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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 30 December 2025, in view of the amendments with respect to claim 1, 16, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 13-16, 19-20, and 23-30, the applicant argued, “…the Table 2 in Li, at most, mentions that the specific content of the system information can include SIB16 containing GPS time and/or UTC (reference time)…there is no recording or teaching in Li about performing UL and DL synchronization with eNB by receiving SIB16…Li merely states: ‘ Information (SI) is the information broadcast by the Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) that needs to be acquired by a UE so that the UE can access and operate within the network…” on pages 10-14.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In ¶4, Li states that SI “needs to be acquired by the UE” and “SI is divided into…MIB…and…SIBs”. Table 2 lists the SIBs including SIB16 that includes GPS/UTC time information. In ¶72, Li recites “to achieve UL Synchronization with respect to a particular eNB, a UE may be required to send UL frames with a Timing Advance (TA) to align with the eNB’s time frame”. As one can see, system information including GPS/UTC time (eNB’s reference time) is required for the UE to access and operate with the particular eNB. The UE needs to know the eNB’s time frame in order to align with the eNB’s time frame using a Timing Advance. Therefore, Li teaches receiving GPS/UTC time (eNB’s reference time) via SIB16 and using the received time information to achieve UL synchronization. Further details are disclosed in Li ¶¶75-80.
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 13-16, 19-20, and 23-30, the applicant argued, “…there is no recording or teaching in Li about calibrating GPS time and/or UTC (alleged reference time) contained in the received SIB16 based on TA…the specification of the present application records…the terminal obtains actual time information (T-real) through calculation, for example Treal = Treference - Tdelta…There is no recording or teaching in Li about that TA/updated TA is used to align with the eNB’s time frame (UTC/GPS/reference time)…” on pages 14-15.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “obtains actual time information…through calculation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In ¶72, Li explicitly recites “..UE may be required to send UL frames with a Timing Advance (TA) to align with the eNB’s time frame…”. This directly invalidates applicant’s statement “There is no recording or teaching in Li about that TA/updated TA is used to align with the eNB’s time frame (UTC/GPS/reference time)”.
Regarding claims 1, 5-9, 13-16, 19-20, and 23-30, the applicant argued, “…it only involves using TA/2 to calculate the propagation delay, and the calculated propagation delay is used to obtain an updated TA based on the previous TA, and is not used to calibrate the received GPS time and/or UTC (alleged reference time) contained in SIB16…claim 1…takes the obtained propagation delay as the time amount information for calibrating the reference time received from the network side (rather than being used to update the TA)…to calibrate the reference time, thereby obtaining a high-precision absolute time locally…” on pages 15-16.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “obtaining a high-precision absolute time locally”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The claimed invention does not define how the reference time is calibrated. Nor does it claim any value obtained as a result of the calibration. As such Li’s teaching of using a TA value to calculate propagation delay (propagation delay = TA/2), using the obtained propagation delay to calculate an updated TA, and using the updated TA achieve UL synchronization with the eNB. That is to say, the obtained propagation delay is used to calibrate the UE’s timing (UL synchronization) to the eNB’s time frame by updating the TA value. Therefore, the cited portions of Li disclose the broad limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 13-16, 19-20, and 23-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. US 2017/0367116 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
As to claim 1, Li teaches a time calibration method, applied to a terminal, wherein the method comprises:
determining time amount information for calibrating reference time; and
calibrating, based on the time amount information, the reference time transmitted by a network side;
wherein the determining time amount information for calibrating reference time comprises:
obtaining a propagation delay based on a timing advance (TA) value and a correspondence between the TA value and the propagation delay; and determining the propagation delay as the time amount information for calibrating the reference time (¶¶4, 72, 75-80, and 86; Table 2: perform UL and DL synchronization with eNB by receiving SIB16 containing GPS time and/or UTC (reference time) from eNB, estimate DL propagation delay using the time stamp from a previous TA update operation (TA value), and update (calibrate) TA by the DL propagation delay value, the updated TA used to align with the eNB’s time frame (UTC/GPS/reference time));
wherein the correspondence between the TA value and the propagation delay is the propagation delay=TA/2 (¶¶77 and 79: the propagation delay is half of the timing advance value).
As to claim 5, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the TA value comprises any one of the following:
a TA value received in a random access procedure;
a TA value received in a timing advance command media access control control element transmitted by the network side; and
a valid TA value of the terminal;
wherein time of receiving the TA value in the random access procedure is the same as time of calculating the time amount information; or
time of receiving the TA value in the random access procedure is advanced, by preset time, from time of calculating the time amount information (¶¶76-80).
As to claim 6, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the time amount information for calibrating reference time further comprises:
triggering a random access procedure or another uplink signal transmission procedure; and
determining a TA value obtained in the random access procedure or another uplink signal transmission procedure, as a TA value for determining the time amount information (¶¶76-80).
As to claim 7, Li teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the TA value obtained in the random access procedure or another uplink signal transmission procedure comprises either of the following:
the first TA value received in the random access procedure or another uplink signal transmission procedure; and
any one of a plurality of TA values received when the random access procedure or another uplink signal transmission procedure succeeds (¶¶76-80).
As to claim 8, Li teaches the method according to claim 7, wherein a cell corresponding to a random access request in the random access procedure comprises any one of the following:
a cell transmitting the reference time;
any cell in a timing advance group to which the cell transmitting the reference time belongs;
a primary cell in the timing advance group to which the cell transmitting the reference time belongs; or
any secondary cell in the timing advance group to which the cell transmitting the reference time belongs (¶¶4, 72, 75-80, and 86; Table 2).
As to claim 13, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a time position corresponding to the reference time transmitted by the network side is a position of a signal for time synchronization of the reference time (¶¶4, 72, 75-80, and 86; Table 2).
As to claim 14, Li teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein a transmission mode of the signal for time synchronization of the reference time is a periodic transmission mode or an event-triggered transmission mode (¶¶4, 72, 75-80, and 86; Table 2).
As to claim 15, Li teaches the method according to claim 13, wherein a resource configuration of the signal for time synchronization of the reference time comprises any one or a combination of the following:
a transmission time interval;
a transmission time start position;
an offset relative to the transmission time start position;
transmission frequency information;
a width of a transmission frequency band; or
a transmission frequency domain pattern (¶¶4, 72, 75-80, and 86; Table 2).
As to claim 16, claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 23, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the reference time transmitted by the network side comprises at least one of the following:
coordinated universal time (UTC);
daylight saving time (DST);
Global Positioning System (GPS) time; or,
local time (¶¶4, 72, and 86; Table 2).
As to claim 24, claim 24 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 25, claim 25 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 27, claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 28, claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 29, claim 29 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Samsung 3GPP R2-1710096 “On Demand SI: Remaining Issues” (hereinafter referred to as “Samsung”). Note: Samsung was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 27 October 2022.
As to claim 9, Li teaches the method according to claim 7.
Although Li teaches “The method according to claim 7,” Li does not explicitly disclose “a condition for success…by the terminal”.
However, Samsung teaches a condition for success of the random access procedure comprises either of the following:
a second message Msg2 comprises identification information of a first message Msg1 received by the terminal; and
a fourth message Msg4 comprises identification information of a third message Msg3 received by the terminal (§2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the method described in Li by including “a condition for success…by the terminal” as taught by Samsung because it provides Li’s method with the enhanced capability of a more robust random access procedure (Samsung, §2.1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Abedini et al. US 2019/0306817 A1 – Timing Adjustment in CV2X
Koelemeij et al. US 10,257,798 B1 – Synchronizing Clocks in a Wireless System
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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights