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 .
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, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by IYER et al (US 2021/0250884), hereinafter IYER, in view of ISLAM et al (US 2019/0191399), hereinafter ISLAM, further in view of BI et al (US 2022/0070810), hereinafter BI.
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, ¶189, the UL-B (uplink 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 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 is synchronized based on the determine transmission timing TAparent2 =TAparent1 +2.TAdj)
IYER remains silent regarding the offset value is calculated by using granularity.
However, ISLAM et al (US 2019/0191399) discloses the offset value is calculated by using granularity (ISLAM: ¶147, ¶111-122, a granularity (depending on coarse or fine (larger or smaller step size)) is used to determine an Timing Advance (TA)).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER would have been motivated to use the teachings of ISLAM as it provides a more flexibility in adjusting time advance to resolve timing mis alignment (¶147). 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 with teachings of ISLAM in order to flexibly align timing across the network tree (¶147).
IYER modified by ISLAM 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.
However, BI et al (US 2022/0070810) 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 (BI: Fig. 5, ¶45, ¶235, ¶237, ¶241, ¶251, ¶428, the respective parameters are configured/maintained for alignment of downlink transmission and for both downlink transmission and uplink reception; that is corresponding to each timing mode).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER modified by ISLAM would have been motivated to use the teachings of BI as it provides timing information configuration between hop links, especially the timing information indication after the introduction of a negative TA, and the timing information maintenance between different links after the introduction of the RN into the communication system (¶5). 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 with teachings of BI in order to improve timing information coordination between different links after a RN is introduced, thereby improving scalability of the network (¶5).
Regarding claim 4, IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI 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).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of KESKITALO et al (US 2020/0145952)
Regarding claim 5, IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI 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) node (IYER: Fig. 8, Fig. 3-Fig. 5, ¶183, the UL-B i.e. the uplink transmission of the IAB node is synchronized)
IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI remains silent regarding the IAB node Mobile Termination (MT) function.
However, KESKITALO et al (US 2020/0145952) discloses the IAB node Mobile Termination (MT) function (KESKITALO: ¶92, Fig. 1B, the MT of IAB is responsible for the UL-B communication)
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI 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. 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 6, IYER modified by ISLAM 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) I
IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI remains silent regarding the specific case being Case #7
However, KESKITALO discloses Case #7 (KESKITALO: ¶111, Case # 7 is used in which DL transmissions including DL-A and uplink transmission within an IAB node (which included UL-A received at the IAB node) ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER modified by ISLAM modified by BI would have been motivated to use the teachings 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 ISLAM modified by BI with teachings of KESKITALO in order to improve compatibility and conformity with standard specifications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue,
“
PNG
media_image1.png
754
836
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
928
820
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.
ISLAM is relied upon to teach TA offset being calculated using granularity.
[0147] In some examples, a base station 105 may adjust the values of the TA command parameters which define TA command properties (e.g., TA command size, TA granularity, TA offset), and the adjusted properties may be sufficient to resolve a timing misalignment in the case of a BPL or a BWP switch. The adjusted value for the TA command may be a larger or smaller TA command size, a coarser or finer TA granularity, or a larger or smaller TA offset. For example, a TA command may be known at a UE 115, and each TA command adjustment may be unique and associated with a specific combination of BWP and BPL. In such a case, a UE 115 may autonomously adjust a TA command when switching to different combination of BWP and BPL. In some examples, a base station 105 or a UE 115 may select a combination of BPL and BWP upon which the UE and the base station are communication, to serve as a reference BPL with corresponding reference BPL and BWP combination. Transmission timing adjustments signaled in a TA command may reflect an offset from the reference BPL and corresponding BPL and BWP combination. That is, a TA command may indicate an offset from a current transmission timing, an offset in TA granularity, or a change in TA size from a current or most recent TA granularity, an offset from a previous TA command size, or some combination thereof. The reference BPL and corresponding BPL and BWP combination may be based on a BPL having a finest TA granularity or a coarsest TA granularity.
IYER modified by ISLAM 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.
However, the newly cited reference, BI et al (US 2022/0070810), 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 (BI: Fig. 5, ¶45, ¶235, ¶237, ¶241, ¶249-251, ¶428, the respective parameters are configured/maintained for alignment of downlink transmission and for both downlink transmission and uplink reception; that is corresponding to each timing mode).
A person of ordinary skill in the art working with the invention of IYER modified by ISLAM would have been motivated to use the teachings of BI as it provides timing information configuration between hop links, especially the timing information indication after the introduction of a negative TA, and the timing information maintenance between different links after the introduction of the RN into the communication system (¶5). 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 with teachings of BI in order to improve timing information coordination between different links after a RN is introduced, thereby improving scalability of the network (¶5).
All remaining arguments are based on the arguments addressed above.
Conclusion
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 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