Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 19, 2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification Objections
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive and lacks specificity. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests replacing “when the TAGs corresponding to the plurality of transmission/reception points are configured separately” in claim 9 (line 4-5), claim 14 (line 4-5), and claim 15 (line 6-7) with - - in response to the TAGs corresponding to the plurality of transmission/reception points are configured separately - -.
Examiner suggests replacing “when the TAGs configured separately for the plurality of transmission/reception points are primary timing advance groups” in claim 9 (line 7-8), claim 14 (line 6-7), and claim 15 (line 9-10) with - - in response to the TAGs configured separately for the plurality of transmission/reception points are primary timing advance groups - -.
Examiner suggests replacing “if the PUCCH is configured for all the serving cells” in claim 10 (line 5) with - - in response to the PUCCH is configured for all the serving cells - -.
Examiner suggests replacing “if the SRS is configured for all the serving cells” in claim 10 (line 7) with - - in response to the SRS is configured for all the serving cells - -.
“RRC message" in claim 10 (line 6) should be replaced with - - the RRC message - - to be consistent with the first citation of “radio resource control (RRC) message” in claim 10 (line 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada ‘157 (US 2024/0172157, “Harada ‘157), in view of Hakola ‘825 (US 2025/0038825, “Hakola ‘825), and further in view of 3GPP ‘438 (Huawei, HiSilicon, "Maintenance of Uplink Time Alignment in NR", R2-1711438, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #99bis, Prague, Czech Republic, October 9-13, 2017, “3GPP ‘438”).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, Harada ‘157 discloses a terminal (FIG. 6, para 78-81; UE 100) comprising:
a receiver (FIG. 6, para 78-81; receiver 112) that
receives information regarding timing advance groups (TAGs) corresponding to a plurality of transmission/reception points (FIGS. 10-11, para 3 and 124-135; base station generates timing advance group information, and transmits the information to a UE; UE uses the information to determine that two TRPs, TRP1 and TRP2, belong to different timing advance groups); and
a processor (FIG. 6, para 78-81; controller 120 includes a processor) that,
when the TAGs corresponding to the plurality of transmission/reception points are configured separately, controls a timing advance per transmission/reception point (FIGS. 10-11, para 50 and 124-135; the two timing advance groups are different, and the UE independently manages the first timing advance (TA) value for TRP1 and the second TA value for TRP2; thus, the two timing advance groups are configured separately, and the UE controls timing advance per TRP).
Although Harada ‘157 discloses receives information regarding timing advance groups (TAGs) corresponding to a plurality of transmission/reception points, Harada ‘157 does not specifically disclose a plurality of transmission/reception points of a serving cell.
Hakola ‘825 teaches a plurality of transmission/reception points of a serving cell (para 62; multiple TRPs of a serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Harada ‘157’s terminal that receives information regarding TAGs corresponding to a plurality transmission/reception points of a serving cell, to include Hakola ‘825’s multiple TRPs of a serving cell. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the deployment and performance of communication systems (Hakola ‘825, para 57).
However, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 does not specifically disclose wherein when the TAGs configured separately for the plurality of transmission/reception points are primary timing advance groups (PTAGs), the processor changes an operation after expiration of all time alignment timers corresponding to the PTAGs.
3GPP ‘438 teaches wherein when the TAGs configured separately for the plurality of transmission/reception points are primary timing advance groups (PTAGs), the processor changes an operation after expiration of all time alignment timers corresponding to the PTAGs (Section 2.1 and Section 2.2; when a TAG is a pTAG, and a timeAlignmentTimer associated with the pTAG expires, an operation is adopted, such as to flush all HARQ buffers for all serving cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined terminal of Harada ‘157 and Hakola ‘825, to include 3GPP ‘438’s flushing of all HARQ buffers for all serving cells when a PTAG timer expires. The motivation for doing so would have been to revise TA aspects from MAC perspective (3GPP ‘438, Introduction).
Regarding claim 10, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
Further, 3GPP ‘438 teaches wherein the operation to be changed includes at least one of:
to flush all HARQ buffers in all serving cells (Section 2.1 and Section 2.2; when a TAG is a pTAG, and a timeAlignmentTimer associated with the pTAG expires, an operation is adopted, such as to flush all HARQ buffers for all serving cells; examiner notes the use of alternative language; for rejection purposes, only one of the alternative limitations must be disclosed by prior art);
to notify radio resource control (RRC) message to release a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) for all the serving cells, if the PUCCH is configured for all the serving cells;
to notify RRC message to release a sounding reference signal (SRS) for all the serving cells, if the SRS is configured for all the serving cells;
to clear all configured downlink (DL) assignments and uplink (UL) assignments;
to clear a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) resource for semi-persistent channel state information (CSI) reporting;
to cause all running time alignment timers to expire; and
to maintain timing advances of all TAGs.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined terminal of Harada ‘157, Hakola ‘825, and 3GPP ‘438, to further include 3GPP ‘438’s flushing of all HARQ buffers for all serving cells when a PTAG timer expires. The motivation for doing so would have been to revise TA aspects from MAC perspective (3GPP ‘438, Introduction).
Regarding claim 15, Harada ‘157 discloses a system comprising a terminal and a base station (FIGS. 4 and 10, para 124-135; mobile communication system includes a UE 100 and a base station 200), wherein
the terminal comprises:
a receiver (FIG. 6, para 78-81; receiver 112) that
receives information regarding timing advance groups (TAGs) corresponding to a plurality of transmission/reception points (FIGS. 10-11, para 3 and 124-135; base station generates timing advance group information, and transmits the information to a UE; UE uses the information to determine that two TRPs, TRP1 and TRP2, belong to different timing advance groups); and
a processor (FIG. 6, para 78-81; controller 120 includes a processor) that,
when the TAGs corresponding to the plurality of transmission/reception points are configured separately, controls a timing advance per transmission/reception point (FIGS. 10-11, para 50 and 124-135; the two timing advance groups are different, and the UE independently manages the first timing advance (TA) value for TRP1 and the second TA value for TRP2; thus, the two timing advance groups are configured separately, and the UE controls timing advance per TRP),
the base station comprises:
a transmitter that transmits the information to the terminal (FIG. 7, para 85-88; transmitter 211 transmits to the UE).
Although Harada ‘157 discloses receives information regarding timing advance groups (TAGs) corresponding to a plurality of transmission/reception points, Harada ‘157 does not specifically disclose a plurality of transmission/reception points of a serving cell.
Hakola ‘825 teaches a plurality of transmission/reception points of a serving cell (para 62; multiple TRPs of a serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Harada ‘157’s base station that transmits information to the terminal, to include Hakola ‘825’s multiple TRPs of a serving cell. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve the deployment and performance of communication systems (Hakola ‘825, para 57).
However, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 does not specifically disclose wherein when the TAGs configured separately for the plurality of transmission/reception points are primary timing advance groups (PTAGs), the processor changes an operation after expiration of all time alignment timers corresponding to the PTAGs.
3GPP ‘438 teaches wherein when the TAGs configured separately for the plurality of transmission/reception points are primary timing advance groups (PTAGs), the processor changes an operation after expiration of all time alignment timers corresponding to the PTAGs (Section 2.1 and Section 2.2; when a TAG is a pTAG, and a timeAlignmentTimer associated with the pTAG expires, an operation is adopted, such as to flush all HARQ buffers for all serving cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined base station of Harada ‘157 and Hakola ‘825, to include 3GPP ‘438’s flushing of all HARQ buffers for all serving cells when a PTAG timer expires. The motivation for doing so would have been to revise TA aspects from MAC perspective (3GPP ‘438, Introduction).
7. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada ‘157, in view of Hakola ‘825, further in view of 3GPP ‘438, and further in view of Jia ‘407 (US 2024/0276407, “Jia ‘407).
Regarding claim 11, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
However, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 does not specifically disclose wherein a configuration of each of the TAGs is applied in an inter-cell operation.
Jia ‘407 teaches wherein a configuration of each of the TAGs is applied in an inter-cell operation (claim 1; configuration information of a TAG identifier is configured by a network device for an intermediate device being a TRP of a serving cell for inter-cell multi-TRP operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined terminal of Harada ‘157, Hakola ‘825, and 3GPP ‘438, to include Jia ‘407’s TRP of a serving cell for inter-cell multi-TRP operation. The motivation for doing so would have been to address problems of interference, decoding failure, service interruption, and insufficient bandwidth (Jia ‘407, para 23-25).
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada ‘157, in view of Hakola ‘825, further in view of 3GPP ‘438, and further in view of Zhou ‘938 (US 2023/0121938, “Zhou ‘938”; Zhou ‘938 was filed on August 15, 2022, claiming priority to US provisional application 63/261,856, filed on September 30, 2021, and thus Zhou ‘938 was effectively filed before the claimed invention; further, the US provisional application 63/261,856 fully supports all citations made in the rejection from the Zhou ‘938 reference).
Regarding claim 12, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
Further, Harada ‘157 teaches further comprising a transmitter (FIG. 6, para 78-81; transmitter 111)
Although Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 discloses further comprising a transmitter, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 does not specifically disclose further comprising a transmitter that transmits UE capability information regarding whether to support different timing advances for the plurality of transmission/reception points.
Zhou ‘938 teaches a transmitter that transmits UE capability information regarding whether to support different timing advances for the plurality of transmission/reception points (FIGS. 1 and 8, para 30, 33-35, 281, 338, and 362; UE includes a transmission component 804; the UE transmits to a base station a capability message, where the capability message includes indication of whether the UE supports a first timing advance value of a non-serving cell that is different than a second timing advance value for a serving cell; a cell is a TRP base station; thus, the UE transmits capability indication of support for different timing advance values for multiple TRPs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined terminal of Harada ‘157, Hakola ‘825, and 3GPP ‘438, to include Zhou ‘938’s UE that transmits capability indication of support for different timing advance values for multiple TRPs. The motivation for doing so would have been to address UE’s inability to support additional beam management operations or a value of a parameter associated with additional beam management operations (Zhou ‘938, para 6).
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada ‘157, in view of Hakola ‘825, further in view of 3GPP ‘438, and further in view of Zhao ‘170 (US 2014/0219170, “Zhao ‘170).
Regarding claim 13, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 discloses all the limitations with respect to claim 9, as outlined above.
However, Harada ‘157 in combination with Hakola ‘825 and 3GPP ‘438 does not specifically disclose wherein the processor determines a TAG as the PTAG, based on a type of a cell belonging to each TAG.
Zhao ‘170 teaches wherein the processor determines a TAG as the PTAG, based on a type of a cell belonging to each TAG (para 16, 53-55, 60, and 74; UE sends a capability reporting message, indicating multi-TA capability information of the UE; the message indicates the number of TAGs supported by the UE; the number of supported TAGs counts the number of PTAGs and the number of STAGs, where the PTAGs include primary cells and STAGs include secondary cells).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add features to the combined terminal of Harada ‘157, Hakola ‘825, and 3GPP ‘438, to include Zhao ‘170’s UE sends a capability reporting message, indicating multi-TA capability information of the UE. The motivation for doing so would have been to consider how the UE reports to a base station information indicating whether the UE supports a multi-TA capability (Zhao ‘170, para 23).
Conclusion
Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only. (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA SANDHU whose telephone number is (571) 272-0679. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST, Friday variable.
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, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NEVENA ZECEVIC SANDHU/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights