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 Amendment
The specification (Title) amendment (filed on 5/12/2026) has been accepted and entered into the record.
An objection to the drawing (FIG. 14) is withdrawn since it is being amended accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Regarding first set of rejection, applicant's arguments filed on 5/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1-6, the applicant argued that, “…
Consistent with the above discussion, independent claim 1 is amended in this reply and now recites, inter alia: (i) "wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link, and (ii) "wherein the second timing adjustment value has an increased granularity." Applicant respectfully asserts that Shin does not disclose, at least, the above-referenced limitations of amended independent claim 1.
Regarding above-referenced limitation (i), Figure 10 and column 21, lines 55-57 of Shin only disclose a reference point that is located in a feeder link, but not in a service link. Therefore, Shin does not disclose a first timing adjustment value involving a reference point located in a service link, as recited in the amended claims. Regarding above-referenced limitation (ii), column 9, lines 55-56 of Shin only disclose a granularity of a precoder, but not of a TA value. Further, column 23, lines 11-12 of Shin only disclose increasing a step size in a TA command, but doing so decreases a granularity of the TA command (which is the opposite of the increased granularity recited in the claims). Accordingly, Shin does not disclose the second timing adjustment value having an increased granularity, as recited in the amended claims.
In view of the substantial differences between the Shin reference and the claimed invention as highlighted above, it logically follows that Shin does not anticipate each and every limitation set forth in amended independent claim 1. Consequently, Shin does not support an anticipation rejection of amended independent claim 1. Likewise, Shin does not support an anticipation rejection of amended independent claim 6, which recites substantially similar imitations. At least by virtue of their dependence, claims 2-5 are patentable over Shin as well.” In pages 9-10.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument I, Shin still discloses the amended limitations. In particular, Shin discloses wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link (see FIG. 9-10, common TA value involves/relate/concern a reference point in a service link; see col. 21, line 17-55; see col. 29, line 5-12; see col. 30, line 26-34) and wherein the second timing adjustment value has an increased granularity (the determined/second/full common TA value is increased in every divided time interval (i.e. granularity); see col. 3, line 4-12; see col. 23, line 4-14; see col. 30, line 45-59).
Regarding argument II, Shin clearly discloses “…value involves a reference point is located in a service link” and “…value has an increased granularity” as shown below.
Referring to FIG. 9, a method of defining a common TA (i.e., a common TA refers to a common component of propagation delay shared by all UEs within the coverage of the same satellite beam/cell) is set differently according to two schemes of the NTN service. That is, in the regenerative payload scheme, a value obtained by calculating the delay of a service link is included in the common TA. In the transparent payload scheme, a value calculated by calculating a delay including a feeder link in a service link is included in the common TA. The service link refers to a link between a satellite and a reference point. See Shin col. 21, lines 17-28[Emphasis added]
In the above methods and apparatuses, the information may include information on N common TA values for the specific time interval divided into N time intervals. In the above methods and apparatuses, the information may include a representative common TA value and a delta TA value and during the specific time interval, the common TA value may increase by the delta TA value from the representative common TA value in every configured time interval. See Shin see col. 3, line 4-12 [Emphasis added]
First, the broadly recited claim limitation discloses “…timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link”, and there nothing in the claim that limit “what or how” such TA value is involved a reference point. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims1. In view of the above, Shin clearly shows discloses TA value relates/involves to a reference point located in a service link.
Second, the broadly recite “… value has an increased granularity”, and there nothing in the claim that limit “what or how” such TA value has an increased granularity. “Granularity” means “the quality or state of being granular/small particle”, per GRANULARITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims2. Shin clearly discloses TA values has increased in every divided time interval, where each TA value consists of granular/small in divide time intervals. Note that when time interval is divided, it becomes granular.
In response to applicant argument regarding Shin’s increasing step-size in TA command against “increased granularity”, it is clearly erroneous argument since there is nothing in the claim that entail what is considered increased granularity in the context of TA and NTN. The claim offers no detail or specific how such TA value becomes an increased granularity. The claim recites “a command”, not “TA command” as argued by the applicant.
Regarding argument II, since Shin discloses the amended limitations as set forth above, Shin also discloses claims 2-5. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-6 is light of Shin is hereby sustained.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant argued that, “…Tripathi fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shin to teach limitation (i). Specifically, Tripathi does not teach a reference point. Additionally, Tripathi fails to remedy the defects of Shin to teach limitation (ii). Specifically, paragraphs [0058] and [0101] of Tripathi only teach granularities of an NTN type and of a channel quality indicator (CQI), respectively. Further, even assuming arguendo a skilled person were to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide …” in page 13.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Tripathi is not required to teach a reference point since Shin has already teaches a reference point as set forth above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art3. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Tripathi in the system of Shin, so that it would avoid or minimize common signaling or dedicate signaling, thereby increasing the overall signaling efficiency ; see Tripathi ¶54.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper4.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant argued that, “…Leng fails to remedy the deficiencies of Shin to teach limitation (i). Specifically, Leng does not teach a reference point. Additionally, Leng fails to remedy the defects of Shin to teach limitation (ii). Specifically, paragraph [0112] of Leng only teaches increasing a TA step size, but doing so decreases a TA granularity (instead of increasing the TA granularity). Further, even assuming arguendo a skilled person were to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide …” in page 14-15.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Leng is not required to teach a reference point since Shin has already teaches a reference point as set forth above.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art5. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Leng in the system of Shin, so that it would provide flexibly accommodate various/application with different requirement, new multiple access scheme to support massive connection by adjusting TA and UE-specific TA while accommodating GNSS capability; see Leng ¶3, 5 and 150).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper6.
Regarding second set of rejection on claims 1-6, the applicant argued that, “…
Regarding above-referenced limitation (i), LG discloses that the common TA and the UE-specific TA are parameters that compensate for different links, i.e., the feeder link (from reference point to satellite) and the service link (from satellite to UE), respectively-thereby placing the disclosed reference point in the feeder link, not in the service link. See LG, § 2.2 (Proposal 5 discussion). LG does not disclose a first timing adjustment value involving a reference point located in a service link, as recited in the amended claims. Regarding above-referenced limitation (ii), LG fails to disclose a second timing adjustment value with increased granularity; to the contrary, LG acknowledges only that the details of signaling, including granularity, are a matter for future study (FFS). See LG, § 1 (Agreement, N_TA, common). Accordingly, LG does not disclose the second timing adjustment value having an increased granularity, as recited in the amended claims.
In view of the substantial differences between the LG reference and the claimed invention as highlighted above, it logically follows that LG does not anticipate each and every limitation set forth in amended independent claim 1. Consequently, LG does not support an anticipation rejection of amended independent claim 1. Likewise, LG does not support an anticipation rejection of amended independent claim 6, which recites substantially similar limitations. At least by virtue of their dependence, claims 2-5 are patentable over LG as well…” in page 11-12.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Some sections of applicant's arguments, regarding newly added limitations have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Other sections of applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Argument (I), LG’478 discloses wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point and a service link ( see §§ 1, 2.2: NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) involves/relate/concern a reference point and service link) and wherein the second timing adjustment value has granularity (see §§ 1; estimated Timing advance TTA using NTA common has granularity).
First, the broadly recited claim limitation discloses “…timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link”, and there nothing in the claim that limit where is the location of “a service link”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims7. In this case LG’478 discloses wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point and a service link, Supra.
Second, the broadly recite “… value has an increased granularity”, and there nothing in the claim that limit “what or how” such TA value has an increased granularity. “Granularity” means “the quality or state of being granular/small particle”, per GRANULARITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims8. In this case LG’478 discloses wherein the second timing adjustment value has granularity, Supra.
Regarding Argument (II), since LG’478 in combined with Shin discloses the amended limitations as set forth above, the combined system of LG’478 and Shin also discloses claims 2-5 in new grounds of rejection, Id ¶11.
Regarding claim 2, the applicant argued that, “…Vivo fails to remedy the deficiencies of LG to teach limitation (i). Specifically, § 2 of Vivo only teaches a reference point whose location is a base station, a satellite, or "left to the implementation." It would not have been obvious for the reference point to be located in a service link (i.e., between a satellite and a terminal), especially because doing SO might involve a negative TA value, as shown in Figure 9 in addition to paragraphs [0119] and [0150]-[0154] of the originally-filed specification. Additionally, Vivo fails to remedy the defects of LG to teach limitation (ii). Specifically, §§ 2.1-2.2 of Vivo teach a granularity factor in TA equations, but the granularity factor is constant in the TA equations. Further, even assuming arguendo a skilled person were to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide …” in pages 15-16.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although it is not required, Vivo still discloses references point and TA values with has an granularity factor in §§ 2, 2.1-2.2. The combined system of LG’478 and Shin teaches a reference point as set forth in new ground rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art9. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Vivo’661 in the combined system of LG’478 and Shin, so that it would reduce signaling overload ; see Vivo’661 § 2.2, observation 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper10.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant argued that, “…Leng fails to remedy the deficiencies of LG to teach limitation (i). Specifically, Leng does not teach a reference point. Additionally, Leng fails to remedy the defects of LG to teach limitation (ii). Specifically, paragraph [0112] of Leng only teaches increasing a TA step size, but doing so decreases a TA granularity (instead of increasing the TA granularity). Further, even assuming arguendo a skilled person were to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner, the combination would still fail to render amended independent claim 1 obvious, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to supply the missing elements without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide …” in page 17-18.
In response to applicant's argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Leng is not required to teach a reference point since combined system of LG’478 and Shin teaches a reference point as set forth in new ground rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art11. In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Leng in the combined system of LG’478 and Shin, so that it would provide flexibly accommodate various/application with different requirement, new multiple access scheme to support massive connection by adjusting TA and UE-specific TA while accommodating GNSS capability; see Leng ¶3, 5 and 150).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure as a guide, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin (US 11 871 288).
Regarding Claims 1, 3, 4 , Shin discloses a terminal (see FIG. 9-10, UEx, also see FIG. 13-14, first device/UEx/wireless device 100) comprising:
a reception unit (see FIG. 13-14, transceiver 114; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to receive a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information from a base station (see FIG. 10-11, S1101: receives a command/ PDCCH13/SIB14/DCI15 with fields including common TA16 values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) from BS17/gNB18/gateway; see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10);
wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link (see FIG. 9-10, common TA value involves/relate/concern a reference point in a service link19; see col. 21, line 17-55; see col. 29, line 5-12; see col. 30, line 26-34 ) and
a control unit (see FIG. 13-14, Control Unit 120; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to calculate a second timing adjustment value that is used for uplink transmission in a non-terrestrial network using the information and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 9-11, S1103; calculate the determined/second/full common TA value by using received common TA values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) in non-terrestrial network (NTN) ; see col. 21, line 19-22; col. 22, line 6-16, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10),
wherein the second timing adjustment value has an increased granularity (the determined/second/full common TA value is increased in every divided time interval (i.e. granularity20); see col. 3, line 4-12; see col. 23, line 4-14; see col. 30, line 45-59).
Regarding Claim 3, Shin discloses wherein the information is an offset value (see FIG. 9-10, the information is delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) , and
the control unit calculates the second timing adjustment value by calculating a sum of the offset value and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 9-11, S1101; the determined/second/full common TA value is calculated by adding common TA value AND a delta TA value; or alternatively, adding common TA value AND a UE-specific differential (TUEx); see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10).
Regarding claim 4, Shin discloses wherein the information is auxiliary information for calculating an offset value (see col. 7, line 6 to col. 8, line 31 see col. 22, line 20-60; the information is a representative/auxiliary filed of SIB21/DCI22 signaling information: also see FIG. 4,), and
the control unit calculates the offset value using the auxiliary information (see col. 7, line 6 to col. 8, line 31; see col. 22, line 20-60; the control unit 120 calculate delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value from representative/auxiliary SIB/DCI signaling information (i.e. SIB configuring/reconfiguration time or DCI format, etc. ), and calculates the second timing adjustment value by calculating a sum of the offset value and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 9-11, S1102; the determined/second/full common TA value is calculated by adding common TA value AND a delta TA value; or alternatively, adding common TA value AND a UE-specific differential (TUEx); see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Shin discloses a base station (see FIG. 9-10, BS23/gNB24/gateway; also see FIG. 13-14, second device/Base Station/wireless device 200) comprising:
a transmission unit (see FIG. 13-14, transceiver 114; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to transmit a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information to a terminal (see FIG. 9-11, S1101: transmit a command/ PDCCH25/SIB/DCI with fields including common TA values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) to first device/UEx/wireless device 100; see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10);
wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link (see FIG. 9-10, common TA value involves/relate/concern a reference point in a service link26; see col. 21, line 17-55; see col. 29, line 5-12; see col. 30, line 26-34 ) and
a reception unit (see FIG. 13-14, transceiver 114; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to receive a signal transmitted from the terminal based on a second timing adjustment value, for uplink transmission in a non-terrestrial network, (see FIG. 9-11, S1102; receive the determined/second/full common TA value from first device/UEx/wireless device 100 via uplink (UL) communication in non-terrestrial network (NTN)) that is calculated using the information and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 10-11; which is calculated by using received common TA values and information (i.e., delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value); see col. 21, line 19-22; col. 22, line 6-16, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; : see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10)
wherein the second timing adjustment value has an increased granularity (the determined/second/full common TA value is increased in every divided time interval (i.e. granularity27); see col. 3, line 4-12; see col. 23, line 4-14; see col. 30, line 45-59).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Tripathi (US 2021 0119861).
Regarding Claim 2, Although Shin discloses wherein the information and the control unit calculates the second timing adjustment value as set forth above, Shin does not explicitly disclose wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying”. [Emphasis added]
However, Tripathi teaches a terminal (see FIG.3- 4, UE 403/116) receiving receive a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information from a base station wherein the information is a scaling factor (see FIG. 4, 6, Step F6S1; receiving a command/SIB1 NTN type with indicated/first timing advance t_TA and scaling factor s_TA; see ¶¶ 72, 109-113, 116) , and
the control unit (see FIG. 3, processor 340 of UE 403/116) calculates the second timing adjustment value by multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor (see ¶¶ 110-112; common time advance by multiplying timing advance t_TA and scaling factor s_TA (i.e. t_TA * s_TA)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Tripathi in the system of Shin, so that it would avoid or minimize common signaling or dedicate signaling, thereby increasing the overall signaling efficiency ; see Tripathi ¶54).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Leng (US 2022 0046566).
Regarding Claim 5, Shin discloses wherein the control unit calculates the second timing adjustment value by concatenating the information and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 9-11, S1101; the determined/second/full common TA value is calculated by adding/concatenating common TA value AND a delta TA value; or alternatively, adding/concatenation common TA value AND a UE-specific differential (TUEx); see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10).
Although Shin discloses concatenating the information and the first timing adjustment value as set forth above, Shin does not explicitly disclose concatenating “a bit sequence” of the information and “a bit sequence” of the first timing adjustment value. [Emphasis added]
In general, it is known in the standard of NTN Rel. 17 that when adding/concatenating the information and the timing adjustment value are performed by adding/concatenating their corresponding bit fields/sequences. In particular, Leng wherein the control unit (see FIG. 1, 3, UE 116) calculates the second timing adjustment value by concatenating a bit sequence of the information and a bit sequence of the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 8, Step 808; see FIG. 9; UE calculate adjusted TA by adding/concatenating received common TA bits and information bits (i.e. satellite ephemeris, configuration information, and UE specific TA, frequence offset, Table 4, Table 5, etc.) in the extended size TAC28 field; see ¶¶ 90-91, 109-116; Also see FIG. 11, Step 1110; see FIG. 12, Step 1214; see ¶¶ 121-125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Leng in the system of Shin, so that it would provide flexibly accommodate various/application with different requirement, new multiple access scheme to support massive connection by adjusting TA and UE-specific TA while accommodating GNSS capability; see Leng ¶3, 5 and 150).
Second Set of Rejection
Claim 1, 3, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG’47829 (R1-2105478, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 # 105-e) in view of Shin (US 11 871 288).
Regarding Claim 1, LG’478 discloses a terminal (see §§ 1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2; UE) comprising:
a reception unit (see § 2.1.1, UE has transceiver unit) configured to receive a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information from a base station (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; receive a signaling/command (e.g. SIB, RRC, etc.) with NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) and NTA offset (i.e. information) from gNB); and
wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point and a service link ( see §§ 1, 2.2: NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) involves/relate/concern a reference point and service link)
a control unit (see § 2.1.1, UE has a processor/CPU unit) configured to calculate a second timing adjustment value that is used for uplink transmission in a non-terrestrial network using the information and the first timing adjustment value (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; calculate/estimate/determine estimated Timing advance TTA for UL time synchronization in NTN by using NTA common and NTA offset time).
wherein the second timing adjustment value has granularity (see §§ 1; estimated Timing advance TTA using NTA common has granularity).
Although LG’478 discloses the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point and a service link, and the second timing adjustment value has granularity as set forth above, LG’478 does not explicitly disclose a reference point “located” in a service link and value has an “increased” granularity. [Emphasis added]
In particular, Shin discloses a terminal (see FIG. 9-10, UEx, also see FIG. 13-14, first device/UEx/wireless device 100) comprising:
a reception unit (see FIG. 13-14, transceiver 114; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to receive a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information from a base station (see FIG. 10-11, S1101: receives a command/ PDCCH30/SIB31/DCI32 with fields including common TA33 values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) from BS34/gNB35/gateway; see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10);
wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link (see FIG. 9-10, common TA value involves/relate/concern a reference point in a service link36; see col. 21, line 17-55; see col. 29, line 5-12; see col. 30, line 26-34 ) and
a control unit (see FIG. 13-14, Control Unit 120; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to calculate a second timing adjustment value that is used for uplink transmission in a non-terrestrial network using the information and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 9-11, S1103; calculate the determined/second/full common TA value by using received common TA values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) in non-terrestrial network (NTN) ; see col. 21, line 19-22; col. 22, line 6-16, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10),
wherein the second timing adjustment value has an increased granularity (the determined/second/full common TA value is increased in every divided time interval (i.e. granularity37); see col. 3, line 4-12; see col. 23, line 4-14; see col. 30, line 45-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reference point “located” in a service link and value has an “increased” granularity as taught by Shin in the system of LG’478, so that it would perform more efficiently; see Shin col. 3, lines 35-40.
Regarding Claim 3, LG’47discloses wherein the information is an offset value (information is the NTA offset, and
the control unit calculates the second timing adjustment value by calculating a sum of the offset value and the first timing adjustment value (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; calculate/estimate/determine estimated Timing advance TTA by summing/adding NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) and NTA offset (i.e. information) (TTA = … NTA common + NTA offset) )).
Regarding claim 4, LG’47discloses wherein the information is auxiliary information for calculating an offset value (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; information is a representative/auxiliary filed of SIB/Dedicated RRC signaling information), and
the control unit calculates the offset value using the auxiliary information (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; calculate NTA offset from representative/auxiliary SIB/Dedicated RRC signaling information), and calculates the second timing adjustment value by calculating a sum of the offset value and the first timing adjustment value (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; the estimated/second Timing advance TTA is calculated by summing/adding NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) and NTA offset (TTA = … NTA common + NTA offset) )).
Regarding Claim 6, LG’478 discloses a base station (see §§ 1, 2.1.1-2.1.3; gNB ) comprising:
a transmission unit (see § 2.1.2, gNB has transceiver unit) configured to transmit a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information to a terminal (transmit a signaling/command (e.g. SIB, RRC, etc.) for NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) and NTA offset (i.e. information) to UE); and
wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point and a service link ( see §§ 1, 2.2: NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) involves/relate/concern a reference point and service link)
a reception unit (see § 2.1.2, gNB has transceiver unit) configured to receive a signal transmitted from the terminal based on a second timing adjustment value, for uplink transmission in a non-terrestrial network, (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; receive a signaling/command (e.g. SIB, RRC, etc.) transmitted from UE based on estimated Timing advance TTA for UL time synchronization in NTN ) that is calculated using the information and the first timing adjustment value (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; calculate/estimate/determine using NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) and NTA offset (i.e. information) to UE)
wherein the second timing adjustment value has granularity (see §§ 1; estimated Timing advance TTA using NTA common has granularity).
Although LG’478 discloses the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point and a service link, and the second timing adjustment value has granularity as set forth above, LG’478 does not explicitly disclose a reference point “located” in a service link and value has an “increased” granularity. [Emphasis added]
In particular, Shin discloses a terminal (see FIG. 9-10, UEx, also see FIG. 13-14, first device/UEx/wireless device 100) comprising:
a reception unit (see FIG. 13-14, transceiver 114; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to receive a command that designates a first timing adjustment value and information from a base station (see FIG. 10-11, S1101: receives a command/ PDCCH38/SIB39/DCI40 with fields including common TA41 values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) from BS42/gNB43/gateway; see col. 21, line 34-46; col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10);
wherein the first timing adjustment value involves a reference point located in a service link (see FIG. 9-10, common TA value involves/relate/concern a reference point in a service link44; see col. 21, line 17-55; see col. 29, line 5-12; see col. 30, line 26-34 ) and
a control unit (see FIG. 13-14, Control Unit 120; see col. 35, line 28-50 ) configured to calculate a second timing adjustment value that is used for uplink transmission in a non-terrestrial network using the information and the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 9-11, S1103; calculate the determined/second/full common TA value by using received common TA values and information (i.e.,, delta TA value or UE-specific differential TA value) in non-terrestrial network (NTN) ; see col. 21, line 19-22; col. 22, line 6-16, line 45 to col. 23, line 10; see col. 30, line 6 to col. 31, line 10),
wherein the second timing adjustment value has an increased granularity (the determined/second/full common TA value is increased in every divided time interval (i.e. granularity45); see col. 3, line 4-12; see col. 23, line 4-14; see col. 30, line 45-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a reference point “located” in a service link and value has an “increased” granularity as taught by Shin in the system of LG’478, so that it would perform more efficiently; see Shin col. 3, lines 35-40.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG’478 in view of Shin, and further in view of Vivo’66146 (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 # 103-e).
Regarding Claim 2, Although the combined system LG’478 and Shin discloses wherein the information and the control unit calculates the second timing adjustment value as set forth above, LG’478 does not explicitly disclose wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying”. [Emphasis added]
However, Vivo’661teaches Vivo discloses references point and TA value has an granularity (see §§ 2, 2.1-2.2 ) and wherein the information is a scaling factor (see §§ 2.2; information is Scaling Factor S) , and
the control unit (see §§ 2.2 processor/CPU of UE) calculates the second timing adjustment value by multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor (see §§ 2.2; calculate NTA-new by multiplying TA by Scaling factor S (i.e. NTA-new = ..S x TA ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Vivo’661 in the combined system of LG’478 and Shin, so that it would reduce signaling overload ; see Vivo’661 § 2.2, observation 3).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LG’478 in view of Shin, and further in view of Leng (US 2022 0046566).
Regarding Claim 5, LG’478 discloses wherein the control unit calculates the second timing adjustment value by concatenating the information and the first timing adjustment value (see §§ 1, 2.1.1- 2.1.3; calculate/estimate/determine estimated Timing advance TTA by summing/adding/ concatenating NTA common (i.e. 1st timing adjustment) and NTA offset (i.e. information) (TTA = … NTA common + NTA offset)).
Although the combined system of LG’478 and Shin discloses concatenating the information and the first timing adjustment value as set forth above, LG’478 does not explicitly disclose concatenating “a bit sequence” of the information and “a bit sequence” of the first timing adjustment value. [Emphasis added]
In general, it is known in the standard of NTN Rel. 17 that when adding/concatenating the information and the timing adjustment value are performed by adding/concatenating their corresponding bit fields/sequences. In particular, Leng wherein the control unit (see FIG. 1, 3, UE 116) calculates the second timing adjustment value by concatenating a bit sequence of the information and a bit sequence of the first timing adjustment value (see FIG. 8, Step 808; see FIG. 9; UE calculate adjusted TA by adding/concatenating received common TA bits and information bits (i.e. satellite ephemeris, configuration information, and UE specific TA, frequence offset, Table 4, Table 5, etc.) in the extended size TAC47 field; see ¶¶ 90-91, 109-116; also see FIG. 11, Step 1110; see FIG. 12, Step 1214; see ¶¶ 121-125).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein the information is “a scaling factor” and calculates the second timing adjustment value by “multiplying the first timing adjustment value by the scaling factor” as taught by Leng in the combined system of LG’478 and Shin, so that it would provide flexibly accommodate various/application with different requirement, new multiple access scheme to support massive connection by adjusting TA and UE-specific TA while accommodating GNSS capability; see Leng ¶3, 5 and 150).
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 Ian N Moore whose telephone number is (571)272-3085. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 AM - 5:30 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, Deborah J Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
IAN N. MOORE
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2469
/Ian N Moore/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
3 See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
4 See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
5 See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
6 See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
7 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
8 See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
9 See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
10 See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
11 See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
12 See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
13 PDCCH=Physical Downlink Control Channel
14 SIB= System Information Block
15 DCI=Downlink Control Information
16 TA= Timing Advance
17 BS=Base Station
18 gNB=Gateway Node B
19 service link = a link between satellite and a reference point, Id. Shin col. 21, lines 27-28
20 Granularity= the quality or state of being granular/small particle GRANULARITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
21 SIB= System Information Block
22 DCI=Downlink Control Information
23 BS=Base Station
24 gNB=Gateway Node B
25 PDCCH=Physical Downlink Control Channel
26 service link = a link between satellite and a reference point, Id. Shin col. 21, lines 27-28
27 Granularity= the quality or state of being granular/small particle GRANULARITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
28 TAC= Timing Advance Command
29 Provided by the IDS dated 3/4/2024
30 PDCCH=Physical Downlink Control Channel
31 SIB= System Information Block
32 DCI=Downlink Control Information
33 TA= Timing Advance
34 BS=Base Station
35 gNB=Gateway Node B
36 service link = a link between satellite and a reference point, Id. Shin col. 21, lines 27-28
37 Granularity= the quality or state of being granular/small particle GRANULARITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
38 PDCCH=Physical Downlink Control Channel
39 SIB= System Information Block
40 DCI=Downlink Control Information
41 TA= Timing Advance
42 BS=Base Station
43 gNB=Gateway Node B
44 service link = a link between satellite and a reference point, Id. Shin col. 21, lines 27-28
45 Granularity= the quality or state of being granular/small particle GRANULARITY Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
46 Provided by the IDS dated 3/4/2024
47 TAC= Timing Advance Command
Prosecution Insights