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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a Continuation of PCT/CN2020/119618 (filed 09/30/2020).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3, 7-10, 14-17, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen et al. (US 20220070808 A1, hereinafter Jacobsen), in view of PRAKASH et al. (US 20200322908 A1, hereinafter PRAKASH).
Regarding claim 1,
Jacobsen teaches a delay compensation method, applied in a terminal, the method comprising (Jacobsen, in general, see fig. 2 and many of its corresponding paragraphs):
receiving a second physical layer signaling from a network device, wherein the second physical layer signaling carries a trigger indication for triggering the terminal to report first information and configures a number of reporting times n, and the second physical layer signaling is downlink control information (DCI) signaling (Jacobsen, see at least para. 177 along with para. 206, “...Upon receiving PD_notify 202-2 the gNB 170 conducts the following steps 1-2: 1) Determine which UL_Ref should be activated. This could for example be based on an estimation of the needed accuracy (e.g. from an additional payload in PD_notify 202-2). 2) Send (at 203-21) the activation signal for UL_Ref. This can be done in several ways, including existing DCI formats...”, note that para. 206 discloses “...A configuration format for PD_notify may include expected periodicity for updates, or a request of a number of measurements to enhance stability (a burst of measurements). With this the NW can then configure bursts of BW of the reference signals accordingly. ... In these cases it can be beneficial to have multiple measurements in a short duration of time to aid convergence of the filters. This embodiment can be realized by simply using the existing framework, but the gNB activates UL_Ref multiple times...”),
and
reporting the first information to the network device based on the second physical layer signaling, the first information being used for assisting the network device to perform delay compensation (Jacobsen, see at least para. 179-180, “...When the Rx-Tx measurement is obtained, the counterpart needs to be provided (at 203-16) to the entity responsible for PD-compensation. If the gNB 170 is responsible for PD compensation, the Rx-Tx measurement 203-14 is delivered from the UE 110 to the gNB 170...”);
wherein the first information comprises a delay compensation amount, the delay compensation amount is determined according to a reference signal comprising an uplink reference signal and a downlink reference signal, the delay compensation amount is a sending and receiving related timing between the uplink reference signal and the downlink reference signal, and the uplink reference signal and the downlink reference signal are exchanged between the terminal and the network device (Jacobsen, see at least para. 182, “...Further details are provided herein on the method differences if the gNB 170 or UE 110 is configured to conduct PD estimation. The PD is estimated as e.g. RTT/2=((T3−T2)+(T4−T1))/2 (from FIG. 2, i.e. T1, T2, T3, and T4 are shown in FIG. 2)...”).
Jacobsen does not specifically teach sending and receiving time difference.
PRAKASH teaches sending and receiving time difference (PRAKASH, see at least para. 120 of fig. 9, “...To make this determination, at 912, the base station receives a UE time difference between a UE reception timing for the downlink transmission and a UE transmission timing for the uplink transmission...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PRAKASH into Jacobsen for providing a solution by allowing a base station to indicate RTT compensation for UEs to use in adjusting their individual or local time clocks, thereby allowing UEs to synchronize at a high precision with the time clock of the base station (see para. 9).
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH teaches claim 1.
Jacobsen further teaches wherein a type of the reference signal comprises at least one of a sounding reference signal (SRS), a positioning reference signal (PRS), and a demodulation reference signal (DMRS). (Jacobsen, see at least para. 182 in view of para. 141, note that “...The Rx-Tx measurements measure the absolute time between receiving and transmitting two reference signals (i.e., DL PRS reception and SRS transmission for UE Rx-Tx)...”)
Regarding claim 3, Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH teaches claim 1.
Jacobsen further teaches wherein a measurement unit of the delay compensation amount comprises one of: milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds, a reference time length. (Jacobsen, see at least para. 182 in view of para. 141, note that “...The Rx-Tx measurements measure the absolute time between receiving and transmitting two reference signals (i.e., DL PRS reception and SRS transmission for UE Rx-Tx)...”)
Regarding claim 7, Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH teaches claim 1.
Jacobsen further teaches receiving second information, the second information being determined according to the first information; performing the delay compensation according to the second information, wherein the second information carries at least one of: an indication of whether to perform the delay compensation (Jacobsen, see at least para. 182 in view of 188 and fig. 4 and/or fig. 5, “...A flow chart for the case where the UE 110 is conducting PD compensation 200-3 and where the gNB 170 is conducting PD compensation 200-3 is provided in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 respectively...”).
Jacobsen does not specifically teach a delay compensation offset, the delay compensation offset being determined according to the first information
PRAKASH teaches a delay compensation offset, the delay compensation offset being determined according to the first information (PRAKASH, see at least para. 122 of fig. 9 in view of para. 120-121, “...At 918, the base station transmits the RTT compensation to the UE. ... the RTT compensation may be the timing offset...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PRAKASH into Jacobsen for providing a solution by allowing a base station to indicate RTT compensation for UEs to use in adjusting their individual or local time clocks, thereby allowing UEs to synchronize at a high precision with the time clock of the base station (see para. 9).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 10, and 14, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, and 7, respectively, except each of these claims is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising processor, transceiver, and memory (Jacobsen, see at least fig. 1), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 15, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 15 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. For example, it would be a network device of claim 15 that performs the reverse (or corresponding) receiving from and transmitting to the terminal of claim 1. Hence, the examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, in view of claim 15 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2 and 3, respectively
Regarding claim 24, Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH teaches claim 1.
Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH further teaches wherein the first information further comprises time information; the time information comprises at least one of absolute time information of a reference time point and a slot index of a slot where the reference time point is located; and the reference time point is a starting time point of a delay compensation period, a time point when the terminal reports the first information, or a starting time point of a latest slot. (Jacobsen, see at least para. 182, “...If the gNB 170 (or NW) is configured to conduct PD compensation, then the UE 110 at 203-16 signals the gNB 170 with its Rx-Tx measurement 203-14...”; PRAKASH, see at least para. 100-105 and fig. 8, for one non-limiting example, “...For example, after the UE receives at time t1 the downlink transmission 806, the UE 804 may transmit at time t2 to the base station 802 the value B in uplink transmission 808. Once the base station receives the value B, the base station may obtain the RTT and thus the propagation delay by calculating the actual value A and subtracting the UE-indicated value B...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate PRAKASH into Jacobsen for providing a solution by allowing a base station to indicate RTT compensation for UEs to use in adjusting their individual or local time clocks, thereby allowing UEs to synchronize at a high precision with the time clock of the base station (see para. 9).
Regarding claim 25, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 24 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 26, in view of claim 15 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 24 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH, and further in view of MANOLAKOS et al. (US 20210360611 A1, hereinafter MANOLAKOS).
Regarding claim 21,
Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH teaches claim 1.
Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH does not teach wherein the second physical layer signaling further configures a reporting location of the first information.
MANOLAKOS teaches wherein the second physical layer signaling further configures a reporting location of the first information (MANOLAKOS, see at least para. 165-166 in view of para. 128 and 140, “...the UE derives positioning measurements from the indicated DCI and/or PDSCH and reports the measurements to the positioning entity (e.g., location server, 230, LMF 270, SLP 272, serving base station, positioning engine at the UE, etc.) via UCI,...”, note that para. 128 and 140 respectively discloses that “...DCI within the PDCCH carries information about uplink resource allocation... and descriptions about downlink data transmitted to the UE,... More specifically, the DCI indicates the resources scheduled for the downlink data channel (e.g., PDSCH) and the uplink data channel (e.g., PUSCH)...” and that “...physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) carries...UCI”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate MANOLAKOS into Jacobsen in view of PRAKASH for providing various techniques to reduce the number of indications used to indicate to a UE whether and which PDCCH and/or PDSCH are to be used as PRS (see para. 143).
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 21 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Regarding claim 23, in view of claim 15 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 21 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
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 YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights