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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 18, and 20 – 24 were pending in the application.
With amendment filed on January 30, 2026, Applicant have amended claims 1 and 18.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 18, and 20 – 24 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 09, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claims, Applicant's arguments directed toward newly amended limitations in the independent claim 1, which was not present in the previous rejection. Furthermore, newly made amendments have changed the scope of the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tsuboi et al (US 2011/0280189 A1) in view of Flint (WO 2018020227 A1).
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues “Applicant submits that Tsuboi does not teach or suggest at least, for example, the newly presented features of "wherein the amount of time shift applied is smaller than the time values used to allocate time resources" as recited in amended independent Claim 1. Accordingly, the allowance of amended independent Claim 1 is respectfully requested”
However the Examiner respectfully disagrees. the Examiner submits that the applicants’ arguments are directed toward newly amended limitations in the independent claim 1, which was not present in the previous rejection. Furthermore, newly made amendments have changed the scope of the claims. Examiner further submits that Tsuboi et al in view of Flint teach all cited limitations. Regarding claim 1, Tsuboi et al teach a base station for transmitting synchronisation signals on a plurality of carriers (see figure 1, and paragraph 0040), wherein the base station comprises processing circuitry and a machine- readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the base station (implicitly teaches) to: apply a time shift to at least part of a first synchronisation signal to be sent by the base station on a first carrier of the plurality of carriers such that the at least part of the first synchronisation signal is offset in time from a second synchronisation signal to be sent on a second carrier of the plurality of carriers (see figure 1, component 105, 113, and 114 “phase rotation section”, paragraph 0072, 0073, 121 – 128 table 2 and 3) ;combine signals for the plurality of carriers, including the first and second synchronisation signals, to form a combined signal (see paragraph 0028, 0038 “a base station apparatus that combines a plurality of component carriers to transmit”); amplify the combined signal using a power amplifier (see figure 1, component 108 and paragraph 0073 “perform power amplification”); and transmit the amplified combined signal (see figure 1), wherein the time shift applied to the at least part of the first synchronisation signal is determined based on a physical cell identifier NPCI associated with the first carrier (see figure 1, component 114 “a physical cell ID/phase rotation amount correspondence table that associates the physical cell ID with each amount of phase rotation of the component carrier”) and wherein applying a time shift comprises applying respective time shifts to at least parts of the synchronisation signals for the plurality of carriers, such that the parts of any two synchronisation signals of the plurality of carriers comprising a same sequence are offset in time from each other (see paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0073, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5). Tsuboi et al does not expressly disclose that the amount of time shift applied is smaller than the time values used to allocate time resources. However, in analogous art Flint teaches a communication system having plurality of component carriers and applying time shift to synchronization signal wherein the amount of time shift applied is smaller than the time values used to allocate time resources (see page 4, paragraph 1, lines 1 – 5 “timing offsets to be less than a time duration limit” “the time duration limit is a part thereof e.g. ¼, ½, of the guard interval”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art, at the time the invention was filed to have the time offset less than the time values used to allocate time resources. the motivation or suggestion is to reduce the synchronization time and latency in the communication. Therefore, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint teach all cited limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 1, remain stand rejected.
With respect all other claims the Applicant makes same argument as the argument applied to claim 1. Therefore, the same response applied to the argument with respect to independent claims above is applied here.
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) 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 18 and 20 – 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuboi et al (US 2011/0280189 A1) in view of Flint (WO 2018020227 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuboi et al teach a base station for transmitting synchronisation signals on a plurality of carriers (see figure 1, and paragraph 0040), wherein the base station comprises processing circuitry and a machine- readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the base station (implicitly teaches) to: apply a time shift to at least part of a first synchronisation signal to be sent by the base station on a first carrier of the plurality of carriers such that the at least part of the first synchronisation signal is offset in time from a second synchronisation signal to be sent on a second carrier of the plurality of carriers (see figure 1, component 105, 113, and 114 “phase rotation section”, paragraph 0072, 0073, 121 – 128 table 2 and 3) ;combine signals for the plurality of carriers, including the first and second synchronisation signals, to form a combined signal (see paragraph 0028, 0038 “a base station apparatus that combines a plurality of component carriers to transmit”); amplify the combined signal using a power amplifier (see figure 1, component 108 and paragraph 0073 “perform power amplification”); and transmit the amplified combined signal (see figure 1), wherein the time shift applied to the at least part of the first synchronisation signal is determined based on a physical cell identifier NPCI associated with the first carrier (see figure 1, component 114 “a physical cell ID/phase rotation amount correspondence table that associates the physical cell ID with each amount of phase rotation of the component carrier”) and wherein applying a time shift comprises applying respective time shifts to at least parts of the synchronisation signals for the plurality of carriers, such that the parts of any two synchronisation signals of the plurality of carriers comprising a same sequence are offset in time from each other (see paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0073, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5). Tsuboi et al does not expressly disclose that the amount of time shift applied is smaller than the time values used to allocate time resources. However, in analogous art Flint teaches a communication system having plurality of component carriers and applying time shift to synchronization signal wherein the amount of time shift applied is smaller than the time values used to allocate time resources (see page 4, paragraph 1, lines 1 – 5 “timing offsets to be less than a time duration limit” “the time duration limit is a part thereof e.g. ¼, ½, of the guard interval”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art, at the time the invention was filed to have the time offset less than the time values used to allocate time resources. the motivation or suggestion is to reduce the synchronization time and latency in the communication.
Regarding claim 3, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the time shift applied to at least part of the first synchronisation signal is further based on one or more physical cell identifiers associated with one or more other carriers in the plurality of carriers (see Tsuboi et al, figure 1 and table 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 4, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the base station is configured to repeat sequences used for synchronisation signals every n carriers and the time offset for the first carrier is determined based on n (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 “the amount of the phase rotation corresponding to the number of component carriers” and figure 9).
Regarding claim 5, which inherits the limitations of claim 4, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the time offset for the first carrier is determined based on a carrier index
N
i
n
d
=
N
P
C
I
mod n (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 “the amount of the phase rotation corresponding to the number of component carriers” and figure 9).
Regarding claim 6, which inherits the limitations of claim 5, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the first and second carriers are associated with a same carrier index (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5 “the amount of the phase rotation corresponding to the number of component carriers” and figure 9).
Regarding claim 7, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the first and second carriers are associated with the same physical cell identifier (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the processing circuitry further causes the base station to: apply the time shift to at least part of a third synchronisation signal to be sent by the base station on a third carrier of the plurality of carriers, wherein the first and third carriers are associated with different physical cell identifiers (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 10, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein applying a time shift comprises applying respective time shifts to at least parts of the synchronisation signals for the plurality of carriers, such that the parts of any two synchronisation signals of the plurality of carriers comprising different sequences are not offset in time from each other (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5 “control section 113 notifies different phase rotation amounts to phase rotation sections 105-1 to 105-n for component carriers of the same physical cell ID, and designates 0 degree as the phase rotation amount to phase rotation sections 105-1 to 105-n of component carriers except the component carriers of the same ID”).
Regarding claim 11, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein applying the time shift to the at least part of the first synchronisation signal comprises applying the time shift to the whole first synchronisation signal (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 12, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein applying the time shift to the at least part of the first synchronisation signal comprises applying the time shift to all signals for the first carrier (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein applying the time shift to the at least part of the first synchronisation signal comprises applying the time shift to only the part of the first synchronisation signal (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the first synchronisation signal comprises a primary synchronisation signal and applying the time shift to only the part of the first synchronisation signal comprises applying the time shift to only part of the primary synchronisation signal (see paragraphs Tsuboi et al, 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0099, and 0114 and table 2 and 5 ).
Regarding claim 15, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the at least part of the first synchronisation signal comprises one or more of: a primary synchronisation signal and a secondary synchronisation signal. (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0152 “Primary synchronization channel” “secondary synchronization channel”).
Regarding claim 16, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the primary synchronisation signal comprises an m-sequence (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5 implicit).
Regarding claim 17, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Tsuboi et al in view of Flint further teach wherein the first synchronisation signal comprises a synchronisation signal block. (see Tsuboi et al, paragraphs 0028, 0042, 0048, 0049, 0077, 0114 and table 2 and 5 figure 9).
Regarding claim 18, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 20, which inherits the limitations of claim 18, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 3 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 21, which inherits the limitations of claim 18, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 4 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 22, which inherits the limitations of claim 21, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 5 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 23, which inherits the limitations of claim 22, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 6 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 24, which inherits the limitations of claim 18, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 7 is applicable hereto.
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 JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571 272 3044. 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.
JAISON . JOSEPH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633