DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and all dependent thereon, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15: the claims recite the limitation “wherein the downlink signaling indicates at least one TA, each of the at least one TA corresponding to one of the m TRPs” (e.g., claim 1, lines 4-5). The language is unclear whether each of the TAs correspond to the same TRP or a respective TRP. For purposes of examination, the said limitation is interpreted such that the TAs correspond to a respective (i.e. different) TRP.
Regarding claim 8: the claim is directed to a “terminal device,” while also reciting the language “wherein a serving cell of the terminal device comprises… TRPs” (lines 1-2). It is unclear if this language describing the architecture of the serving cell (i.e. entities outside of the terminal) places a positive limitation on the claimed “terminal device.” For purposes of examination, the language is interpreted to only describe a potential environment of the terminal, and not place a positive limitation on the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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.
8. 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0053752 A1 (hereinafter “Huang”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Huang in view of either U.S. Publication No. 2025/0212146 A1 (hereinafter “Matsumura”) or U.S. Publication No. 2022/0377689 A1 (hereinafter “Ibrahim”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15: Huang teaches a method for indicating a timing advance (TA), wherein the method is applicable to a terminal device, a serving cell of the terminal device comprising m transmission and reception points (TRPs), m being a positive integer greater than or equal to 1 (see, e.g., figures 1-2, [0088], [0093], [0100]; note TA design applicable to a UE communicating with one or more TRPs), and the method comprises:
receiving downlink signaling, wherein the downlink signaling indicates at least one TA, each of the at least one TA corresponding to one of the m TRPs (see, e.g., [0095]-[0101]; note downlink signaling indicating TA for communication with TRP(s)); and
updating the at least one TA based on the downlink signaling (see, e.g., [0095]-[0101]; note respective TA implementation and/or adjustment for TRP(s)).
Huang does not explicitly state “updating the at least one TA based on the downlink signaling.” Huang also does not explicitly state wherein a [single] serving cell comprises the TRPs. To the extent these features are not inherent to Huang (e.g. by virtue of the respective TA implementation and/or adjustment; as well as serving cell functionality discussed therein), these features are nevertheless taught in Matsumura (see, e.g., [0067]-[0084]; note also the overlapping teachings with respect to TA signaling). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Matsumura, such as the TRP design, signaling and/or updating functionality, within the system of Huang, in order to appropriately control TRP signaling timing and improve throughput.
Alternatively to Matsumura, the said features are taught in Ibrahim (see, e.g., [0071], [0078], [0087], [0091], [0098], [0103], [0108]; note also the overlapping teachings with respect to TA signaling). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Ibrahim, such as the TRP design, signaling and/or updating functionality, within the system of Huang, in order to reduce self-interference and/or improve resource utilization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 1 is applicable to the terminal device and network device of claims 8 and 15, respectively.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim further teaches wherein the downlink signaling indicates one TA, the TA corresponding to one of the m TRPs (see, e.g., Huang [0095]-[0101]; Matsumura [0067]-[0084]; and/or Ibrahim [0091]-[0095]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 2.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 2 is applicable to the terminal device and network device of claims 9 and 16, respectively.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim further teaches wherein the downlink signaling is a second MAC CE; wherein the second MAC CE is applicable to mDCI-mTRP uplink transmission; and the second MAC CE comprises a TA group (TAG) identifier (ID) field, a TAG ID in the TAG ID field corresponding to one control resource set pool index, the control resource set pool index corresponding to one TRP (see, e.g., Matsumura [0074], [0089]-[0092], [0107]; and/or Ibrahim [0077]-[0078], [0109], [0112]-[0115]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 3.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 3 is applicable to the terminal device and network device of claims 10 and 17, respectively.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim further teaches wherein a corresponding relationship between the TAG ID and the control resource set pool index is predetermined; or a corresponding relationship between the TAG ID and the control resource set pool index is configured by a network device (see, e.g., Huang [0095]-[0101]; Matsumura [0056], [0119], [0130]; and/or Ibrahim [0091]-[0095]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 4.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 4 is applicable to the terminal device and network device of claims 11 and 18, respectively.
Regarding claims 7 and 20: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim further teaches reporting capability information of the terminal device, wherein the capability information comprises at least one of: information indicating whether the terminal device supports TRP-specific TA adjustment, or a maximum quantity of TAs supported by the terminal device (see, e.g., Matsumura [0185], [0216]-[0230]; and/or Ibrahim [0073], [0112]-[0113]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 7 is applicable to the network device of claim 20.
Regarding claims 14 and 19: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim further teaches wherein the downlink signaling is defined to instruct the terminal device to perform a difference-based TA update or an absolute value-based TA update (see, e.g., Huang [0095]-[0101]; Matsumura [0067]-[0084]; and/or Ibrahim [0071], [0078], [0087], [0091], [0098], [0103], [0108]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 14.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal device of claim 14 is applicable to the network device of claim 19.
12. Claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, alternatively in view of either Matsumura or Park, and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2015/0327198 A1 (hereinafter “Axmon”) or U.S. Publication No. 2023/0269032 A1 (hereinafter “Park”).
Regarding claims 5 and 12: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim does not explicitly state wherein updating the at least one TA based on the downlink signaling comprises: updating the at least one TA with a first TRP as a downlink reception reference point based on the downlink signaling; or updating a TA corresponding to a second TRP with the second TRP as a downlink reception reference point based on the downlink signaling. To the extent this feature is not inherent to Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim (e.g. by virtue of offset adjustments; note Matsumura [0070]; and/or Ibrahim [0098], [0103]), this feature is nevertheless taught by Axmon (see, e.g., [0068]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Axmon, such as the timing functionality, within the system of Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim, in order to establish baseline timing for a plurality of values.
Alternatively to Axmon, the said feature is taught by Park (see, e.g., [0155]-[0160], [0258). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Park, such as the reference point functionality, within the system of Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim, in order to establish baseline timing for a plurality of values.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 5 is applicable to the terminal device of claim 12.
Regarding claims 6 and 13: Huang alternatively modified by Matsumura or Ibrahim, and further Axmon or Park, further teaches wherein the first TRP is predetermined; or the first TRP is configured by the network device (see, e.g., Huang [0095]-[0101]; Matsumura [0056], [0119], [0130]; and/or Ibrahim [0091]-[0095]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding the method of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal method of claim 6 is applicable to the terminal device of claim 13.
Relevant Art
13. The following prior art not relied upon in this Office action is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See form PTO-892.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
