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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed 8/26/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al., US 2015/0271796, (“Jang”), in view of Sun et al., US 2022/0330296, (“Sun”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches “An apparatus for maintenance of uplink time alignment, configured in a terminal equipment (Fig. 6, UE 601; Fig. 10), the apparatus comprising:
a receiver configured to receive configuration information of a timing advance group (TAG) identifier configured by a network device for an intermediate device being a TRP of a serving cell for inter-cell or intra-cell multi-DCI multi-TRP operation (Fig. 6, step 625; Fig. 10, transceiver 1001; paragraph no. 0075, “Thereafter, if the eNB can request the UE to retransmit the preamble … the eNB can adjust the uplink transmission timings of the cells belonging to a specific TAG or the uplink timings of the cells belonging to multiple TAGs using the new RAR message or the new TAC MAC CE message at step 625. That is, in this exemplary embodiment operating with PTAG and STAG 1, the TAG ID (i.e., PTAG or STAG 1) is included in the new RAR message or the TAC MAC CE message”; see also, paragraph no. 0074; see Fig. 5 which shows the “inter-cell”, “multi-TRP” operation, e.g., TRPs included in the eNB and the RRHs/TRPs in each cell served by the eNB; the claimed “multi-DCI” operation appears implicit in Jang – however, see below for an explicit teaching); and
processor circuitry configured to control how long a MAC entity considers serving cells to a timing advance group (TAG) associated with the configured timing advance group identifier to be uplink time aligned for the TAG” (Fig. 6, step 627; Fig. 10, controller 1009; paragraph no. 0075, “That is, in this exemplary embodiment operating with PTAG and STAG 1, the TAG ID (i.e., PTAG or STAG 1) is included in the new RAR message or the TAC MAC CE message to adjust the uplink transmission timings of the cells belonging to the TAG at step 627”; paragraph no. 0060, “The UE can adjust the uplink transmission timing based on the TA information. The UE starts a time alignment timer (timeAlignmentTimer or TAT) upon receipt of TA information, restarts the TAT in response to additional TA reception, and invalidates the TA upon expiry of the TA to stop uplink communication with the corresponding eNB”; see also, paragraph no. 0074).
While Jang appears to implicitly teach the limitation “multi-DCI” of claim 1, Sun teaches this limitation explicitly, see paragraph no. 0016, “Multiple transmission and reception point (multi-TRP) is one of the five agendas in Rel-16 eMIMO. Two modes of operation have been agreed for multi-TRP in NR Rel-16: multiple downlink control information (multi-DCI) operation (e.g., where multiple DCI can be used to schedule and/or control transmission between a UE and gNBs) and single-DCI operation (e.g., where a single DCI can be used to schedule and/or control transmission between a UE and gNBs). For example, in multi-DCI multi-TRP, multiple Physical Downlink Control channels (PDCCHs) may be received by a UE from multiple TRPs (e.g., multiple gNBs).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang by incorporating the teachings of Sun to take advantage of the known benefits conferred by using multi-DCI operation such as more flexible control of the PUSCHs to the different points, e.g., different time- and frequency resource allocation, MCS, power control, and/or precoding.
Regarding independent claims 15 and 20, these independent claims are corresponding network device and system claims of the terminal equipment claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 15, see Fig. 6 of Jang and in particular the eNB of Fig. 6 and Fig. 11 for the structural elements of the claim.
Regarding further independent claim 20, see Fig. 6 of Jang for a terminal equipment (UE 601) and a network device (eNB) and Fig. 5 of Jang for an intermediate device (RRH 503).
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Jang appears to teach “wherein serving cells and/or intermediate devices with identical timing advance (TA) applicable uplinks (ULs) and using identical timing reference downlinks (DLs) are grouped in one timing advance group (TAG) or are configured with identical TAG identifiers” (see, e.g., paragraph nos. 0064-0065, 0072, and 0078 which appear to disclose that the serving cells (e.g., PCell, SCell1) have identical TA applicable uplinks and use identical timing reference DLs per TAG). However, assuming arguendo that the “identical” limitations (i.e., identical TA ULs and identical timing reference DLs) of these claims are not taught by Jang, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by using identical TA applicable uplinks and identical timing reference DLs per TAG to facilitate the uplink time alignment of these cells by the UE, thereby improving the data reliability of the uplink communications to the base station.
Regarding claim 3, Jang teaches “wherein the timing advance group (TAG) includes at least one cell configured with an uplink (Fig. 6, PCell 607) or at least one intermediate device configured with an uplink.”
