DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 5/6/2026.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are pending.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 5/6/2026. Claims 1,4,11,13, were amended, claims 7-10 and 17-20 were canceled, and claims 1-6 and 11-16 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/21/2026, 5/6/2026, 6/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mediatek et al. (“Summary #6 of AI 8.15.1 Enhancements to time and frequency synchronization”)(M1 hereafter) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2024/0251370)(L1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, M1 teaches an apparatus (i.e. eNB) for wireless communication [page 2; section 2.2.1; coordination between UE and eNB] comprising a processor, configured to implement a method (it is inherent that a device such as an eNB would comprise of a processor or CPU to implement functions)[refer page 37; Initial Proposal - Section 4.2.2-3; ZTE Comment - “to ensure the performance for coherent processing…”], the processor configured to:
transmit, by a base station (i.e. eNB), a segmentation parameter for a physical channel (i.e. PRACH and PUSCH) via a system information block (SIB) or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment], the segmentation parameter includes a segment length (segment length can be configured through SIB broadcasting)[page 52; Third Round Proposal – Section 4.5-2; ZTE Comment].
However, M1 fails to disclose receiving, by a base station from a user equipment, reported information and time information associated with the reported information, the reported information includes an elevation angle, a position, and a velocity and the segmentation parameter is based on the reported information.
L1 discloses that a network can provide information on a segment length [paragraph 0060], for segmenting a transmission period by partitioning transmission into multiple segments with timing advance (TA) adjustment periods (i.e. time information) [paragraph 0064], the timing advance (TA) can be based upon an elevation angle, position reported [paragraph 0072], and orbital velocity/speed, which can incur a significant TA change during uplink transmission of packets and can be used to perform adjustments accordingly [paragraph 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of M1 to incorporate the determination of specific timings as a function of angle, altitude and speed to define a transmission segment length as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of improving signaling efficiency [refer L1; paragraph 0082].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical random access channel (PRACH)(duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, M1 teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (i.e. UE) [page 2; section 2.2.1; coordination between UE and eNB] comprising a processor, configured to implement a method (it is inherent that a device such as a UE would comprise of a processor or CPU to implement functions)[refer page 37; Initial Proposal - Section 4.2.2-3; ZTE Comment - “to ensure the performance for coherent processing…”], the processor configured to:
receive, by a user equipment (UE), a segmentation parameter for a physical channel (i.e. PRACH and PUSCH) via a system information block (SIB) or a radio resource control (RRC) signaling (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment], the segmentation parameter includes a segment length (segment length can be configured through SIB broadcasting)[page 52; Third Round Proposal – Section 4.5-2; ZTE Comment].
However, M1 fails to disclose transmitting, by a user equipment to a base station, reported information and time information associated with the reported information, the reported information includes an elevation angle, a position, and a velocity and the segmentation parameter is based on the reported information.
L1 discloses that a network can provide information on a segment length [paragraph 0060], for segmenting a transmission period by partitioning transmission into multiple segments with timing advance (TA) adjustment periods (i.e. time information) [paragraph 0064], the timing advance (TA) can be based upon an elevation angle, position reported [paragraph 0072], and orbital velocity/speed, which can incur a significant TA change during uplink transmission of packets and can be used to perform adjustments accordingly [paragraph 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of M1 to incorporate the determination of specific timings as a function of angle, altitude and speed to define a transmission segment length as taught by L1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of improving signaling efficiency [refer L1; paragraph 0082].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, M1 teaches the physical channel includes a physical random access channel (PRACH) (duration of UL transmission segment for PRACH and PUSCH are configured by network)[page 41; Initial Proposal – Section 4.2.2-3; Spreadtrum Comment].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7 of the applicant’s arguments, filed 5/6/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Lee et al. (US Pub. 2024/0251370)(L1 hereafter) as noted in the above rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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 C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights