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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-21 and 23-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiran Venugopal et al. (US 20210306994 A1, hereinafter referred to as Venugopal).
Regarding claim 1, Venugopal teaches an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: (Venugopal discloses a device with memory and a processor that is configured to do the following process. See paragraph [0076]).
receive a first control message indicating a timing advance configuration for a component carrier associated with a serving cell, the timing advance configuration indicating a set of timing advance values for communications via the component carrier. (Venugopal discloses a timing advance (TA) command or configuration being sent from the base station to the UE to indicate the TA values for a component carrier. The examiner interprets the component carrier to be the frequency in the reference. The first message is interpreted to be the TA command. The different transmit timings calculated are interpreted as the TA values. See paragraphs [0036], [0051], [0052] and [0059]).
receive a second control message indicating a unified transmission configuration indicator state for an uplink message via the component carrier. (Venugopal discloses a control message with transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state information through a component carrier. The examiner interprets the uplink TCI that contains a source reference signal as the second message. See paragraphs [0036], [0047] and [0054]).
and transmit the uplink message via the component carrier in accordance with the unified transmission configuration indicator state and a timing advance value from the set of timing advance values, the timing advance value based at least in part on the unified transmission configuration indicator state. (Venugopal discloses an uplink message being transmitted with the timing advance value (or timing adjustment) based on the TCI state. See [Abstract] and paragraphs [0027], [0056] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor coupled to the memory is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a third control message indicating an association between a set of unified transmission configuration indicator states including the unified transmission configuration indicator state and the set of timing advance values. (Venugopal discloses a control message that shows timing advance groups (TAGs) that are associated with TCI states. The examiner interprets the dynamically updated MAC-CE to be the third message. See paragraphs [0061] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor coupled to the memory is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a third control message indicating an association between a set of unified transmission configuration indicator groups and the set of timing advance values, wherein a unified transmission configuration indicator group of the set of unified transmission configuration indicator groups includes the unified transmission configuration indicator state, wherein the timing advance value is identified based on an association between the unified transmission configuration indicator group and the timing advance value. (Venugopal discloses a control message that shows timing advance groups (TAGs) that can be associated with multiple TCI states, which would constitute a set of TCIs. See paragraphs [0058], [0059], [0061] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, to receive the second control message, the processor coupled to the memory is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive an indication of the timing advance value for the uplink message in the second control message. (Venugopal discloses receiving the TA value through a control message. The examiner interprets the applied timing compensation as being included in the second control message. See paragraphs [0058] [0059] [0064] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein, to receive the indication of the timing advance value, the processor coupled to the memory is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a timing advance group identifier that indicates the timing advance value. (Venugopal discloses a TAG with an index that is used to identify it and link it to a TCI state. See paragraphs [0061], [0062] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein, to receive the indication of the timing advance value, the processor coupled to the memory is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive the indication of the timing advance value in an information element of a radio resource control message. (Venugopal discloses indicating the TA values in an RRC configuration. The examiner interprets the indication of the value to be an information element. See paragraphs [0061] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor coupled to the memory is further configured to cause the apparatus to: receive downlink control information indicating scheduling information for the uplink message, wherein the uplink message is transmitted in accordance with the scheduling information. (Venugopal discloses a DCI that shows the timing and scheduling information. See paragraphs [0062], [0066] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first control message, the second control message, or both, comprises a radio resource control message or a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE). (Venugopal discloses that these control messages can indicated through RRC messages or MAC-CE. See paragraphs [0051], [0061], [0062] and [0076]).
Regarding claim 10, Venugopal teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a network device, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to:
transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a first control message indicating a timing advance configuration for a component carrier associated with a serving cell configured by the network device, the timing advance configuration indicating a set of timing advance values for communications via the component carrier
transmit, to the UE, a second control message indicating a unified transmission configuration indicator state for an uplink message via the component carrier
and receive, from the UE, the uplink message on the component carrier in accordance with the unified transmission configuration indicator state and a timing advance value from the set of timing advance values, the timing advance value based at least in part on the unified transmission configuration indicator state
Venugopal discloses that the same process of claim 1 can be done between the UE and the base station [0076]. The base station transmits the control messages to the UE with the TA command for the carrier of the serving cell and also sends a control message with a TCI state. The base station receives the uplink message from the UE. The UE adjusted the transmit timing for the carrier based on the TCI. This reasoning will be maintained hereinafter. See [Abstract] and paragraphs [0036], [0047], [0051], [0052], [0054] and [0059].
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 2.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 3.
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 5.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 6.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 7.
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 2.
Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 3.
Claim 23 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 5.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 6.
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 7.
Claim 26 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 8.
Claim 27 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 9.
Claim 28 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 10.
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 2.
Claim 30 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 3.
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.
Claims 4, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal in view of Hamidreza Farmanbar et al. (US 20200100201 A1, hereinafter referred to as Farmanbar).
Regarding claim 4, Venugopal teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except receiv[ing] a bitmap indicating the association between the set of unified transmission configuration indicator groups and the set of timing advance values.
In the same field of endeavor, Farmanbar teaches showing the relation of the TCI state to its mapped TAG ID in a bitmap. (See paragraph [0062]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Venugopal reference to incorporate a bitmap that indicates the mapped relation of the TCI states and the TA values. The motivation to combine is to reduce CPU overhead by performing compact and fast lookup of timing advance information in a bitmap.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 4.
Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason that is outlined in claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosseinian et al. (US 20210352606 A1 , METHODS FOR TIMING ADVANCE INDICATION AND TIMING RELATIONSHIPS INDICATION FOR NON-TERRESTRIAL NETWORKS)
김선우 et al. (KR 102322038 B1, METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING OF CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION AND APPARATUSES THEREOF)
Li et al. (US 20210306994 A1, METHOD OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION BY USER EQUIPMENT (UE), INVOLVES ADJUSTING UPLINK TRANSMIT TIMING FOR UPLINK TRANSMISSION BASED ON TIMING PARAMETER)
Li et al. (US 20200008239 A1, TECHNIQUES AND APPARATUSES FOR USING DIFFERENT TIMING ADVANCE VALUES FOR DIFFERENT NUMEROLOGIES)
Ryu et al. (US 20190159149 A1, OPEN LOOP UPLINK TIMING ADVANCE)
Rune et al. (US 20180242268 A1, UE COMPENSATED TIMING ADVANCE)
Sundberg et al. (WO 2013156884 A1, MULTIRECEIVER TIMING ADVANCE PROVISIONING)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 EST.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/C.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights