DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 08/12/2024.
Claims 1-11 and 36-44 are pending for Examination.
Claims 12-35 were cancelled by preliminary amendment.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS’) submitted on: 08/20/2024 and 12/24/2024 are determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS’ are being considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 1, 8, and 36-37, of the instant application, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory, provisional-type double-patenting, as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9, 16-17, and 22, of co-pending, commonly-owned U.S. Patent Application No. 18/706,557, having the same inventor, i.e., Yanjun Zhu.
See the claim mapping correspondence tables, provided below.
Instant Application: 18/837,686 A1
Claims 1 and 36
Co-pending US Patent App.: 18/706,557 A1
Claims 1, 2, 16 and 22
Claim 1: A method for receiving system information, performed by a user equipment, and comprising:
receiving updated system information;
determining effective time for the updated system information;
starting to apply the updated system information
Claim 1: A method for information updating, performed by a user equipment (UE) supporting satellite communication, the method comprising:
receiving an updated cell-specific offset sent by a base station;
receiving configuration information configured to indicate at least one 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…
using the updated cell-specific offset based on the at least one of the time offset or the time window.
Claim 2: receiving the updated cell-specific offset sent by the base station via updated system information.
Claim 36: A communication device comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store computer programs; and the computer programs, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform:
receiving updated system information;
determining effective time for the updated system information;
starting to apply the updated system information
Claim 16: A user equipment (UE) supporting satellite communications, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to:
receive an updated cell-specific offset sent by a base station;
receive 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…
use the updated cell-specific offset based on the at least one time offset or the time window.
Claim 22: receive the updated cell-specific offset sent by the base station via updated system information.
Instant Application: 18/837,686 A1
Claims 8 and 37
Co-pending US Patent App.: 18/706,557 A1
Claims 9 and 17
Claim 8: A method for transmitting system information, performed by a network device, and comprising:
transmitting updated system information to a user equipment;
wherein the updated system information is configured to cause the user equipment to determine and effective time for the updated system information, and to start to apply the updated system information at the effective time.
Claim 9: A method for information updating, performed by a base station supporting satellite communication, the method comprising:
determining at least one of a time offset or a time window, where the time offset it configured to indicate a delay effective time for an 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);
sending the updated cell-specific offset to the UE.
Claim 37: A communication device comprising: a processor; and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store computer programs; and the computer programs, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 8.
Claim 17: A base station supporting satellite communication, comprising: a processor; and memory storing a computer program executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method according to claim 9.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the above claim limitations of co-pending US Patent Application 18/706,557 A1 recite the same technical subject matter as that of the above-indicated independent claims of the instant patent application. Therefore, the co-pending patent claims read on all of the corresponding independent claim limitations of the instant application, according to the above claim mapping correspondence tables.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome a provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) 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. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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)(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 1-11 and 36-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable in view of US PG Pub. 2023/0254794 A1, Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 1, Park teaches:
A method for receiving system information, performed by a user equipment (paras. [0259], [0267], [0277]-[0279], and [0325]-[0036]; and UEs of Figs. 14 and 18 —a UE can receive system information (SI) from a network, as depicted in block S201 of Fig. 15), and comprising:
receiving updated system information (paras. [0266]-[0273], [0277]-[0279], and [0325]-[0036]; and S202-S2203 of Fig. 15 —a UE can receive an updated Koffset value (a parameter of SI) in dedicated SI, i.e., NTN/beam-specific SIB, RRC, i.e., RRC_Reconfiguration, or MAC-CE signaling);
determining effective time for the updated system information (paras. [0274]-[0277], [0294]-[0296], [0302], and [0326]; Fig. 12(b) and S2203 of Fig. 15; —a UE can determine an effective time for application of the received, updated Koffset value, in terms of a predefined time window, an event trigger, an offset difference, i.e., between cell-specific and UE-specific offsets, etc., which can optionally be configured per-frequency range/BWP); and
starting to apply the updated system information at the effective time (paras. [0274]-[0277], [0294]-[0296], [0302], and [0326]; and S205 of Fig. 15 —a UE can start applying an updated Koffset value, according to a difference between cell-specific and UE-specific offset at the determined effective time, which may be triggered by the UE and/or the BS).
