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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-18, 20, 24-25 and 48-49 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 USC § 103.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, 20, 23-25 and 48-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KORHONEN et al. (US 20220272648 A1) in view of Abedini et al. (US 20190394738 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KORHONEN et al. teaches a method implemented in a network node configured to communicate with a parent network node over a backhaul network, the network node comprising a Mobile Terminated Unit (MT) and a Distributed Unit (DU) (Paragraph 111, 113, 119, The passage discloses an IAB network node that includes both an MT and a DU and communicates with a parent node over a wireless backhaul link) and the method comprising: adjusting a first transmission timing of the network node to align with a second transmission timing of the network node, the first transmission timing comprising one of a DU and an MT transmission timing at the network node and the second transmission timing comprising another one of the DU and the MT transmission timing at the network node (Paragraph 119, 123, 169, 174, The passage teaches adjusting DU transmission timing based on MT reception timing, thereby aligning transmission timings between MT and DU within the same network node).
KORHONEN et al. does not explicitly teach transmitting a signaling according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing, and determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node.
However, Abedini et al. teaches transmitting a signaling according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing (Paragraph 99, 171, 172, The passage discloses transmission and reception of signaling (DCI, MAC CE) that carries timing adjustment information and is used to control transmissions according to the adjusted timing), and determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node (Paragraph 156, 157, 163, These passages collectively teach that a DU determines a timing offset (TA/RTT) based on measured timing misalignment of uplink signaling from another network node and provides that offset to align MT transmission timing relative to the DU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide transmitting a signaling according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing, and determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node as taught by Abedini et al. in the system of Korhonen et al., so that the IAB network node can coordinate MT and DU transmissions using explicitly signaled and measured timing offsets to improve synchronization accuracy and backhaul communication reliability across interconnected network nodes.
Regarding claim 2, KORHONEN et al. teaches performing, by the MT comprised in the network node, an MT transmission to the parent network node (Paragraph 111, 113, 120, 122, an MT is a mobile termination entity within an IAB node that performs uplink transmissions to its parent node. The cited portions describe the MT unit (at IAB node) and its uplink transmission (UL TX) to a parent node); and wherein transmitting the signaling comprises transmitting, by the DU comprised in the network node, a DU transmission to one of a child network node and a user equipment, UE (Paragraph 113, 123, 131, “DU transmission” can include downlink transmissions (DL TX) from the IAB-DU toward either a child IAB node or an access UE. The cited portions identify DU functions, DU TX, and DU involvement in links toward child nodes and UEs), the MT and DU transmissions at the network node being timing aligned according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing (Paragraph 114, 123, 124, 169, The passages show OTA synchronization where MT RX/TX timing is used as reference, and DU DL TX timing is adjusted accordingly. This establishes alignment of MT transmissions and DU transmissions in the network node, consistent with the “timing aligned” claim language).
Regarding claim 3, KORHONEN et al. teaches the first and second transmissions are one of frequency-division multiplexed and spatial-division multiplexed (Paragraph 104, This teaches that transmissions may be multiplexed by frequency (multiple carriers = FDM) and by space (sectorized cells = SDM)).
Regarding claim 4, KORHONEN et al. teaches the adjustment of the first transmission timing comprises an adjustment of the DU transmission timing to align with the MT transmission timing, the adjustment of the DU transmission timing to align with the MT transmission timing is based at least in part on a timing window (Paragraph 116, 123, 134, 155, 167, the DU DL transmit timing is adjusted to align with MT timing by referencing the MT DL receive timing and applying TA and T_delta offsets, with the adjustment constrained by the ±Te timing window from TS 38.133, thereby satisfying the claimed DU timing alignment based at least in part on a timing window).
Regarding claim 6, KORHONEN et al. teaches receiving a command comprising the timing window from one of the parent network node, a centralized unit (CU), and an operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM) function (Paragraph 111, 113, 125, 126, 169, 170, an IAB child node receives timing commands (TA and T_delta) from a parent node and control signaling from a centralized unit (CU) that together define the timing window).
Regarding claim 7, KORHONEN et al. teaches the timing window indicates an amount of deviation allowed for the DU transmission timing relative to an ideal timing alignment of the DU transmission timing to the MT transmission timing (Paragraph 134, 136, 164, 167, describe that the DU transmission timing is aligned to the MT reference timing but permitted to deviate within a bounded ±Te timing window, with adjustments based on TA_ref and T_delta to compensate propagation delays, thereby teaching that the timing window indicates the amount of deviation allowed from ideal DU–MT alignment).
Regarding claim 8, KORHONEN et al. teaches the timing window is one of symmetric and asymmetric about the ideal timing alignment (Paragraph 134, 138, 164, 167, the timing window may be symmetric (e.g., a +/−Te window around the reference timing or asymmetric (e.g., an offset defined by TA_ref/2+T_delta).
Regarding claim 9, KORHONEN et al. teaches the timing window is based at least in part on an output power associated with the DU (Paragraph 132, 137, 139, 167, 176, “output power associated with the DU” encompasses transmitter-side characteristics such as TX/RX switching time, hardware impairments, and deviations in UL/DL timing, and the cited passages teach that the DU’s transmit timing window is determined using TA_ref and T_delta values that compensate for such DU-specific transmission characteristics, thereby showing the timing window is based at least in part on the DU’s output power behavior).
Regarding claim 10, KORHONEN et al. teaches transmitting an indication of the output power associated with the DU to the parent network node and receiving a command comprising the timing window based on the transmitted indication of the output power (Paragraph 125, 126, 129, 150, 138, 182, The passages collectively teach that the DU (child node) transmits parameters such as TA or UL timing reflecting its transmit characteristics to the parent node, and in response the parent node signals timing commands (e.g., T_delta, TA) that define the DU’s transmission window).
Regarding claim 11, KORHONEN et al. teaches receiving a broadcast comprising a plurality of timing windows associated with a plurality of output power values (Paragraph 119, 122, 148, 169, the broadcast of timing parameters such as TA, TA_ref, and T_delta—each defining timing adjustment “windows” and associated transmit constraints—teaches “receiving a broadcast comprising a plurality of timing windows associated with a plurality of output power values,” since the parent node transmits these multiple timing-offset values that inherently control the IAB node’s power-timing behavior across its transmission windows).
Regarding claim 12, KORHONEN et al. teaches receiving a command comprising a reference window for a reference output power and deriving the timing window from the reference window, the reference output power and an actual output power associated with the DU (Paragraph 125, 129, 167, 169, The passage teaches receiving TA/T_delta commands (reference window), then deriving the DU timing window from TA_ref and T_delta (reference and actual power/timing values)).
Regarding claim 13, KORHONEN et al. teaches the adjustment of the first transmission timing comprises an adjustment of an MT transmission timing to align with a DU transmission timing (Paragraph 116, 119, 123, These passages describe how the IAB-MT receives downlink timing from the parent and the IAB-DU adjusts its DL transmission timing accordingly) is based at least in part on two different types of MT transmission timings (Paragraph 120, 134, 164, Korhonen discloses two distinct MT timing modes: First type: MT timing follows TA commands from parent node (legacy TA loop). Second type: MT timing may deviate and be aligned to DU timing via reference timing TA_ref. This distinction corresponds to the claim’s “two different types of MT transmission timings.”), a first type of MT transmission timing following a timing control command from the parent network node (Paragraph 120, 134, The legacy TA loop where the parent node issues TA commands to adjust the MT UL timing clearly teaches the first type of MT timing—based on parent-issued timing control commands) and a second type of MT transmission timing aligning to the DU transmission timing at the network node (Paragraph 123, 166, 169, Here, MT timing is used as a reference to align the DU’s TX timing (through TA_ref and T_delta). This represents the second type of MT transmission timing—an alignment that depends on DU timing (rather than just following a parent TA command)).
Regarding claim 14, KORHONEN et al. teaches the first type of MT transmission timing following the timing control command is not aligned to the DU transmission timing at the network node (Paragraph 134, 136, 164, These passages teach that after a timing control command, the MT transmission timing may deviate from or not remain continuously aligned with the DU transmission timing—since the MT may follow its own clock offset and specifications allow such deviation within tolerance—thus the first type of MT timing is not aligned to the DU timing at the network node).
Regarding claim 15, KORHONEN et al. teaches the first type of MT transmission timing is based at least in part on a relation between the first and second types of MT transmission timings (Paragraph 120, 123, 124, 134, 167, 169, These passages together show that MT transmission timing (UL or DL) is calculated by referencing another MT timing (e.g., DL RX timing or a reference TA_ref), with the actual transmit timing derived as a function of the relation (offset, TA, T_delta) between the two, thereby teaching that one type of MT transmission timing is based at least in part on its relation to another type).
Regarding claim 16, KORHONEN et al. teaches the relation is one of derived by and signaled to the parent network node (Paragraph 125, 126, 129, 130, 165-170, 177, The passages collectively teach that timing relation parameters such as TA_ref and T_delta are derived (from observed timing conditions like UL RX timing changes) and then signaled by the parent network node to the child IAB node).
Regarding claim 17, KORHONEN et al. teaches the adjustment of the MT transmission timing to align with the DU transmission timing is based at least in part on a timing window, the timing window indicates an amount of deviation allowed for the second type of MT transmission timing relative to the first type of MT transmission timing (Paragraph 134, 136, 164, These passages collectively teach that the MT transmission timing may deviate relative to the DU reference timing within a defined timing window (+/−Te), and that this window explicitly represents the permissible deviation range used when adjusting MT transmission timing to align with DU transmission timing).
Regarding claim 18, KORHONEN et al. teaches receiving a command comprising the timing window from one of the parent network node, a centralized unit (CU) and an operations, administration, and maintenance (OAM) function (Paragraph 111, 113, 119, 122, 125, 148, 169, the cited passages teach that an IAB child node receives timing-related commands (e.g., TA and T_delta parameters defining a timing window) from its parent network node or centralized unit (CU)).
Regarding claim 20, KORHONEN et al. teaches the timing window is one of symmetric and asymmetric about the first type of MT transmission timing (Paragraph 124, 125, 127, 128, 134, The passages describe how the downlink transmit timing is adjusted with an offset (TA/2+T_delta or variations with TA_offset) that may center symmetrically (±Te window around reference timing) or asymmetrically (due to T_delta or TA_offset shifting) about the MT transmission timing).
Regarding claim 25, KORHONEN et al. teaches a method implemented in a network node configured to communicate with a child network node over a backhaul network (Paragraph 111, 113, The passage defines a parent IAB network node communicating with a child IAB network node over a wireless backhaul, where the child node includes both DU and MT entities), the method comprising: transmitting a signaling related to a timing alignment (Paragraph 125, 126, 148, 182, The parent network node explicitly transmits timing-related signaling (T_delta and/or TA) used for alignment between parent and child timing references); and receiving a Mobile Terminated Unit (MT) transmission based at least in part on an adjustment of a first transmission timing of the child network node to align with a second transmission timing of the child network node, the first transmission timing comprising one of a Distributed Unit (DU) and an MT transmission timing at the child network node and the second transmission timing comprising another one of the DU and the MT transmission timing at the child network node (Paragraph 119, 123, 124, 169, 174, The passage teaches that MT reception timing is used to adjust DU transmission timing (or vice versa), such that DU and MT transmission timings at the child node are aligned, and the parent receives MT transmissions that reflect this timing adjustment).
KORHONEN et al. does not explicitly teach determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node.
However, Abedini et al. teaches determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node (Paragraph 156, 157, 163, These passages collectively teach that a DU determines a timing offset (TA/RTT) based on measured timing misalignment of uplink signaling from another network node and provides that offset to align MT transmission timing relative to the DU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node as taught by Abedini et al. in the system of Korhonen et al., so that the child network node can more accurately align internal DU/MT transmissions using externally observed misalignment information, thereby improving backhaul timing coordination and reliability of MT transmissions received by the parent node.
Regarding claim 48, KORHONEN et al. teaches a network node configured to communicate with a parent network node over a backhaul network, the network node comprising a Mobile Terminated Unit (MT), a Distributed Unit (DU) and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry comprising a memory and a processor, the memory comprising instructions and the processor (Paragraph 100, 101, 111, 113, The passage describes an IAB network node that communicates with a parent node over a backhaul and explicitly includes MT and DU components, along with processors and memories storing executable program code that is run by the processors) configured to: adjust a first transmission timing of the network node to align with a second transmission timing of the network node, the first transmission timing comprising one of a DU and an MT transmission timing at the network node and the second transmission timing comprising another one of the DU and the MT transmission timing at the network node (Paragraph 119, 123, 169, 174, The passage teaches adjusting DU transmission timing based on MT reception timing, thereby aligning transmission timings between MT and DU within the same network node).
KORHONEN et al. does not explicitly teach cause transmission of a signaling according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing, and determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node.
However, Abedini et al. teaches cause transmission of a signaling according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing (Paragraph 99, 171, 172, The passage discloses transmission and reception of signaling (DCI, MAC CE) that carries timing adjustment information and is used to control transmissions according to the adjusted timing), and determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node (Paragraph 156, 157, 163, These passages collectively teach that a DU determines a timing offset (TA/RTT) based on measured timing misalignment of uplink signaling from another network node and provides that offset to align MT transmission timing relative to the DU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cause transmission of a signaling according to the adjustment of the first transmission timing, and determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node as taught by Abedini et al. in the system of Korhonen et al., so that the IAB network node can coordinate MT and DU transmissions using explicitly signaled and measured timing offsets to improve synchronization accuracy and backhaul communication reliability across interconnected network nodes.
Regarding claim 49, KORHONEN et al. teaches a network node configured to communicate with a child network node over a backhaul network, the network node comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry comprising a memory and a processor, the memory comprising instructions and the processor configured to execute the instructions to (Paragraph 100, 101, 111, The passage describes a parent IAB network node communicating with a child IAB node over a backhaul link and explicitly discloses processors, memories, and executable program code that configure the node to perform network operations): cause transmission of a signaling related to a timing alignment (Paragraph 125, 148, 177, The parent network node transmits signaling (T_delta / time offset parameter) explicitly used for timing alignment between parent and child nodes); and receive a Mobile Terminated Unit (MT) transmission based at least in part on an adjustment of a first transmission timing of the child network node to align with a second transmission timing of the child network node (Paragraph 113, 120, 122, The child IAB node’s MT performs uplink transmission to the parent node, and that MT transmission is explicitly based on timing adjustments controlled by signaling from the parent), the first transmission timing comprising one of a Distributed Unit (DU) and an MT transmission timing at the child network node and the second transmission timing comprising another one of the DU and the MT transmission timing at the child network node (Paragraph 113, 123, 150, The passage explicitly teaches adjustment and alignment between DU transmission timing and MT timing within the same child IAB node, with one timing derived relative to the other).
KORHONEN et al. does not explicitly teach determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node.
However, Abedini et al. teaches determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node (Paragraph 156, 157, 163, These passages collectively teach that a DU determines a timing offset (TA/RTT) based on measured timing misalignment of uplink signaling from another network node and provides that offset to align MT transmission timing relative to the DU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide determining a timing offset between the MT and DU transmission timings based at least in part on a timing misalignment of at least one other network node as taught by Abedini et al. in the system of Korhonen et al., so that the child network node can more accurately align internal MT and DU transmission timings using observed network-wide timing misalignments to improve backhaul synchronization and uplink transmission reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Here are some concepts the applicant could add to the claim to more fully capture the disclosed improvements: the adjustment of the DU or MT transmission timing could be performed based on a timing alignment command received from a parent node, CU, or OAM function, rather than being purely local; the alignment could be constrained by a configurable timing window that defines an allowable deviation from ideal DU–MT alignment; the timing window could be symmetric or asymmetric about the ideal alignment point; the timing window could be dynamically determined based on an output power associated with the DU; the network node could signal its DU output power to the parent node to obtain a power-dependent timing window; the timing window could be selected from a broadcast set of timing windows mapped to output power values or derived locally from a reference window and reference output power; the alignment could support frequency-division multiplexed or spatial-division multiplexed DU and MT transmissions; the MT could support two distinct MT transmission timings, including one following parent-node timing-advance control and another aligned to the DU timing; a relationship between the two MT transmission timings could be derived by the network node and signaled to the parent node; the MT timing adjustment could be performed following a parent-node timing control command but aligned to the DU timing; the network node could signal an estimated propagation time or a requested MT timing adjustment to influence subsequent timing-advance commands; the determination of the MT–DU timing offset could be based on over-the-air estimation of propagation delay using known uplink and downlink timing offsets; and the timing alignment could be explicitly used to maintain receiver-side orthogonality and enable a single DFT demodulation at the parent node.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuan et al. (US 20230062024 A1)
Gulati et al. (US 20220116194 A1)
Dahlman et al. (US 20210385776 A1)
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 ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.
/ANDREW SHAJI KURIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/IQBAL ZAIDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464