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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the Message 3" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that there are “Message 3” in claim 11 and claim 12.
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)(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, 5, 6, 8-12, 14, 15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0224274).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Hu teaches a terminal device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to perform: determining whether to transmit a message indicating an uplink transmission failure based on a condition relating to at least an uplink transmission time offset for scheduled uplink transmissions and a timing advance value for the scheduled uplink transmissions (see step 1003 in Figure 10, “a difference between koffset and the TA is less than or equal to a first threshold, koffset is an offset parameter for enhancing a scheduling timing relationship, and the TA is a TA currently used by the terminal” in [0179], see also step 1102 in Figure 11 and “compares a currently used koffset with a currently used TA value” in [0208]); and transmitting to a network device, the message, in a case where the condition is satisfied (see step 1008 in Figure 10, “SR is transmitted” in [0188], see also step 1103 in Figure 11 and “perform uplink transmission according to a resource allocation instruction for the uplink transmission in case that the TA value currently used by the terminal is less than or equal to the koffset currently used by the terminal” in [0209]).
Regarding claims 2 and 20, Hu teaches the uplink transmission time offset is configured by the network device and is between receiving a downlink transmission and performing a corresponding uplink transmission (“offset parameter koffset configured by the network device” in [0004]), and the timing advance value is calculated by the terminal device (“a terminal having positioning capacity may usually estimate the TA value” in [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches the condition is satisfied in a case where the uplink transmission time offset is less than the timing advance value (“a condition that a TA of the terminal exceeds koffset” in [0211]).
Regarding claim 5, Hu teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to further perform: stopping the scheduled uplink transmissions, in a case where the condition is satisfied (“In case that the terminal triggers the TA report and the PUSCH resource satisfies the unavailable condition and the third condition, the terminal triggers the SR” in [0183]).
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to further perform: transmitting, to the network device, a scheduling request as the message, in a case where the condition is satisfied, wherein the scheduling request is transmitted based on a scheduling request configuration corresponding to the message (see step 1007 and 1008 in Figure 10).
Regarding claim 8, Hu teaches the scheduling request configuration is specific to the terminal device (“a SR configuration corresponding to the TA report to the terminal, that is, the TA report corresponds to a specific SR configuration in this configuration manner” in [0225]).
Regarding claim 9, Hu teaches the scheduling request configuration is shared by the terminal device and at least one other terminal device (“common SR configuration” in [0115]).
Regarding claim 10, Hu teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the terminal device to further perform: initiating a random access procedure to transmit the message, in a case where the condition is satisfied (see step 1010 in Figure 10).
Regarding claim 11, Hu teaches the message corresponds to a preamble of the random access procedure, and a cell-radio network temporary identifier is included in Message 3 (“the msgA includes the contents of the msg1 and the msg3, i.e., the msgA includes: a random access preamble and a UE ID, the UE ID may be one of a C-RNTI, a temporary C-RNTI” in [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches the message corresponds to a cause value associated with the uplink transmission failure (“an establishment cause are carried in the msg3” in [0047]), and the cause value and a cell-radio network temporary identifier are included in Message 3 (“the msgA includes the contents of the msg1 and the msg3, i.e., the msgA includes: a random access preamble and a UE ID, the UE ID may be one of a C-RNTI, a temporary C-RNTI” in [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Hu teaches a network device, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to perform: receiving, from a terminal device, a message indicating an uplink transmission failure associated with an uplink transmission time offset for scheduled uplink transmissions (“In case that the terminal triggers the TA report and the PUSCH resource satisfies the unavailable condition and the third condition, the terminal triggers the SR” in [0183] and “The third condition includes that a difference between koffset and the TA is less than or equal to a first threshold, koffset is an offset parameter for enhancing a scheduling timing relationship, and the TA is a TA currently used by the terminal” in [0179]); and stopping scheduling the terminal device with the uplink transmission time offset for the scheduled uplink transmissions (“avoiding the TA from being larger than a value of a offset parameter koffset, and ensuring that the terminal can normally perform an uplink transmission” in [0097]).
Regarding claim 15, Hu teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to further perform: configuring for the terminal device a scheduling request configuration corresponding to the message (“a SR configuration corresponding to the TA report to the terminal, that is, the TA report corresponds to a specific SR configuration in this configuration manner” in [0225]).
Regarding claim 18, Hu teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to further perform: adjusting the uplink transmission time offset to be larger than a timing advance value for the scheduled uplink transmissions; and instructing the terminal device to apply the adjusted uplink transmission time offset (see “avoiding the TA from being larger than a value of a offset parameter koffset” in [0097] and “the terminal receives a reconfiguration signaling for reconfiguring koffset, and a difference between the reconfigured koffset and the TA is greater than or equal to a second threshold” in [0124]).
Regarding claim 21, Hu teaches the condition is satisfied in a case where the uplink transmission time offset is less than the timing advance value; (“a condition that a TA of the terminal exceeds koffset” in [0211]) or in a case where the uplink transmission time offset is less than the timing advance value plus a duration for processing a downlink transmission and preparing a corresponding uplink transmission.
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.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Cheng et al. (US 11,985662).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Hu also teaches the condition is satisfied in a case where the uplink transmission time offset is less than the timing advance value (“a condition that a TA of the terminal exceeds koffset” in [0211]). Hu, however, does not teach the timing advance value added a duration for processing a downlink transmission and preparing a corresponding uplink transmission. Cheng teaches the timing advance value added a duration for processing a downlink transmission and preparing a corresponding uplink transmission (“an additional offset that is added to a required timing advance (TA) to compensate for a processing delay” in claim 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu to have the timing advance value added a duration for processing a downlink transmission and preparing a corresponding uplink transmission as taught by Cheng in order to compensate for a processing delay (claim 1).
Regarding claim 17, Cheng teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to further perform: instructing the terminal device to apply an uplink transmission time offset specific to a cell the terminal device is associated with (“Koffset may be configured per Bandwidth part (BWP) per serving cell” in Column 12 Lines 33-34).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Hu et al. (US Pub. 2023/0224840, hereinafter Hu2).
Regarding claim 13, Hu teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Hu, however, does not teach the timing advance value is included in the Message 3. Hu2 teaches the timing advance value is included in the Message 3 (“the UE performs TA upload through the msgA, the network device can then be informed of the TA value of the UE” in [0147]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu to have the timing advance value is included in the Message 3 as taught by Hu2 in order to have the same understanding of the TA value of the UE [0057].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. in view of Hu et al. (US Pub. 2024/0188017, hereinafter Hu3).
Regarding claim 16, Hu teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Hu, however, does not teach the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to further perform: instructing the terminal device to apply a maximum uplink transmission time offset of a cell the terminal device is associated with. Hu3 teaches the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to further perform: instructing the terminal device to apply a maximum uplink transmission time offset of a cell the terminal device is associated with (“configure the k offset based on the maximum TA supported within a cell range” in [0072]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu to have the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the network device to further perform: instructing the terminal device to apply a maximum uplink transmission time offset of a cell the terminal device is associated with as taught by Hu3 in order to configure a cell-level k offset [0069].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights