DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Responsive to amendments/remarks filed on 09/22/2025.
Claims 1-4 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. More specifically, Applicant argues that “Bi explicitly teaches away from the claimed "mutually synchronized and matched" timing between base stations. As stated in Bi, "the synchronization requirement for such coordination is rather loose: the timing offset between neighboring base stations/sectors (including the propagation delay difference at the mobile) can be in a range of about 40 to 50 ps." Bi et al., paragraphs [0024]-[0025]. This directly contradicts the claimed requirement for "mutually synchronized and matched" timing, which requires precise alignment between base stations.” Firstly, there is no clarity as to what “mutually synchronized and matched” means. Synchronized with respect to what specifically? Base stations are known to be subject to, amongst many different things, propagation delays, for example, which will inevitably have an effect on synchronization. So, is something like propagation delay considered in this so called “mutual synchronization and matching”? Does this require synchronization from a particular moment in time, like data reception at a particular base station? Claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation, and without any clear bounds as to what “mutually synchronized and matched” means, the cited references are believed to meet the claim limitations. Namely, even if the Bi reference refers to a “loose” synchronization, it still meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, which only requires synchronizing between base station (i.e. mutual).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0159252; hereinafter Bi) in view of Gorokhov et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2008/0285526; hereinafter Gorokhov).
Regarding claim 1 Bi discloses a mobile communication system (figs. 1A, 3) comprising:
at least one user equipment (fig. 1, user equipment 120); and
a plurality of base stations that perform radio communication with the at least one user equipment (fig. 1, base stations base stations 130), wherein, in a case where a first base station of the plurality of base stations is a base station to control interference occurring between the first base station and a second base station of the plurality of base stations (paragraphs 0025-0026; wherein neighboring base station are coordinated to reduce interference), a timing of radio communications of the first base station is synchronized with that of the second base station (paragraphs 0025, 0032; wherein the coordination between neighboring base stations is done so they occupy different time slots; “synchronization” may be equivalent to “coordination between base stations directly or RNC” since there is no further limitation regarding the synchronization in detail), and the first base station transmits a signal at a timing except a specific timing at which the second base station transmits a signal (paragraphs 0025, 0032; wherein in situations where dynamic slot-reuse is implemented, those skilled in the art will appreciate that coordination between the base stations 130 may be used to avoid slot-usage collisions. Such coordination may be accomplished by communications directly between the various base stations or through intermediary devices, such as the RNC).
Bi does not explicitly disclose but Gorokhov, in the same field of endeavor related to interference minimization, discloses a timing of radio communications of the first base station is mutually synchronized and matched with a timing of radio communications of the second base station (figures 5A, 5B; paragraphs 0069-0070; wherein, as seen from the figures, the transmissions are time aligned, and each base station transmits, either simultaneously or at different subframes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Bi with the teachings of Bender in order to avoid interference and improve system performance (Gorokhov: paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 2 Bi discloses a base station that performs radio communication with at least one user equipment (fig. 1A, base stations 130):
wherein the base station synchronizes, in a case where another base station is a base station to control interference occurring between the base station and the other base station (paragraphs 0025-0026; wherein neighboring base station are coordinated to reduce interference), a timing of radio communications of the base station with that of the other base station (paragraphs 0025, 0032; wherein the coordination between neighboring base stations is done so they occupy different time slots; “synchronization” may be equivalent to “coordination between base stations directly or RNC” since there is no further limitation regarding the synchronization in detail), and the first base station transmits a signal at a timing except a specific timing at which the second base station transmits a signal (paragraphs 0025, 0032; wherein in situations where dynamic slot-reuse is implemented, those skilled in the art will appreciate that coordination between the base stations 130 may be used to avoid slot-usage collisions. Such coordination may be accomplished by communications directly between the various base stations or through intermediary devices, such as the RNC).
Bi does not explicitly disclose but Gorokhov, in the same field of endeavor related to interference minimization, discloses a timing of radio communications of the first base station is mutually synchronized and matched with a timing of radio communications of the second base station (figures 5A, 5B; paragraphs 0069-0070; wherein, as seen from the figures, the transmissions are time aligned, and each base station transmits, either simultaneously or at different subframes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Bi with the teachings of Bender in order to avoid interference and improve system performance (Gorokhov: paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 3 Bi discloses the mobile communication system according to claim 3. Bi fails to explicitly disclose, but Bender in the same field of endeavor related to timing synchronization, discloses wherein, in a case where a first base station of the plurality of base stations is a base station to control interference occurring between the first base station and a second base station of the plurality of base stations (paragraphs 0010, 0069; synchronizing the TDM pilots from different base stations allows interference by TDM pilots from one base station on data transmissions by other base stations to be avoided), the timing of radio communications of the first base station is synchronized with that of the second base station so that transmission timings at which a radio frame starts are identical to each other between the first base station and the second base station (figures 5A, 5B, paragraphs 0069-0070; wherein transmissions from base stations are time aligned), and desired transmission signals are mapped to a subframe different from each other between the first base station and the second base station (figure 5B, paragraph 0070; wherein each base station transmits at different subframes within a frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Bi with the teachings of Bender in order to avoid interference and improve system performance (Gorokhov: paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 4 Bi discloses the base station according to claim 2. Bi fails to explicitly disclose, but Bender in the same field of endeavor related to timing synchronization, discloses wherein the base station synchronizes, in a case where another base station is a base station to control interference occurring between the base station and the other base station (paragraphs 0010, 0069; synchronizing the TDM pilots from different base stations allows interference by TDM pilots from one base station on data transmissions by other base stations to be avoided), the timing of radio communications of the base station with that of the other base station so that transmission timings at which a radio frame starts are identical to those of the other base station (figures 5A, 5B, paragraphs 0069-0070; wherein transmissions from base stations are time aligned), and a subframe to which desired transmission signals are mapped is different from that of the other base station (figure 5B, paragraph 0070; wherein each base station transmits at different subframes within a frame). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Bi with the teachings of Bender in order to avoid interference and improve system performance (Gorokhov: paragraph 0069).
Citation of Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG PUB 2008/0130593 to Scheinert et al. – which discloses a method enables a network of pico or personal base stations, using one or two unused frequencies, to provide an acceptable level of services within an existing carrier network of macro base stations. This is accomplished by controlling interference between neighboring pico/personal base stations using various timeslot management mechanisms.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached on 571-272-7969. 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.
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/
Examiner
Art Unit 2466