DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments filed 26 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, on pages 6-7 of Remarks: “Applicant thanks the Examiner for the indication that claims 12 and 16-17 are allowable. In the interest of expediting the prosecution, Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 to add the following limitations based on the limitations recited in previous claim 16: … Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has not cite any references to teach or suggest at least these limitations. In light of this amendment, Applicant respectfully requests allowance of claim 1 and its dependents. For similar reasons, Applicant respectfully requests
allowance of other independent claims and their dependents.”
Now-cancelled claim 16 read “The method according to claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the terminal device, third information to the network device, wherein the third information indicates that the terminal device does not perform the joint channel estimation.” which is different, and narrower in scope, than the new limitation of claim 1, “sending, by the terminal device, third information to the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation.” As outlined below, the new reference, Liu, discloses this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-5, 11, 13-14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0188075 (hereinafter Tran), in view of Liu, WO 2022205475 A1 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Tran discloses a method for wireless communication (disclosed is a method for wireless communication, according to Abstract, [0026]), comprising:
receiving, by a terminal device, first information from a network device in a non- terrestrial network (NTN), wherein the first information indicates a length of a first time period, and the length of the first time period is associated with joint channel estimation (a UE receives, from a gNB, an indication of the length of a time domain window [“first information”] that is associated with joint channel estimation, according to [0172]-[0173], whereby the UE and gNB may be part of an NTN, according to [0237]), wherein the length of the first time period includes one or more of: a segment length of segmented pre-compensation, a length of a nominal time domain window, or a length of an actual time domain window (the indicated length of time is the length of a time domain window [“actual time domain window”], according to [0172]-[0173]).
Tran does not expressly disclose sending, by the terminal device, third information to the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation.
Liu discloses sending, by the terminal device, third information to the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation (a terminal informs a network device whether said terminal supports joint channel estimation, according to page 9 line 53 to page 10 line 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran with Liu by sending, by the terminal device, third information to the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the coverage performance of a network (Liu: “Background technique” section).
Regarding claim 18, Tran discloses a method for wireless communication (disclosed is a method for wireless communication, according to Abstract, [0026]), comprising:
sending, by a network device in a non-terrestrial network (NTN), first information to a terminal device, wherein the first information indicates a length of a first time period, and the length of the first time period is associated with joint channel estimation (a gNB sends, to a UE, an indication of the length of a time domain window [“first information”] that is associated with joint channel estimation, according to [0172]-[0173], whereby the UE and gNB may be part of an NTN, according to [0237]), wherein the length of the first time period includes one or more of: a segment length of segmented pre-compensation, a length of a nominal time domain window, or a length of an actual time domain window (the indicated length of time is the length of a time domain window [“actual time domain window”], according to [0172]-[0173]).
Tran does not expressly disclose receiving, by the network device, third information from the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation.
Liu discloses receiving, by the network device, third information from the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation (a terminal informs a network device whether said terminal supports joint channel estimation, according to page 9 line 53 to page 10 line 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran with Liu by receiving, by the network device, third information from the network device, wherein the third information indicates whether the terminal device performs the joint channel estimation.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the coverage performance of a network (Liu: “Background technique” section).
Claim 20 recites the apparatus, comprising at least one processor; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor, wherein the programming instructions, when executed (the UE comprises a controller that executes stored software, according to [0214], [0216], Fig. 22 [elements 2200 and 2206]), cause the apparatus to perform the method recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Tran discloses that the length of the actual time domain window is associated with one or more of:
the length of the nominal time domain window;
an event that destroys one or both of power consistency and phase continuity; or
the segment length of the segmented pre-compensation (each time domain window has a length that is not more than the overall length of multiple PUSCH transmissions [“associated with … the length of the nominal time domain window”], according to Abstract, [0025], [0217]).
Regarding claim 3, since the claim upon which this claim depends recites options for a step written in the alterative and the option to which this claim is directed is not the one for which prior art is cited, no art need be cited in the rejection of this claim.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Tran discloses that the first information is associated with an estimated value of a first parameter, and the first parameter is associated with a requirement for DMRS bundling (DMRS symbol bundling is limited to being within the length of a time domain window for joint channel estimation, according to [0162], whereby joint channel estimation necessitates a phase error that is less than around a few degrees [“first parameter”], according to [0164]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Tran discloses that the first parameter includes one or more of: a timing error; a Doppler shift error; or a phase difference (joint channel estimation necessitates a phase error [“phase difference”] that is less than around a few degrees, according to [0164]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Tran discloses that the first information is received via one or more of: a broadcast message, radio resource control (RRC) signaling, or downlink control information (DCI) (the length of time domain window is indicated by RRC, according to [0180]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Tran discloses sending, by the terminal device, second information to the network device, wherein the second information indicates a length of a second time period (the UE determines the length of one or more time domain windows for joint channel estimation and transmits an indication of these lengths to the gNB, according to [0213]); and
performing the joint channel estimation based on the length of the second time period (the time domain window length is used for joint channel estimation, according to [0203], [0213]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Additionally, Tran discloses that the terminal device determines the length of the second time period based on one or more of: location information of the terminal device; capability information of the terminal device; location information of the network device; or motion state information of a satellite (the UE determines lengths of one or more time domain windows for joint channel estimation based on UE capability, according to [0213]).
Claim 19 does not differ substantively from claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same grounds as claim 2.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Tran does not expressly disclose that the third information is determined based on a coverage capability of the terminal device.
Liu discloses that the third information is determined based on a coverage capability of the terminal device (the terminal judges whether said terminal supports joint channel estimation based on said terminal’s DMRS bundling capability ([0003] of the specification of the instant invention indicates that DMRS bundling capability is associated with coverage capability), according to page 10 lines 30-33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu with Liu such that the third information is determined based on a coverage capability of the terminal device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the coverage performance of a network (Liu: “Background technique” section).
6. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Liu as applied to claim 4 above, further in view of Duan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0341562 (hereinafter Duan)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Neither Tran nor Liu expressly discloses that the estimated value of the first parameter is associated with one or both of delay drift and Doppler shift.
Duan discloses that the estimated value of the first parameter is associated with one or both of delay drift and Doppler shift (a Doppler measurement is calculated based on a DMRS, according to [0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu with Duan such that the estimated value of the first parameter is associated with one or both of delay drift and Doppler shift.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate calculation of a UE’s position (Duan: [0004]-[0005]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tran, Liu, and Duan discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Neither Tran nor Liu expressly discloses that one or both of the delay drift and the Doppler shift are associated a movement characteristic of a satellite.
Duan discloses that one or both of the delay drift and the Doppler shift are associated a movement characteristic of a satellite (the Doppler measurement is in relation to reference signals from a satellite base station, according to [0095]-[0099]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu as modified by Duan with Duan such that one or both of the delay drift and the Doppler shift are associated a movement characteristic of a satellite.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate calculation of a UE’s position (Duan: [0004]-[0005]).
7. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ma et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0119776 (hereinafter Ma).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Neither Tran nor Liu expressly discloses that the first information is associated with a reference point in a current serving cell.
Ma disclose that the first information is associated with a reference point in a current serving cell (DMRS bundling by a satellite base station is supported when an elevation angle of a beam center of a transmit beam satisfies a threshold, according to [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu with Ma such that the first information is associated with a reference point in a current serving cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain channel consistency (Ma: [0120]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Tran, Liu, and Ma discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Neither Tran nor Liu expressly discloses that the reference point is associate with an elevation angle of a satellite in the current serving cell.
Ma discloses that the reference point is associate with an elevation angle of a satellite in the current serving cell (DMRS bundling by a satellite base station is supported when an elevation angle of a beam center of a transmit beam satisfies a threshold, according to [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu as modified by Ma with Ma such that the reference point is associate with an elevation angle of a satellite in the current serving cell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain channel consistency (Ma: [0120]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Tran, Liu, and Ma discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Neither Tran nor Liu expressly discloses that the current serving cell includes a first terminal device and a second terminal device, wherein a capability of the first terminal device is lower than a capability of the second terminal device.
Ma discloses that the current serving cell includes a first terminal device and a second terminal device, wherein a capability of the first terminal device is lower than a capability of the second terminal device (disclosed are a plurality of UEs, whereby some of these UEs have GPS capability, while other UEs lack GPS capability, according to [0096], Fig. 1 [elements 120a, 120b, 120c, and 120e]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu as modified by Ma with Ma such that the current serving cell includes a first terminal device and a second terminal device, wherein a capability of the first terminal device is lower than a capability of the second terminal device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce costs.
8. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Liu as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Liu et al., WO 2020052462 A1 (hereinafter Liu ‘462).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Tran and Liu discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Neither Tran nor Liu expressly discloses that the second information is a difference between the length of the first time period and the length of the second time period.
Liu ‘462 discloses that the second information is a difference between the length of the first time period and the length of the second time period (disclosed is a wireless communication method that uses a target time length that is equal to the difference between the time length of a first time window and the time length of a first time interval, according to Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tran as modified by Liu with Liu ‘462 such that the second information is a difference between the length of the first time period and the length of the second time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve a resource utilization rate (Liu ‘462: Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 12 and 17 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.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645