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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10, 12, 13, and 16-17, and 22-26, 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 as it pertains to the amended common signaling.
Regarding claim 1,9, and 16-17, the applicant alleges that the disclosure of Suh et al. (US 2024/0179592 A1) does not disclose:
“receiving configuration information configured to indicate at least one of a time offset or a time window sent by the base station, wherein the time offset is configured to indicate a delay effective time for the updated cell-specific offset, and the time window is configured to indicate an invalid time of the updated cell-specific offset”
The office respectfully disagrees. As discussed below, the disclosure of Suh substantially discloses the claimed features, such that Suh in view of Xu teach each and every limitation of the claims, and the claims are rejected.
For example, the disclosure of Suh teaches that the UE receiving an initial offset in element S901, then in S903 for example, the UE is given an updated scheduling offset and a periodicity for updating the scheduling offset, wherein the periodicity is a delay or period of time until an updated scheduling offset can be used. Additionally, the periodicity provides a window for invalid time for an updated cell-specific offset by indicating a periodicity for when the received updated cell specific offset can be used, and for when the received updated cell specific offset will be invalidated because the after the indicated periodicity an updated-updated cell specific offset will be received invalidating the previous cell specific offset.
Thus, the disclosure of Suh substantially discloses the claimed invention, and the claims stand rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13, 16-17, and 22-26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US 2024/0179592 A1) in view of Xu (WO 2021/056383 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Suh discloses:
a user equipment (UE) (fig.3 element 300) supporting satellite communciation (fig.2c wherein the UE is communication in an NTN network), comprising:
a processor (fig.3 element 310); and
a memory (fig.3 element 320 or element 360) storing a computer program executable by the processor (fig.3 element 320 or element 360);
wherein the processor is configured to perform:
a method for information updating (par.[0007] describes updating and signaling of a scheduling offset), performed by a user equipment (UE) (par.[0008] describes a User Equipment (UE) which receives the offset and the update of the offset) supporting satellite communication (par.[0007] describes Non-Terrestrial Networks NTN), the method comprising:
receiving an updated cell-specific offset (par.[0027] which describes the message comprises at least a cell specific offset and/or a UE specific offset) sent by a base station (par.[0109] which recites, in part, “The satellite may transmit a message (e.g., MAC CE) including information on the scheduling offset updated according to the update periodicity in a step or operation S903. The UE may receive the MAC CE from the satellite and identify the current scheduling offset (e.g., updated scheduling offset) based on an information element (e.g., information on the updated scheduling offset) included in the MAC CE.”);
receiving configuration information configured to indicate at least one of a time offset or a time window sent by the base station (fig.9 element S902 which describes a time offset (i.e. the updating periodicity) for providing an update), wherein the time offset is configured to indicate a delay effective time for the updated cell-specific offset (fig.9 the UE receives a update periodicity wherein, the update periodicity is a delay between reception of an updated scheduling offset which is implemented when the UE receives the configuration information at element S903 and implements the new updated scheduling offset, par.[0108]), and the time window is configured to indicate an invalid time of the updated cell-specific offset (fig.9 the periodicity in combination with MAC-CE scheduling the updated scheduling offset, wherein the scheduling offset is utilized for a periodicity indicated in the updated periodicity, and configured to switch from a first updated scheduling offset to a second updated scheduling offset according to the periodicity and the reception of the control information. When the UE receives an updated scheduling offset this invalidates another updated scheduling offset); and
using the updated cell-specific offset based on the at least of the time offset of the time window (S903 when the UE receives the updated offset, the UE can use the updated offset after the periodicity for receiving the updated offset. Par.[0109]).
While the disclosure of Suh substantially discloses the claimed invention and discloses wherein receiving the configuration information configured to indicate at least one of the time offset or the time window sent by the base station, it may not disclose:
receiving the configuration information sent by the base station via a common signaling.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Xu teaches:
receiving the configuration information sent by the base station via a common signaling (pg.5 lines 25-42 describes the offset being sent in a group-common PDCCH, which is a common signaling type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Suh for transmitting configuration information such as an offset with the signaling as discussed in Xu. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the skilled artisan would know to send control information on a control channel either specifically to a particular UE or to a group of UEs utilizing a common signaling format in order to inform the one or more UEs of pertinent control information.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, Suh discloses:
wherein receiving the updated cell- specific offset sent by the base station comprises:
receiving the updated cell-specific offset sent by the base station via updated system information (par.[0012] which recites, in part, “transmitting second system information including a second scheduling offset to the UE.”).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Suh discloses:
receiving the updated cell-specific offset sent by the base station in a case that the UE and the base station are in a non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) scenario (par.[0063] describes Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), which are types of NGSO).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 24, Suh discloses:
receiving the configuration information sent by the base station via a UE-specific signaling (fig.9 depicts the configuration being sent via RRC which is UE specific)/
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Suh discloses:
communicating with the base station using a cell-specific offset before update, within the time offset (fig.9 the UE receives a first update for the cell-specific offset in a periodicity before receiving an update for the cell-specific offset); or
communicating with the base station using the updated cell-specific offset, after delaying for the time offset (fig.9 and as discussed above, the UE may receive an updated K_offset which comprises the cell-specific and UE-specific offset and may use the combination of the UE-specific and Cell-specific).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, Suh discloses:
wherein the time offset is a fixed value or a configurable value (fig.9 the periodicity is fixed for a time and can be modified, thus, it is also configurable).
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure of Suh teaches:
wherein using the updated cell- specific offset based on the time window comprises:
communicating with the base station using a UE-specific offset within the time window (fig.9 the UE may utilize the previously indicated Koffset which comprises a UE-specific offset, wherein the uplink and downlink transmissions are based on the Koffset) ; and
communicating with the base station using the updated cell-specific offset after the time window (fig.9 the UE periodically receives a new Koffset which comprises a cell-specific offset and/or a UE specific offset as discussed above).
Regarding claim 8, Suh teaches:
wherein communicating with the base station using the UE-specific offset within the time window comprises at least one of:
performing, by the UE, a communication operation that requires to use a cell- specific offset, based on the UE-specific offset within the time window (par.[0090] describes the use of both the UE specific Koffset and Cell Specific Koffset); or
not performing, by the UE, a communication operation that requires to use a cell- specific offset, within the time window (par.[0089] describes the Koffset can UE specific or cell specific, additionally, the particular/specific K offset may be indicated for use).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Suh discloses:
a base station (fig.3 depicts a processor) supporting satellite communciation (fig.2a which depicts NTN), comprising:
a processor (fig.3 element 310); and
a memory (fig.3 element 320 or 360), storing a computer program executable by the processor;
wherein the processor is configured to perform:
a method for information updating (fig.9 the base station can send an update of the offset to the UE), performed by a base station (fig.9 depicts a satellite base station) supporting satellite communciation (fig.9 the satellite base station), the method comprising:
determining at least one of a time offset or a time window (fig.9 the element S902 the UE receives a time offset), wherein the time offset is configured to indicate a delay effective time for an updated cell-specific offset (S902, the periodicity or offset between receiving a previous offset and receiving and using an updated offset), and the time window is configured to indicate an invalid time for the updated cell specific offset;
sending configuration information configured to indicate the at least one of the time offset or the time window to a user equipment (UE) (fig.9 element S902 the updated periodicity); and
sending the updated cell-specific offset to the UE (fig.9 element S903).
Regarding claim 13, Suh discloses:
wherein sending the updated cell-specific offset to the UE comprises: determining whether the base station and the UE are in an a non- geostationary orbit (NGSO) scenario based on ephemeris information, and receiving sending the updated cell-specific offset sent by the base station to the UE in a case that the UE and the base station are in the NGSO scenario (par.[0100] which recites, in part, “Ephemeris information as well as the condition(s) defined in Table 4 may be considered to change the transmission periodicity of system information.”. Wherein the periodicity for the updated scheduling offset is based off of ephemeris information).
Regarding claim 26, the disclosure of Suh teaches:
wherein using the updated cell- specific offset based on the time window comprises:
communicating with the base station using a UE-specific offset within the time window (fig.9 the UE may utilize the previously indicated Koffset which comprises a UE-specific offset, wherein the uplink and downlink transmissions are based on the Koffset) ; and
communicating with the base station using the updated cell-specific offset after the time window (fig.9 the UE periodically receives a new Koffset which comprises a cell-specific offset and/or a UE specific offset as discussed above).
wherein communicating with the base station using the UE-specific offset within the time window comprises at least one of:
performing, by the UE, a communication operation that requires to use a cell- specific offset, based on the UE-specific offset within the time window (par.[0090] describes the use of both the UE specific Koffset and Cell Specific Koffset); or
not performing, by the UE, a communication operation that requires to use a cell- specific offset, within the time window (par.[0089] describes the Koffset can UE specific or cell specific, additionally, the particular/specific K offset may be indicated for use).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh as applied to the independent claims in view of Dai et al. (US 2022/0322265 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure of Suh teaches the independent claims, but does not disclose:
wherein determining the time offset comprises: determining the time offset based on a maximum round trip time (RTT) of signal transmission within a coverage area of the base station.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Dai teaches:
wherein determining the time offset comprises:
determining the time offset based on a maximum round trip time (RTT) of signal transmission within a coverage area of the base station (par.[0142] which recites, in part, “In some embodiments, the value of common offset portion and/or UE-specific offset portion may be obtained via maximum RTT and/or maximum differential RTT, as shown in FIG. 5.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Suh, with the disclosure of Dai. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide an offset that is large enough to cover any scheduling delays, along with the update as the satellite moves about, to reconfigure the offset based on the changing distances.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (US 2022/0408389 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Updating Timing Offset”
Myung et al. (US 2024/0073842 A1) “Method and Device for Determining and Applying Timing Advance in Communication System”
Lin (US 2023/0038582 A1) “Uplink Transmission Scheduling in Non-Terrestrial Network”
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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights