satellite network; an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) satellite network; or a drone-based satellite network [Shin ¶0125 teaches GEO, see rationale for combination as in claim 1].
Regarding claim 10, Dai teaches:
A base station comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [¶0015 base station], cause the base station to: transmit one or more configuration parameters, for a non-terrestrial network (NTN), indicating candidate timing advance (TA) values for a first cell of cells [¶0056, base station sends TA values to UE, for cell ¶0060]; and receive, via the first cell, a uplink using a TA value selected from the candidate TA values based on one or more measurement power values of reference signals of the cells [¶0030, based on adjusting TA value at terminal, terminal performs uplink transmission corresponding to TA value, TA chosen based on RSRP at terminal, see ¶0101-106].
Dai teaches sending the uplink based on selected TA value but does not teach sending a preamble and for NTN network.
Shin teaches receive, via the first cell, a preamble using a TA value selected, for a non-terrestrial network (NTN) [¶0153-154, terminal acquires TA value, for NTN, and ¶0143-145, preamble transmitted in NTN network using TA value selected at UE].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the network being NTN for transmitting preamble based on TA as in Shin. Dai teaches determining TA values based on RSRP in context of random access and it would have been obvious to specify NTN for transmitting preambles based on TA values as in Shin who teaches this allows calculating TA values in NTN when a distance between a satellite and a terminal is changed by movement of a satellite regardless of movement of a terminal ¶0143, ¶0148.
Regarding Claim 11, Dai-Shin teaches:
The base station of claim 10, wherein the one or more configuration parameters further indicate: a first reference signal (RS) of the first cell; and a second RS of a second cell [Dai ¶0037, terminal measures CSI-RS of serving and neighboring cell, CSI-RS indicated in configuration see ¶0084].
Regarding claim 13, Dai-Shin teaches:
The base station of claim 10, wherein the NTN is at least one of: a low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite network; a medium earth orbit (MEO) satellite network; a geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellite network; a highly elliptical orbit (HEO) satellite network; a high-altitude platform satellite (HAPS) satellite network; an uncrewed aerial vehicle (UAV) satellite network; or a drone-based satellite network [Shin ¶0125, see rationale for combination as in claim 10 regarding NTN].
Regarding claim 14-17, 19-20, see similar rejection for claims 1-4, 7-8 respectively which teaches the physical structure comprising components to carry out the claimed steps.
Claim(s) 5, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Dai et al. (“Dai”) (US 20220417885 A1) in view of Shin et al. (“Shin”) (US 20250048291 A1, effective filing date of foreign priority application KR 10-2021-0060638 filed May 11, 2021) and Wang et al. (“Wang”) (US 20190037453 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 1.
Dai teaches TA values but does not teach broadcast.
Wang teaches wherein the one or more configuration parameters are broadcast configuration parameters [¶0148 “ the user equipment can periodically receive uplink timing information, to be specific, each network parameter and a TA value corresponding to the network parameter, broadcast by the network device for a local cell.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the information is delivered via broadcast. Dai teaches indicating the TA values and it would have been obvious to specify broadcast as in Wang in order that other devices may receive the same indication ¶0014.
Regarding claim 12, Dai-Shin teaches the base station of claim 10.
Dai teaches TA values but does not teach broadcast.
Wang teaches wherein the one or more configuration parameters are broadcast configuration parameters [¶0148 “ the user equipment can periodically receive uplink timing information, to be specific, each network parameter and a TA value corresponding to the network parameter, broadcast by the network device for a local cell.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the information is delivered via broadcast. Dai teaches indicating the TA values and it would have been obvious to specify broadcast as in Wang in order that other devices may receive the same indication ¶0014.
Regarding claim 18, see similar rejection for claims 5 respectively which teaches the physical structure comprising components to carry out the claimed steps.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Dai et al. (“Dai”) (US 20220417885 A1) in view of Shin et al. (“Shin”) (US 20250048291 A1, effective filing date of foreign priority application KR 10-2021-0060638 filed May 11, 2021) and KHOSHNEVISAN et al. (“Khoshnevisan”) (US 20210111817 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Dai-Shin teaches:
The wireless device of claim 1.
Dai teaches RSRP but not differential power.
Khoshnevisan teaches wherein an inter-cell/beam differential power value is a difference between a first measurement power value and a second measurement power value [Khoshnevisan ¶0093, Examiner notes the previous claims do not indicate using a differential power parameter, thus this claim is merely reciting a measurement that is not explicitly acquired by the claimed invention].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify differential power values measured based on differences between power values. Examiner notes that the claim does not expressly recite that this value is used or actually measured by the device. It would have been obvious to specify the differential power as in Koshnevisan ¶0094 in order to report measurements for a group of beams.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY L. VOGEL whose telephone number is (303)297-4322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30 PM MT.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at 571-272-3905. 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.
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights