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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Remarks
This Office Action is considered to be fully responsive to the communications filed on 08/05/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 21-26, and 29-30 are currently pending in this Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-9, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 21-26, and 29-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103, as is necessitated by amendment, in view of Go et al (US 20230118905 A1) and Matsumura et al (WO 2022070307 A1) for claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 21-26, and 29-30. Applicant argues on pages 6-9 of Remarks that previously cited Li, Huang, and Laddu do not teach the claims as amended. This argument is however moot, as Go and Matsumura do teach the claims as amended, and a claim mapping has been provided below. For more details, please see the Claim Rejections section below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 13-18, 21-26, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Go et al (US 20230118905 A1), and further in view of Matsumura et al (WO 2022070307 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Go teaches
An apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising ([0009] terminal in a wireless communication system):
one or more memories comprising instructions ([0009]-[0010] terminal comprises at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions); and
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to ([0009]-[0010] terminal comprises at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions and at least one processor that executes the instructions to cause the terminal to perform functions):
receive signaling indicating two timing advances (TAs) for two different transmission reception points (TRPs), wherein at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to the different TRPs ([0008], [0244], [0247] and [Fig. 9] terminal receives DCI scheduling multiple PUSCHs from base station, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs));
Go does not explicitly teach determine a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs based on a difference in values of the two TAs; and
transmit the at least two PUSCHs to the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap.
However, Matsumura does teach determine a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs based on a difference in values of the two TAs ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6, [Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] to avoid overlap between transmissions when different TAs are used for different TRPs (based on difference in values between two TAs), a switching gap will be used, where a switching gap is determined by the UE to be used between the PUSCH transmissions); and
transmit the at least two PUSCHs to the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] the UE transmits PUSCHs to two different TRPs according to the switching gap).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where a switching gap is used when there are different TAs for different TRPs. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 2, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 1, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0257] TA values may be signaled by the base station to the terminal via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 5, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 1, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0244], [0247] terminal receives DCI, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs)).
Regarding claim 6, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 5, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field ([0260] time domain resource allocation information indicated through DCI).
Regarding claim 7, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 1, as is described above.
Go does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Matsumura does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([Fig. 6]-[Fig. 7] shows switching gaps with multiple different lengths (positive time gap) and overlapping transmissions (negative time gap)).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where switching gaps with different lengths are used. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 8, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 1, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the at least two PUSCHs are transmitted to the TRPs via a same panel of the UE ([0267] and [Fig. 9] terminal uses a single transmission panel for each PUSCH transmission to the TRPs).
Regarding claim 9, Go teaches
An apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising ([0013] and [Fig. 9] base station/TRP in a wireless communication system):
one or more memories comprising instructions ([0360]-[0361] and [Fig. 12] base station comprises one or more memories); and
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to ([0360]-[0361] and [Fig. 12] base station comprises one or more memories that store instructions that are to be executed by at least one processor to perform functions):
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), signaling indicating two timing advances (TAs) for two different transmission reception points (TRPs), wherein at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to the different TRPs ([0008], [0244], [0247] and [Fig. 9] terminal receives DCI scheduling multiple PUSCHs from base station, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs)), and
Go does not explicitly teach wherein a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs is determined by the UE based on a difference in values of the two TAs; and
receive the at least two PUSCHs, via the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap.
However, Matsumura does teach wherein a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs is determined by the UE based on a difference in values of the two TAs ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6, [Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] to avoid overlap between transmissions when different TAs are used for different TRPs (based on difference in values between two TAs), a switching gap will be used, where a switching gap is determined by the UE to be used between the PUSCH transmissions); and
receive the at least two PUSCHs, via the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] the UE transmits PUSCHs to two different TRPs according to the switching gap).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where a switching gap is used when there are different TAs for different TRPs. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 10, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 9, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0257] TA values may be signaled by the base station to the terminal via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 13, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 9, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0244], [0247] terminal receives DCI, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs)).
Regarding claim 14, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 13, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field ([0260] time domain resource allocation information indicated through DCI).
Regarding claim 15, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 9, as is described above.
Go does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Matsumura does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([Fig. 6]-[Fig. 7] shows switching gaps with multiple different lengths (positive time gap) and overlapping transmissions (negative time gap)).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where switching gaps with different lengths are used. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 16, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 9, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the at least two PUSCHs are transmitted to the TRPs via a same panel of the UE ([0267] and [Fig. 9] terminal uses a single transmission panel for each PUSCH transmission to the TRPs).
Regarding claim 17, Go teaches
A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising ([0008]-[0009] method for terminal in a wireless communication system):
receiving signaling indicating two timing advances (TAs) for two different transmission reception points (TRPs), wherein at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) that are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to the different TRPs ([0008], [0244], [0247] and [Fig. 9] terminal receives DCI scheduling multiple PUSCHs from base station, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs));
Go does not explicitly teach determining a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs based on a difference in values of the two TAs; and
transmitting the at least two PUSCHs to the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap.
However, Matsumura does teach determining a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs based on a difference in values of the two TAs ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6, [Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] to avoid overlap between transmissions when different TAs are used for different TRPs (based on difference in values between two TAs), a switching gap will be used, where a switching gap is determined by the UE to be used between the PUSCH transmissions); and
transmitting the at least two PUSCHs to the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] the UE transmits PUSCHs to two different TRPs according to the switching gap).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where a switching gap is used when there are different TAs for different TRPs. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 18, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 17, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0257] TA values may be signaled by the base station to the terminal via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 21, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 17, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0244], [0247] terminal receives DCI, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs)).
Regarding claim 22, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 21, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the DCI comprises a time domain resource allocation (TDRA) field ([0260] time domain resource allocation information indicated through DCI).
Regarding claim 23, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 17, as is described above.
Go does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Matsumura does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([Fig. 6]-[Fig. 7] shows switching gaps with multiple different lengths (positive time gap) and overlapping transmissions (negative time gap)).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where switching gaps with different lengths are used. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 24, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 17, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the at least two PUSCHs are transmitted to the TRPs via a same panel of the UE ([0267] and [Fig. 9] terminal uses a single transmission panel for each PUSCH transmission to the TRPs).
Regarding claim 25, Go teaches
A method for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising ([0012]-[0013] and [Fig. 9] method for base station/TRP in a wireless communication system):
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), signaling indicating two timing advances (TAs) for two different transmission reception points (TRPs), wherein at least two physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs) are scheduled via a single downlink control information (DCI) for transmission to the different TRPs ([0008], [0244], [0247] and [Fig. 9] terminal receives DCI scheduling multiple PUSCHs from base station, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs)), and
Go does not explicitly teach wherein a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs is determined by the UE based on a difference in values of the two TAs; and
receiving the at least two PUSCHs, via the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap.
However, Matsumura does teach wherein a time gap to be applied between the at least two PUSCHs is determined by the UE based on a difference in values of the two TAs ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6, [Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] to avoid overlap between transmissions when different TAs are used for different TRPs (based on difference in values between two TAs), a switching gap will be used, where a switching gap is determined by the UE to be used between the PUSCH transmissions); and
receiving the at least two PUSCHs, via the TRPs, in accordance with the time gap ([Page 8] paragraphs 2-4 (Aspect 1-2) and [Fig. 7] the UE transmits PUSCHs to two different TRPs according to the switching gap).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where a switching gap is used when there are different TAs for different TRPs. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Regarding claim 26, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 25, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) ([0257] TA values may be signaled by the base station to the terminal via MAC CE).
Regarding claim 29, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 25, as is described above.
Go further teaches wherein the signaling comprises the DCI that scheduled the at least two PUSCHs ([0244], [0247] terminal receives DCI, where a plurality of timing advance TA values (two timing advances) for each PUSCH (at least two PUSCHs) is configured/indicated/applied by the DCI (a single DCI), where a TA is independently configured/indicated per each TRP (for two different TRPs)).
Regarding claim 30, Go modified by Matsumura teaches The apparatus of claim 25, as is described above.
Go does not explicitly teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero.
However, Matsumura does teach wherein the time gap is positive, negative, or zero ([Fig. 6]-[Fig. 7] shows switching gaps with multiple different lengths (positive time gap) and overlapping transmissions (negative time gap)).
Go and Matsumura are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, as they are both in the same field of configuring PUSCH transmissions. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Go to include the teachings of Matsumura where switching gaps with different lengths are used. The rationale behind this would be to avoid overlap between the transmissions ([Page 6] paragraphs 5-6 Matsumura).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM JOEL CERLANEK whose telephone number is (703)756-1272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00.
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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