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Jang appears to teach “wherein, in a case where only one intermediate device is associated with a primary cell, a timing advance group (TAG) where the intermediate device is located is a primary timing advance group (TAG); and in a case where at least two intermediate devices are associated with a primary cell, a timing advance group (TAG) where a designated intermediate device in the at least two intermediate devices is located is a primary timing advance group (TAG), or a timing advance group (TAG) where an intermediate device with a timing advance group (TAG) identifier being 0 in the at least two intermediate devices is located is a primary timing advance group (TAG), or a timing advance group (TAG) where a first intermediate device configured with a timing advance group (TAG) identifier in the at least two intermediate devices is located is a primary timing advance group (TAG).” (the first alternative limitation “in a case where only one intermediate device is associated with a primary cell, a timing advance group (TAG) where the intermediate device is located is a primary timing advance group (TAG)” appears to be taught by Jang, see Fig. 5 which shows only one intermediate device (RRH) in one of the cells served by the eNB (i.e., the eNB located in the top left corner of Fig. 5); the cell having the one intermediate device (RRH) can be considered the PCell of Fig. 6). However, assuming arguendo that this cell of Jang cannot be considered as a PCell, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by using this cell with the single RRH device as the PCell since this is nothing more than the routine application of a design constraint in the formation of cells by a base station and as such, is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Jang does not teach “wherein, in a case where the intermediate device is not associated with a primary cell, the timing advance group (TAG) where the intermediate device is located is a secondary timing advance group (TAG).” Jang teaches a RRH located in a cell (see Fig. 5, the eNB located in the top left corner of Fig. 5 and the cell having a single RRH). Jang does not teach that this cell is a secondary cell. However, this is an obvious distinction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by using this cell with the single RRH device as the SCell since this is nothing more than the routine application of a design constraint in the formation of cells by a base station and as such, is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Jang teaches “wherein the processor circuitry, by using a timer corresponding to the timing advance group (TAG), controls how long a media access control (MAC) entity considers serving cells to the timing advance group (TAG) to be uplink time aligned for the TAG” (see paragraph no. 0060 which discloses a time alignment timer).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Sun as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang et al., US 2020/0337010, (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 5, Jang does no teach but Wang teaches “wherein, for non-shared frequency channel access, the primary timing advance group (TAG) uses a primary cell or an intermediate device associated with the primary cell as a timing reference;
and for shared frequency channel access, the primary timing advance group (TAG) uses a primary cell or an intermediate device associated with the primary cell or a secondary cell or an intermediate device associated with the secondary cell as a timing reference” (the first alternative limitation is taught – see paragraph nos. 0027 and 0051; paragraph no. 0027 discloses non-shared frequency channel access since the low frequency region is used by the SULs and the high frequency bands are used by the non-SULs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of Wang to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Claim(s) 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Sun as applied to claims 6, 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al., US 2020/0067664, (“Kim”).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Jang teaches “wherein the secondary timing advance group (TAG) uses an activated secondary cell therein or an intermediate device associated with the activated secondary cell” (paragraph no. 0071 discloses STAG 1 having Scell 1 and Scell 2) but not “as a timing reference” as required by these claims.
Kim discloses setting one of the other activated secondary cells as a new downlink timing reference cell, see the Abstract.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of Kim to facilitate uplink and/or downlink time alignment in the network.
Claim(s) 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang and Sun as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”).
Regarding each of the claims 9-14, Jang does not teach but the AAPA teaches each of these limitations, see e.g., pages 1-3 of applicant’s specification.
In particular, re claim 9, see page 1, lines 21-26 of applicant’s specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Re claim 10, see page 2, lines 3-5 of applicant’s specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Re claim 11, see page 2, lines 6-14 of applicant’s specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Re claim 12, see page 3, lines 2-5 of applicant’s specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Re claim 13, see page 2, lines 19-23 of applicant’s specification for at least the last four alternative claim limitations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Re claim 14, see page 2, line 24 - page 3, line 1 of applicant’s specification for at least the last two alternative claim limitations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Jang and Sun by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate uplink time alignment in the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, re claim 1, that Jang does not teach or suggest that the network device configures the TAG identifier for intermediate devices and since Jang does not involve TRP scenarios, it is impossible to involve configuring TAG identifiers for TRP. Jang discloses (e.g., paragraph no. 0074) that the TAG ID is used by the UE to adjust the uplink transmission timings of the cells belonging to the TAG identified by the TAG ID. The TAG ID may be either PTAG or STAG 1 (see paragraph no. 0075). Jang also discloses in Fig. 5 that a macro ENB has multiple TRPs and each cell has one or more RRHs which could also be construed as TRPs. Since Jang does involve TRP scenarios as described above, it also discloses that the TAG ID is “configured by a network device for an intermediate device being a TRP” as recited in claim 1. In other words, the TAG ID of Jang identifies the cells which include one or more TRPs (see Fig. 5) and hence, teaches that the TAG ID is “configured by a network device for an intermediate device being a TRP” as required by claim 1.
Applicant further argues, re claim 1, that Jang does not teach or suggest “processor circuitry configured to control how long a MAC entity considers serving cells to a timing advance group (TAG) associated with the configured timing advance group identifier to be uplink time aligned for the TAG.” This argument is also not persuasive. Jang teaches in paragraph no. 0075, “That is, in this exemplary embodiment operating with PTAG and STAG 1, the TAG ID (i.e., PTAG or STAG 1) is included in the new RAR message or the TAC MAC CE message to adjust the uplink transmission timings of the cells belonging to the TAG at step 627” and in paragraph no. 0060, “The UE can adjust the uplink transmission timing based on the TA information. The UE starts a time alignment timer (timeAlignmentTimer or TAT) upon receipt of TA information, restarts the TAT in response to additional TA reception, and invalidates the TA upon expiry of the TA to stop uplink communication with the corresponding eNB.” See also, paragraph no. 0074. Since Jang discloses that the UE uses a time alignment timer upon receipt of the TA information (e.g., TAG ID), the UE’s controller/processor controls “how long a MAC entity considers serving cells to a timing advance group (TAG) associated with the configured timing advance group identifier to be uplink time aligned for the TAG” as required by claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments, re claim 1, with regard to the secondary reference, Sun, are noted. However, since Jang teaches the claimed features that the applicant argues that Sun does not teach, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant’s remaining arguments, re independent claims 15 and 20, mirror those of claim 1, and hence, these remaining arguments are not persuasive for the reasons given above with regard to claim 1. Applicant’s argument regarding the AAPA, re claims 9-14, is noted. The AAPA is the prior art described on pages 1-3 of Applicant’s specification (i.e., the Background section of applicant’s specification).
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 WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
