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 Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/06/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0044617 A1 by Vajapeyam et al. (hereafter referred to as Vajapeyam).
Regarding claim 1, Vajapeyam teaches A method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device, configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)) indicating:
a first timing advance group (TAG) for a cell, wherein the first TAG is a primary TAG (PTAG); and
a second TAG for the cell (see at least ¶ [0089]; “At step 405, base station 105-d may configure a set of TAGs for a UE. For example, base station 105-d may configure a pTAG, a psTAG, and/or an sTAG);
in response to a first time alignment timer (TAT) associated with the first TAG expiring (see at least Fig. 4 (435)), setting the second TAG as the PTAG (see at least ¶ [0080]: "If a time alignment timer expires for pTAG 305-b, a UE 115-b (FIG. 2B) may notify the RRC layer to release the PUCCH of the PCell. The UE 115-b may then consider all time alignment timers expired for any other TAGs associated with the first PUCCH cell group 310-b. The UE 115 may perform a timing alignment procedure for all serving cells in TAGs with expired time alignment timers (or with timers considered expired).", when the TAT expires the UE performs a new timing alignment procedure #400 = setting the second TAG as the PTAG; PTAG #1 = PTAG at time instance A, PTAC #2 = PTAG at time instance B, time instance A is before the TAT expires, time instance B is after the TAT expires); and
transmitting uplink signals via the cell (see at least ¶ [0064]; “Each TAG may be associated with a different timing offset, such that the UE 115 may synchronize UL transmissions differently for different UL carriers.”).
Regarding claim 5, Vajapeyam teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Vajapeyam teaches wherein the configuration parameters are radio resource control (RRC) configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)).
Regarding claim 6, Vajapeyam teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Vajapeyam teaches further comprising receiving one or more messages comprising the configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)).
Regarding claim 8, Vajapeyam teaches A wireless device comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the wireless device to:
receive configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)) indicating:
a first timing advance group (TAG) for a cell, wherein the first TAG is a primary TAG (PTAG); and
a second TAG for the cell (see at least ¶ [0089]; “At step 405, base station 105-d may configure a set of TAGs for a UE. For example, base station 105-d may configure a pTAG, a psTAG, and/or an sTAG);
in response to a first time alignment timer (TAT) associated with the first TAG expiring (see at least Fig. 4 (435)), set the second TAG as the PTAG (see at least Fig. 4 (435)), setting the second TAG as the PTAG (see at least ¶ [0080]: "If a time alignment timer expires for pTAG 305-b, a UE 115-b (FIG. 2B) may notify the RRC layer to release the PUCCH of the PCell. The UE 115-b may then consider all time alignment timers expired for any other TAGs associated with the first PUCCH cell group 310-b. The UE 115 may perform a timing alignment procedure for all serving cells in TAGs with expired time alignment timers (or with timers considered expired).", when the TAT expires the UE performs a new timing alignment procedure #400 = setting the second TAG as the PTAG; PTAG #1 = PTAG at time instance A, PTAC #2 = PTAG at time instance B, time instance A is before the TAT expires, time instance B is after the TAT expires); and
transmit uplink signals via the cell (see at least ¶ [0064]; “Each TAG may be associated with a different timing offset, such that the UE 115 may synchronize UL transmissions differently for different UL carriers.”).
Regarding claim 12, Vajapeyam teaches the wireless device of claim 8. In addition, Vajapeyam teaches wherein the configuration parameters are radio resource control (RRC) configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)).
Regarding claim 13, Vajapeyam teaches the wireless device of claim 8. In addition, Vajapeyam teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive one or more messages comprising the configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)).
Regarding claim 15, Vajapeyam teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless device (see at least ¶ [0011]), cause the wireless device to perform:
receiving, by a wireless device, configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)) indicating:
a first timing advance group (TAG) for a cell, wherein the first TAG is a primary TAG (PTAG); and
a second TAG for the cell (see at least ¶ [0089]; “At step 405, base station 105-d may configure a set of TAGs for a UE. For example, base station 105-d may configure a pTAG, a psTAG, and/or an sTAG);
in response to a first time alignment timer (TAT) associated with the first TAG expiring (see at least Fig. 4 (435)), setting the second TAG as the PTAG (see at least ¶ [0080]: "If a time alignment timer expires for pTAG 305-b, a UE 115-b (FIG. 2B) may notify the RRC layer to release the PUCCH of the PCell. The UE 115-b may then consider all time alignment timers expired for any other TAGs associated with the first PUCCH cell group 310-b. The UE 115 may perform a timing alignment procedure for all serving cells in TAGs with expired time alignment timers (or with timers considered expired).", when the TAT expires the UE performs a new timing alignment procedure #400 = setting the second TAG as the PTAG; PTAG #1 = PTAG at time instance A, PTAC #2 = PTAG at time instance B, time instance A is before the TAT expires, time instance B is after the TAT expires); and
transmitting uplink signals via the cell (see at least ¶ [0064]; “Each TAG may be associated with a different timing offset, such that the UE 115 may synchronize UL transmissions differently for different UL carriers.”).
Regarding claim 19, Vajapeyam teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. In addition, Vajapeyam teaches wherein the configuration parameters are radio resource control (RRC) configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)).
Regarding claim 20, Vajapeyam teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. In addition, Vajapeyam teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to receive comprising receiving one or more messages comprising the configuration parameters (see at least Fig. 4 (415)).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vajapeyam, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, in view of US 2020/0351730 by Park et al. (hereafter referred to as Park).
Regarding claim 7, Vajapeyam teaches the method of claim 1.
Vajapeyam does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state is associated with the first TAG; and a second TCI state is associated with the second TAG.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches wherein a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state is associated with the first TAG; and a second TCI state is associated with the second TAG (see at least ¶ [0304]: In an example embodiment, a network (e.g., a base station) may provide multiple TAs (e.g., and/or at least one beam/ beam-group/TRP/TAG/CORESET/CORESET-group/TCI-state specific TA) for a wireless device that accesses a cell using multiple TRPs. Each of the multiple TAs (e.g., and/or the at least one beam/beam-group/TRP/ TAG/CORESET/CORESET-group/TCl-state specific TA) may be associated with one or more beams, a TRP, a timing advance group (TAG), and/or the like.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajapeyam with Park in order to enhance radio transmission.
Regarding claim 14, Vajapeyam teaches the apparatus wireless device of claim 8.
Vajapeyam does not appear to specifically disclose wherein a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state is associated with the first TAG; and a second TCI state is associated with the second TAG.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches wherein a first transmission configuration indication (TCI) state is associated with the first TAG; and a second TCI state is associated with the second TAG (see at least ¶ [0304]: In an example embodiment, a network (e.g., a base station) may provide multiple TAs (e.g., and/or at least one beam/ beam-group/TRP/TAG/CORESET/CORESET-group/TCI-state specific TA) for a wireless device that accesses a cell using multiple TRPs. Each of the multiple TAs (e.g., and/or the at least one beam/beam-group/TRP/ TAG/CORESET/CORESET-group/TCl-state specific TA) may be associated with one or more beams, a TRP, a timing advance group (TAG), and/or the like.").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vajapeyam with Park in order to enhance radio transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art fails to teach or make obvious, “wherein the setting is further in response to a second TAT running.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA W COSME whose telephone number is (571)270-7225. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/NATASHA W COSME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights