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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 4-6, 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 1, recites “…a transmission timing of an uplink from the communication node” in lines 4-5. However, this is also recited in line 2-3. It is unclear if they refer to the same “transmission timing of an uplink from the communication node…”.
Claim 1, recites “transmit an uplink” in line 7. However, the claim does not specify what is transmitted in “uplink”. Merely stating “transmit an uplink” and not specifying anything further is an incomplete and indefinite feature of the claimed invention making the claimed invention also indefinite.
Claim 1, recites “…distinct timing parameters are maintained” It unclear where or who is maintaining these parameters. It might be the claimed “radio communication node” OR could be anywhere in the network, which makes the invention indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the indicated case" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Same problems occur in the method counterpart claim 8.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IYER et al (US 2021/0250884), hereinafter also “IYER”, in view KESKITALO et al (US 2020/0145952), hereinafter also “KESKITALO”
Regarding claim 1, 8 IYER et al (US 2021/0250884) discloses a radio communication node/method comprising:
processor configured (IYER: ¶151, a processor that performs functions of IAB nodes (donor, parent and child nodes)) to, when a specific case related to alignment of a transmission timing of an uplink from the radio communication node is used (IYER: Fig. 8, ¶195, ¶189, the UL-B (uplink transmission of the IAB Node) needs to be aligned with at least its parent IAB node),
determine a transmission timing of an uplink from the radio communication node using timing information used to determine a transmission timing of an uplink from a user terminal and an offset value from the timing information (IYER: Fig. 8, ¶189, ¶192, ¶195, timing for UL-B (uplink transmission) of the IAB node is determined (equivalent to, transmission timing of the uplink from the IAB node) based on TAdj (timing information) and an offset value (TAparent1) from the TAdj (timing information); (¶196) TAdj is used to determine the uplink transmission of a UE i.e. UL-A); and
transmitter configured to transmit an uplink from the radio communication node based on the determined transmission timing of the uplink (IYER: ¶189, the UL-B (uplink transmission) is synchronized and perform based on the determined transmission timing TAparent2 =TAparent1 +2.TAdj);
IYER remains silent regarding distinct timing parameters are maintained respectively for a first case aligning downlink transmissions and for a second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception, and the processor uses the parameter associated with the indicated case; wherein the distinct timing parameters comprise a timing delta parameter used for the first case aligning downlink transmissions and a timing-advance offset parameter used for the second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception.
However, KESKITALO et al (US 2020/0145952) discloses that distinct timing parameters are maintained respectively for a first case aligning downlink transmissions and for a second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception, and the processor uses the parameter associated with the indicated case; wherein the distinct timing parameters comprise a timing delta parameter used for the first case aligning downlink transmissions and a timing-advance offset parameter used for the second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception. (KESKITALO: ¶114, ¶122-123, Fig. 5, 505-525-NO case, where parameters (
∆
T
p
) are kept/maintained and used for downlink transmission synchronization/alignment for parent IAB nodes, child IAB nodes and UEs; ¶127-128, Fig. 5, 525-YES Case through 540, downlink transmission (DL TX) and UL reception (UL RX) is aligned for which a different parameter is used e.g. TA (timing alignment) is used together with an average of TA and
∆
T
p
).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER modified by KESKITALO would have been motivated to use the teachings of KESKITALO as it use the core hardware of an IAB node to communicate with the uplink backhaul device and maintains the standard IAB equipment configuration for the NR network. Further, it also detects timing misalignments and corrects them when a parent does not directly control its child nodes BH UL timing (¶116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI with teachings of KESKITALO in order to improve compatibility by using standard IAB node hardware configuration.
Regarding claim 4, IYER modified by KESKITALO discloses radio communication node according to 1, wherein the processor is configured to obtain the offset value using a control element of a medium access control layer (IYER: ¶219, ¶192, MAC CE is used to receive TA values at the IAB node).
Regarding claim 5, IYER modified by KESKITALO discloses radio communication node according to 1, wherein the processor is configured to determine a transmission timing of the uplink in an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) Mobile Termination (MT) function (KESKITALO: ¶92, Fig. 1B, the MT of IAB is responsible for the UL-B communication)
Regarding claim 6, IYER modified by KESKITALO discloses radio communication node according to 1. wherein the specific case being align a transmission timing of a downlink from the radio communication node and a reception timing of an uplink at the radio communication node. (IYER: ¶195, ¶190, a DL-A and UL-A are both aligned at the IAB node)
IYER modified by KEKITALO remains silent regarding the specific case being Case #7
However, another embodiment KESKITALO discloses Case #7 (KESKITALO: ¶111, Case # 7 is used in which DL transmissions and uplink reception are aligned)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER modified by KESKITALO would have been motivated to use the teachings of the embodiment of KESKITALO as it provides a scenario which is part of the 3GPP specifications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify invention of IYER modified by KESKITALO with teachings of the embodiment KESKITALO in order to improve compatibility and conformity with standard specifications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
756
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image2.png
486
740
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above arguments. Applicants take a position that IYER does not disclose, “distinct timing parameters are maintained respectively for a first case aligning downlink transmissions and for a second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception, and the processor uses the parameter associated with the indicated case.”
IYER is relied upon to teach ”determine a transmission timing of an uplink from the radio communication node using timing information used to determine a transmission timing of an uplink from a user terminal and an offset value from the timing information; and
transmitter configured to transmit an uplink from the radio communication node based on the determined transmission timing of the uplink” in at least the following portions of IYER
[0189] In a further embodiment, a new parent in a BH link may employ a different scheme from that of the target IAB node. If the target IAB node becomes a child of a new parent, it may have to switch to the new parent's scheme. As shown in FIG. 8, the propagation delays T.sub.P,IAB-Parent1 and T.sub.P,IAB-Parent2 to Parent.sub.1 and Parent.sub.2 respectively, can be different and can affect the timing at IAB node. This can occur if the IAB node detaches from the current parent and attaches to a new parent due to a change in the topology. This is more likely to occur in dense small cell deployment in FR2 where a link may consist of several hops (possibly 5-10) and parent nodes may appear or drop out of the network depending on the traffic conditions or blockage. If so, the IAB node may need to resynchronize to the UL-B or DL-B. In turn, this may trigger resynchronization of DL-A or UL-A timings for accessing UEs and child nodes of the IAB node.
[0195] In an example, the required timing adjustment to resynchronize is given by T.sub.Adj=(T.sub.P,IAB-Parent2−T.sub.P,IAB-Parent1) The TA to Parent.sub.2 on the IAB node's UL-B is TA.sub.Parent2=TA.sub.parent1+2.Math.T.sub.Adj. Re-synchronization may also be required if the synchronization scheme (i.e., FIGS. 3-6) is switched and one or more timing references is changed. For example, if the synchronization scheme is changed from Scheme-1 (FIG. 3) to Scheme-3 (FIG. 4), the DL-A and UL-A timing have to change. It is assumed T.sub.Adj is the correction to be indicated to the access and child nodes in this case as well. T.sub.Adj may be transmitted periodically or aperiodically so that the access and child nodes can resynchronize.
IYER remains silent regarding distinct timing parameters are maintained respectively for a first case aligning downlink transmissions and for a second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception, and the processor uses the parameter associated with the indicated case; wherein the distinct timing parameters comprise a timing delta parameter used for the first case aligning downlink transmissions and a timing-advance offset parameter used for the second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception.
However, KESKITALO et al (US 2020/0145952) discloses that distinct timing parameters are maintained respectively for a first case aligning downlink transmissions and for a second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception, and the processor uses the parameter associated with the indicated case; wherein the distinct timing parameters comprise a timing delta parameter used for the first case aligning downlink transmissions and a timing-advance offset parameter used for the second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception. (KESKITALO: ¶114, ¶122-123, Fig. 5, 505-525-NO case, where parameters (
∆
T
p
) are kept/maintained and used for downlink transmission synchronization/alignment for parent IAB nodes, child IAB nodes and UEs; ¶127-128, Fig. 5, 525-YES Case through 540, downlink transmission (DL TX) and UL reception (UL RX) is aligned for which a different parameter is used e.g. TA (timing alignment) is used together with an average of TA and
∆
T
p
).
PNG
media_image3.png
732
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the above section, the DL TXs are synchronized by using a parameter which is
∆
T
p
.
Furthermore, ¶127-129 show how another set of parameters is used for UL RX and DL TX alignment/synchronization. This includes Timing Advance parameter.
PNG
media_image4.png
628
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the above, since each of the different cases have different parameters they maintain to use for the corresponding cases, it would be reasonably to interpret IYER modified by KESKITALO as, “wherein the distinct timing parameters comprise a timing delta parameter used for the first case aligning downlink transmissions and a timing-advance offset parameter used for the second case aligning downlink transmission and uplink reception”.
Furthermore, in response to argument stating that KESKITALO only teaches general timing adjustment or timing difference, Examiner respectfully submits that the claim is completely silent regarding how the claimed “Timing Advance” and “timing delta” are different than the “TA (Timing Advance)” and “
∆
T
p
”. 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).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the teachings of KESKITALO as the claimed invention of claim 1 and 8.
All remaining arguments are based on the arguments addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER S MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7524. The examiner can normally be reached M,T,W,Th: 10a-7p, Fri, 9a-12p.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
OMER S. MIAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2461
/OMER S MIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights