DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the pending claims, examiner first notes that paragraphs 76 and 83 of Applicant’s Specification doesn’t fully support “and perform an action, during the connected mode, based at least in part on an expiry of the GNSS validity timer and an expiry of the closed loop timer”.
Paragraphs 76 and 83 teach a closed loop command extending a validity duration, but makes no mention of the validity durations extending beyond an expiration of a closed loop timer. Paragraph 93 recites multiple closed loop timers extending the validity duration such that the validity duration can extend beyond the GNSS and a first closed loop timer if a second closed loop timer has still not expired.
To this end, Li is believed to anticipate this exact scenario in paragraph 130, which recites the expiration of a first (~GNSS timer), third (~first closed loop timer) and fourth (~second closed loop timer) timer ending a given validity duration. Paragraph 62 of Li teaches the terminal device returning to the idle mode responsive to the GNSS location expiring (~validity duration).
In view of Applicant’s Specification, examiner believes Li to read on “and perform an action, during the connected mode, based at least in part on an expiry of the GNSS validity timer and an expiry of the closed loop timer”
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 person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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 1-7, 9-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by US 2025/0240760 (Li et al.).
As to claims 1, 17 and 20, Li teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (see figure 7 and paragraphs 145-148), configured to:
determine a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) position associated with the UE the GNSS position being associated with a GNSS validity timer (see paragraphs 110-112, first timer~GNSS validity timer);
receive, in a connected mode, a closed loop command that is associated with a closed loop timer (see paragraphs 123-129, third and fourth timers [~closed loop timer] associated with closed loop commands in the form of TA and uplink frequency adjustments); and
perform an action, during a connect mode, based at least in part on an expiry of the GNSS validity timer and an expiry of the closed loop timer (see paragraphs 62 and 123-131, UE determines GNSS location invalid upon expiration of timer than can include first, third and/or fourth timers, such that the GNSS location can remain valid and the UE avoids returning to an RRC idle mode even if the first and third timers expire but the fourth timer has not).
As to claim 2, Li further teaches wherein a closed loop command feature is enabled via radio resource control (RRC) signaling, and the closed loop command is received from a network node via additional RRC signaling or via a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) (see paragraphs 124 and 129, third and fourth timers set up via RRC signaling and corresponding adjustments sent via MAC-CE).
As to claim 3, Li further teaches wherein the closed loop command indicates a time correction or a frequency correction for an uplink transmission of the UE, and the closed loop command is associated with separate flags for time and frequency (see paragraphs 123 and 124, different adjustments sent for TA and uplink frequency).
As to claim 4, Li further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: start the GNSS validity timer based at least in part on a determination of the GNSS position (see paragraph 112).
As to claim 5, Li further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: start the closed loop timer based at least in part on a receipt of the closed loop command from a network node, wherein the closed loop timer is configured via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or is indicated in a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) carrying the closed loop command (see paragraphs 124 and 129, third and fourth timers set up via RRC signaling and corresponding adjustments sent via MAC-CE).
As to claim 6, Li further teaches wherein the closed loop timer includes a first closed loop timer associated with a time correction and a second closed loop timer associated with a frequency correction (see paragraphs 123-130, third and fourth timers [~first and second closed loop timer] associated with closed loop commands in the form of TA and uplink frequency adjustments).
As to claim 7, Li further teaches wherein the one or more processors, when performing the action, are configured to transition to an idle mode (see paragraphs 62 and 131, UE returns to RRC idle if GNSS location determined to be expired).
As to claim 9, Li further teaches wherein the GNSS position is a first GNSS position, and the one or more processors, when performing the action, are configured to perform a GNSS reacquisition, and the GNSS reacquisition comprises determining a second GNSS position associated with the UE (see paragraphs 62, UE returns to idle to perform new GNSS measurement if previous GNSS position determined to be expired).
As to claim 10, Li further teaches wherein the GNSS reacquisition is based at least in part on a UE autonomous gap (see paragraph 68, UE may autonomously perform GNSS measurements when GNSS measurement deemed invalid).
As to claim 11, Li further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: reset, based at least in part on the GNSS reacquisition, a time-frequency closed loop state; and stop or reset the closed loop timer (see paragraphs 62 and 123-131, UE returns to idle to perform new GNSS measurement if previous GNSS position determined to be expired, this would include resets in the third and fourth timers on UE is connected again).
As to claim 12, Li further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform the action based at least in part on an expiry of an extended GNSS validity timer, and the extended GNSS validity timer is indicated by the UE or configured by a network node (see paragraphs 114 and 129, first, third and fourth timers [~extended GNSS validity timer] may be determined by UE or configured by network node).
As to claim 15, Li further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: remain in the connected mode based at least in part on a non-expiry of the GNSS validity timer or the closed loop timer (see paragraphs 62 and 131, if GNSS remains unexpired while connected, UE remains connected).
As to claim 16, Li further teaches wherein the UE is an enhanced machine-type communication (eMTC) UE or a narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) UE (see paragraph 62).
As to claim 18, Li further teaches starting the GNSS validity timer based at least in part on a determination of the GNSS position (see paragraph 112); starting the closed loop timer based at least in part on a receipt of the closed loop command from a network node, wherein the closed loop timer is configured via radio resource control (RRC) signaling or is indicated in a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) carrying the closed loop command; remaining in the connected mode based at least in part on a non-expiry of the GNSS validity timer or the closed loop timer; or setting a timing pre-compensation value based at least in part on a receipt of the closed loop command, and the timing pre-compensation value is based at least in part on a previous timing pre-compensation value and a received timing advance (TA) command.
As to claim 19, Li further teaches wherein performing the action comprises: transitioning to an idle mode; or declaring a radio link failure (RLF) (see paragraphs 62 and 131, UE returns to RRC idle if GNSS location determined to be expired).
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 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 8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2025/0155586 (Hu et al.).
As to claim 8, what is lacking from Li is wherein the one or more processors, when performing the action, are configured to declare a radio link failure (RLF).
In analogous art, Hu teaches declaring an RLF when a GNSS timer has expired (see Hu, paragraph 123).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Li, so as to further ensure that the connected link is reestablished.
As to claim 13, what is lacking from Li is wherein the one or more processors are configured to: set a timing pre-compensation value based at least in part on a receipt of the closed loop command, and the timing pre-compensation value is based at least in part on a previous timing pre-compensation value and a received timing advance (TA) command.
In analogous art, Hu teaches setting a pre-compensation value based on a previous pre-compensation value and a TA command (see Hu, paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Li, so as to further ensure that the connected link is maintained.
As to claim 14, Hu cited teachings further teach wherein a TA value from the received TA command is set to zero (see Hu, paragraph 89).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this teaching to Li, so as to further ensure that the connected link is maintained.
Conclusion
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 MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights