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 .
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner recommends to further include the NO branch/path for step Fig. 8:616 in the independent claims with respect to receiving additional synchronization signals instead of establishing a connection with the wireless communication network to overcome the current grounds of rejection. Support can be further found in applicant’s own specification p. 28 para. [0083]. Further search/consideration may be required depending on claim amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
The 112(a) enablement rejection is withdrawn for the independent claims. However, please note the new 112(a) written description rejection based on the claims as currently amended.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection of claim(s) as amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior art rejection(s) of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Priority
It is noted that applicant does not appear to have support for the claim amendment in their provisional 63/278,438 filed 11/11/2021. Support for synchronization appears to be on pages 32-33 (appendix section) with respect to the Synchronization section. There is nothing in this section that supports the concept of a “a threshold of one or more values”. Support for this amendment is found in applicant’s non-provisional in Fig. 8:616 and 618 [0083]. It is further worth mentioning, that this appears to be the only support for amended feature in the non-provisional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The processing circuity of claim 3 is directed to applicant’s Fig. 8:208A Active UE. There is nothing in Fig. 8 that shows a transmitter to “transmit the first set of synchronization attributes to a second user equipment” as further claimed. Instead, the second set of synchronization attributes is transmitted by Active UE 208B and received by Active UE 208A. See applicant’s originally filed specification at pp. 27-28. Applicant’s Fig. 10:810 shows transmitting a first set of attributes; however, this is a separate embodiment and not related to Fig. 8 above. Thus, there appears to be support for this claimed feature. Claim 4, which depends on claim 3, is further rejected as applicant’s Fig. 8 further does not mention anything about a establishing a second connection “based on the first set of synchronization attributes”.
As to claim 12, it is unclear how Applicant’s Fig. 8 teaches the first set of attributes determined (i.e., Fig. 8:606 is sent to a third UE as claimed. This is not show of disclosed in Fig. 8. Thus, there appears to be support for this claimed feature. Claim 13, which depends on claim 12, is further rejected as applicant’s Fig. 8 further does not mention anything about a third UE establishing a connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 3, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20250039937 A1 to CHRISTOFFERSSON et al “CHRISTOFFERSSON”.
In the independent claims
PNG
media_image1.png
684
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
696
834
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Fig. 8
Fig. 5A of prior art CHRISTOFFERSSON
As to claim 1, CHRISTOFFERSSON teaches processing circuitry configured to (see e.g., Fig. 10:1001 processing circuity and [0171] associated with coordinating UE 10):
cause a receiver (see e.g., Fig. 10:1011 where communication interface = receiver [0172],[0179]) to receive a synchronization signal (Fig. 5a:SSB SSBs, where SSB stands for Synchronization Signal Block which is a synchronization signal) associated with a wireless communication network from a base station (radio network node 12 == base station [0095]);
determine a first set of synchronization attributes based on the synchronization signal (attributes are e.g., what is measured, see e.g. Fig. 5a:501);
cause the receiver to receive a second set of synchronization attributes from a user equipment (UE 11) (see e.g., Fig. 5a:505 [0101-102] where indication may include measurements == attributes), the user equipment being configured to receive the synchronization signal from the base station (Fig. 5a:SSB 502 [0098]); and
establish a first connection with the wireless communication network based on one or more values of the first set of synchronization attributes being within a threshold of one or more values of the second set of synchronization attributes (see e.g., Fig. 5a:507+508 and [0103]. UE 10 coordinates the connection and then performs the connection which broadly reads on establishing connection. This is based on attributes such as “best average signal strength or quality or similar”. See also corresponding Fig. 6:605 + 606 and [0125-135] which also broadly reads “within a threshold of one or more values” given broadest reasonable interpretation. This broad interpretation is reasonable since in order to sync, the preferred SSB must meet some criteria, i.e., within a threshold. This appears to further be in line with Applicant’s own specification at Fig. 8:616 and 618 [0083] which does not further define what “within a threshold or one or more values” actually means. Note that [0136] of CHRISTOFFERSSON further mentions the preamble (sync) and time information).
As to claim 8, CHRISTOFFERSSON teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a first user equipment, a first synchronization signal associated with a wireless communication network from a base station;
determining, at the first user equipment, a first set of synchronization attributes based on the first synchronization signal;
receiving, at the first user equipment, a second set of synchronization attributes from a second user equipment via a device-to-device communication link; and
causing the first user equipment to establish a connection with the wireless communication network based at least in part on one or more values of the first set of synchronization attributes being within a threshold of one or more values of the second set of synchronization attributes. See similar rejection to claim 1. The claimed “first user equipment” is the coordinating UE 10 mentioned above.
As to claim 15, CHRISTOFFERSSON teaches one or more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media that store instructions configured to cause a processor to:
receive a first synchronization signal from a base station via a wireless communication network;
determine a first set of synchronization attributes based on the first synchronization signal;
receive a second set of synchronization attributes from a user equipment via a device-to- device communication link; and
establish a connection with the wireless communication network based at least in part on one or more values of the first set of synchronization attributes being within a threshold of one or more values of the second set of synchronization attributes. See similar rejection to claim 1. The claimed “non-transitory, tangible, computer readable medium” is the coordinating memory (Fig. 10:1008 and [0179]) of UE 10 mentioned above.
In the dependent claims
As to claim 3, CHRISTOFFERSSON teaches the processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a transmitter to transmit the first set of synchronization attributes to a second user equipment (see e.g., Fig. 5a:507 and [0103]).
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.
Claim(s) 7, 9, 11, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250039937 A1 to CHRISTOFFERSSON et al “CHRISTOFFERSSON” in view of US 20240291537 A1 to WANG et al. “WANG”.
As to claim 7, the combination of CHRISTOFFERSSON in view of WANG teaches processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the first set of synchronization attributes comprises a synchronization frequency, a synchronization time, or both.
CHRISTOFFERSSON broadly teaches that the received synchronization signal is an SSB signal (see e.g., Fig. 5A:501 and [0097]) but may not clear teach the properties/attributes measured. In particular, measurements can be “signal strength or quality or similar”.
WANG further teaches that SSB can include other information such as time, frequency, and phase (see e.g., [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the application to clarify that the SSB signal can contain other information to be measured such as those disclosed by WANG in [0084]. There would be a high expectation of success since “or similar” (above) can include other information.
As to claim 9, the combination of CHRISTOFFERSSON in view of WANG teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first synchronization signal comprises timing information, frequency information, or phase information. See similar rejection to claim 7.
As to claim 11, the combination of CHRISTOFFERSSON in view of WANG teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first set of synchronization attributes and the second set of synchronization attributes comprise a frequency associated with the wireless communication network, a carrier frequency associated with the wireless communication network, a bandwidth associated with the wireless communication network, a phase associated with the wireless communication network, or a sub-carrier spacing associated with the wireless communication network. See similar rejection to claim 7. In particular, note other information in WANG. Same reasoning/rational applies.
As to claim 21, the combination of CHRISTOFFERSSON in view of WANG teaches the processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the synchronization signal comprises a primary synchronization signal or a secondary synchronization signal. See similar rejection to claim 7. In particular, note other information in WANG and specifically PSS/SSS. Same reasoning/rational applies.
As to claim 22, the combination of CHRISTOFFERSSON in view of WANG the processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the first set of synchronization attributes comprise a time, a frequency, a phase, a carrier frequency, a bandwidth, a sub-carrier spacing, or any combination thereof. See similar rejection to claim 7. In particular, note other information in WANG. Same reasoning/rational applies.
As to claim 23, the combination of CHRISTOFFERSSON in view of WANG teaches the processing circuitry of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine that the one or more values of the first set of synchronization attributes is within the threshold of the one or more values of the second set of synchronization attributes based at least in part on a first frequency value of the one or more values of the first set of synchronization. See similar rejection to claim 7. In particular, note other information in WANG and specifically frequency domain. Same reasoning/rational applies.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250039937 A1 to CHRISTOFFERSSON et al “CHRISTOFFERSSON” in view of US 20210045073 A1 to JOO et al. “JOO”.
As to claim 4, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with JOO teaches the electronic device processing circuitry of claim 3, wherein the processor processing circuitry is configured to cause the [[third]] second user equipment (Fig. 2:102) to establish a second connection with the wireless communication network based on the first set of synchronization attributes (see e.g., [0046] with respect to establishing a wireless communication channel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to modify CHRISTOFFERSSON by using the feature of JOO to establish a connection (JOO [0046]). There would have been a high reasonable expectation of success since this would be establishing a D2D communication as shown in Fig. 2 of JOO.
As to claim 5, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with JOO discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a transmitter to transmit a first set of reference signals to the base station ([0053], Figure 2:BS 205) the base station being configured to receive a second set of reference signals from the user equipment ([0091], Figure 18:block 1840).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to modify CHRISTOFFERSSON by using the feature of JOO to further perform synchronization as taught by JOO. There would have been a high reasonable expectation of success since this would be establishing a D2D communication as shown in Fig. 2 of JOO.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250039937 A1 to CHRISTOFFERSSON et al “CHRISTOFFERSSON” in view of in view of US 20210045073 A1 to JOO et al. “JOO” in further view of US 20160269983 A1 to ISLAM et al. “ISLAM”.
As to claim 6, CHRISTOFFERSSON and JOO in combination with ISLAM teaches the processing circuitry of claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: cause the receiver to receive a set of phases associated with the first set of reference signals or the second set of reference signals from the base station; and cause the transmitter to transmit the set of phases to the second user equipment (ISLAM [0052], Fig 1: communication link 125).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to modify CHRISTOFFERSSON and JOO by clarifying that synchronization can also include phase signals as taught by ISLAM to further perform synchronization as taught by ISLAM. There would have been a high reasonable expectation of success since this would be direct communication as taught by ISLAM [0052].
Claim(s) 12-14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20250039937 A1 to CHRISTOFFERSSON et al “CHRISTOFFERSSON” in view of US 20190261439 A1 to ITAGAKI et al. “ITAGAKI”.
As to claim 12 CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the method of claim 8, comprising preparing the first set of synchronization attributes (ITAGAKI Fig. 3:t1,ΔS) for transmission to a third user equipment (ITAGAKI Fig. 3: right-most UE)via a second device-to-device communication link. CHRISTOFFERSSON further teaches a D2D link [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to modify CHRISTOFFERSSON by using the feature of ITAGAKI to support enhance time synchronization accuracy (ITAGAKI Abstract). There would have been a high reasonable expectation of success since both references teach time synchronization.
As to claim 13 CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the method of claim 12, comprising causing the third user equipment to establish a connection with the wireless communication network based on the first set of synchronization attributes (see e.g., ITAGAKI [0066] and [0085]).
See motivation/rational applies as in claim 12 as modification is the same.
As to claim 14, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the method of claim 8, comprising: preparing a set of user equipment attributes (ITAGAKI Fig. 3:t1,ΔS) associated with the first user equipment (Fig. 3 relay UE) for transmission to the second user equipment (ITAGAKI Fig. 3: right-most UE); and causing the second user equipment to receive a second synchronization signal (ITAGAKI Follow-up (t1)) based on the set of user equipment attributes (see e.g., ITAGAKI [0045-46]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to modify CHRISTOFFERSSON by using the feature of ITAGAKI to support enhance time synchronization accuracy (ITAGAKI Abstract). There would have been a high reasonable expectation of success since both references teach time synchronization.
As to claim 17, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the one or more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: receive a set of system information associated with the wireless communication network from the base station (ITAGAKI Fig. 3: sync(t1)); and prepare the system information for transmission to the user equipment (ITAGAKI Fig. 3:sync(t1,ΔS)) to cause the user equipment to establish a second connection with the wireless communication network (see e.g., ITAGAKI [0043-46]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to modify CHRISTOFFERSSON by using the feature of ITAGAKI to support enhance time synchronization accuracy (ITAGAKI Abstract). There would have been a high reasonable expectation of success since both references teach time synchronization.
As to claim 18, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the one or more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 17, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: prepare the set of system information for transmission to a second user equipment (ITAGAKI Fig. 3:t1,ΔS); and cause the second user equipment to establish a connection with the wireless communication network based on the set of system information (see e.g., ITAGAKI [0066] and [0085]).
See motivation/rational applies as in claim 17 as modification is the same.
As to claim 19, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the one or more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim [[15]] 17, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to: determine a set of network attributes associated with the wireless communication network based on the first synchronization signal (Fig. 3: t1,ΔS. See also ITAGAKI [0043-46]); and receive the set of system information based on the set of network attributes (ITAGAKI Fig. 3:follow-up (t1)).
See motivation/rational applies as in claim 17 as modification is the same.
As to claim 20, CHRISTOFFERSSON in combination with ITAGAKI teaches the one or more non-transitory, tangible, computer-readable media of claim 19, wherein the instructions are configured to cause the processor to prepare the set of network attributes for transmission to the user equipment to facilitate the user equipment receiving the set of system information (ITAGAKI Fig. 3:sync(t1,ΔS).
See motivation/rational applies as in claim 17-19 as modification is the same.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0043398 A1 to Fwu et al. See Fig. 6 + 7.
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 DERRICK W FERRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3123. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 7 AM-3 PM.
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, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at (571) 272-0734. 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.
/DERRICK W FERRIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411