With respect to claim 2, Park teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the updated system information comprises an updated cell-specific offset (paras. [0254], [0277], [0286], and [0326] —a first K offset may be a cell-specific K offset, and the first K offset can be updated to a new offset value by adding or subtracting an “update value” therefrom, at para. [0326] —Alternatively, the K offset can be updated periodically, via SIB based on received ephemeris information relating to orbit configuration, at para. [0277]).
With respect to claim 3, Park teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the effective time for the updated system information comprises:
receiving a high-level signaling transmitted by a network device, wherein the high-level signaling comprises configuration information for indicating the effective time; and
determining, based on the configuration information, the effective time for the updated system information, or
wherein the updated system information comprises an updated cell-specific offset, and the determining the effective time for the updated system information and the starting to apply the updated system information at the effective time comprise:
determining effective time for the updated cell-specific offset; and starting to apply the updated cell-specific offset at the effective time,
wherein the determining effective time for the updated cell-specific offset comprises:
receiving a high-level signaling transmitted by a network device, wherein the high-level signaling comprises configuration information for indicating the effective time;
determining, based on the configuration information, the effective time for the updated cell-specific offset (paras. [0272], [0279]-[2080] and [0283]-[0287] —a network BS can transmit, and a UE can receive, high-level signaling in terms of RRC layer signaling, i.e., RRC_Reconfiguration message(s), with configuration information that a UE can use to determine an effective time for applying an updated Koffset value (when to apply the Koffset update), i.e., X slots/symbols/msec after receipt of RRC reconfiguration complete —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 4, Park teaches:
The method of claim 1 wherein the determining the effective time for the updated system information comprises:
determining, based on a predefined mode in a protocol, the effective time for the updated system information, or
wherein the updated system information comprises an updated cell-specific offset, and the determining the effective time for the updated system information and the starting to apply the updated system information at the effective time comprise:
determining effective time for the updated cell-specific offset; and
starting to apply the updated cell-specific offset at the effective time,
wherein the determining effective time for the updated cell-specific offset comprises:
determining, based on a predefined mode in a protocol, the effective time for the updated cell-specific offset (paras. [0103], [0272]-[0274], [0276]-[0277], and [0279] —the Examiner interprets RRC_Reconfiguration mode to be a “predefined mode in a protocol,” and notes that RRC messaging, such as RRCReconfiguration Complete, can be used to determined when to update, i.e., an effective time, the SI preconfigured Koffset value, i.e., a cell-specific offset —the Examiner also interprets protocol-designated periodic broadcast of ephemeris (satellite orbit) information to also correspond to a “predefined mode of a protocol,” which a UE can alternatively utilize to determine when to update its cell-specific Koffset value, i.e., within in a time window ”W” from receiving periodic orbit/ephemeris information —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 5, Park teaches:
The method of any one of claims claim 1,wherein
the effective time corresponds to an end position of a system information window in which the updated system information is located, or the effective time corresponds to an end position of a modification period for the system information (paras. [0277] and [0279] —the update time for the Koffset value can be: i. before expiration of, i.e., at the end of, a designated time window “W,” from the reception time of the new Koffset that is received along with periodic ephemeris info, or alternatively, ii. an end slot/symbol position X after reception, i.e., a modification period, of a an RRCReconfiguration Complete message from the BS —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 6, Park teaches:
the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
determining, based on the updated system information, that a conflict occurs in data transmission on a target transmission unit; and
performing the data transmission based on a predefined rule; or
wherein the updated system information comprises
an updated cell-specific offset, and the method further comprises:
determining, based on the updated cell-specific offset, that a conflict occurs in data transmission on a target transmission unit; and
performing the data transmission based on a predefined rule (paras. [0274]-[0277], [0279], [0294]-[0296], [0302], and [0326]; and Fig. 15; —a UE can receive an updated Koffset value in SI, and then determine the effective time within which to apply the updated Koffset value, in terms of a predefined time window, an event trigger, an offset difference, etc. —the effective time can be determined to be before expiration of a designated time window “W,” in SIB (w/ephemeris info), or by an ending slot/symbol position X, such as immediately following reception an RRCReconfiguration Complete message —Applicant’s disclosure likewise describes that for a NTNs, with the movement of a satellites, a time (a modification period) in when which a UE receives SI is not limited, and as a result “a conflict” may occur which is also referred to “a period of ambiguity,” at para. [0070] (of PG Pub) —Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to limiting the SI update to a specific modification period, i.e., referred to as “an effective time,” at para. [0077] —In this context, the Examiner interprets Park’s determining an effective time to limit a time in which its UE applies its updated Koffset, to similarly remove the ambiguity of potential conflict, as described ing Applicant’s original disclosure —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 7, Park teaches:
The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined rule comprises:
abandoning the data transmission on the target transmission unit; or
selecting, for data transmission, a data packet of a second value from a data packet of a first value scheduled on the target transmission unit, wherein the second value is less than the first value (para. [0257]-[0258]; and Figs. 12a-b —for a scheduled UE UL data transmission, i.e., a Tx of Fig. 12a, assigning a first value: T0+T_proc-T_TA, can create an ambiguity, where for a long RTT the first transmission time precedes T0 (the PDCCH reception) —the ambiguity may be resolved/cured by selecting a different, second value for the UL data transmission, were the second value of the UL data transmission cannot precede T0, i.e., by adjusting the UL Tx by Koffset, thereby limiting the UL data transmission to not precede T0, as depicted in Fig. 12b —the Examiner hereby requires Applicant to provide original disclosure support for the examined alternative subject matter of dependent claim 7, including at least one specific example/definition of the claim terms: “a data packet of a first value” and “a data packet of a second value,” and to explain what the benefit is of the second value being less than the first value? —the alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section ).
With respect to claim 8, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 8 is written from the perspective of a network device (paras. [0259], [0267], [0277]-[0279], and [0325]-[0036]; and Satellite/Gateway of Figs. 14 and 18 —an NTN network device can transmit system information (SI) to a UE, as depicted in block S301 of Fig. 16). As such, claim 8 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 10, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 10 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 36, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 36 is directed to a communication device with a processor and memory (paras. [0356]-[0373]; and UE 100 with processor 102 and memory 104 of Fig. 18). As such, claim 36 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 37, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 8, except claim 37 is directed to a network communication device with a processor and memory (paras. [0356]-[0373]; and BS 1200 with processor 202 and memory 204 of Fig. 18). As such, claim 37 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 8.
With respect to claim 38, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 38 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, executable by a UE processor (paras. [0356]-[0373]; and UE 100 memory 104 and processor 102 of Fig. 18). As such, claim 38 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 39, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 8, except claim 39 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, executable by a network device processor (paras. [0356]-[0373]; and BS 200 memory 204 and processor 202 of Fig. 18). As such, claim 39 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 8.
With respect to claim 40, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2. As such, claim 40 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 41, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3. As such, claim 41 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 42, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4. As such, claim 42 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 43, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5. As such, claim 43 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 44, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 44 is likewise rejected under §102(a)(2) based on Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2022/0408389 A1, Wang et al.: teaches NTN solutions for updating K_offset, by considering an effective time determined by a UE and triggering the update accordingly.
US PG Pub 2022/0046572 A1, Sengupta et al.: teaches NTN solutions for updating K_offset to compensate for UE-to-satellite RTT timing misalignment indicated through NDI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights