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
2. 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 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.
3. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2,10,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom et al. (US 2014/0079032), hereinafter referred to as Bergstrom, in view of Mu (US 2023/0029170- (IDS) WO 2021 127915 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bergstrom teaches a UE 120-fig.19 that includes memory storing a computer program, wherein the computer program is executable by the processor 122. In mobile communication systems, various issues occur when there are multiple active user equipments (UEs) in the same cell of a radio base station such as an evolved Node B (eNB), see 0002. The UE 120a and 120b-fig.5 access a same cell, and the UE 120a is located within a first range around the UE 120b. The UL TA is maintained by the eNB through TA commands sent to the UE based on measurements on UL transmissions from that UE. Through timing advance commands, the UE is ordered to start its UL transmissions earlier or later, which depends on the location of the UE, see 0064 (equivalent to the second terminal and the first terminal access a same cell, and the second terminal is located within a first range around the first terminal). The first UE, e.g., the UE 120a-fig.5 discards the TA value when the UE 120a fails to receive a TA command containing an update for a TA value with an expired TA timer, see 0008 (equivalent to the first terminal failing to receive a TA sent by the base station in time).
Bergstrom, however, fails to teach acquire a timing advance (TA) shared by a second terminal to the first terminal, and perform an uplink synchronization with a base station using the TA shared by the second terminal, [in response to the first terminal failing to receive a TA sent by the base station in time].
Mu, teaching uplink synchronization and shared TA, discloses: (1) information obtained among multiple devices that can interact with the network device is the same such as the TA and system information obtained by the wearable device (first device) and the smart phone (second device) of the same user, see 0022, 0028-0029, 0034. In an implementation, the TA can be forwarded to the wearable device through the smart phone device (shared TA) for uplink synchronization with the base station, see 0032, 0043-0044.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Mu
into the system of Bergstrom. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable smart phones to support new radio-light (NR-light) that are more widely applied as communication technologies developed. Further, a bandwidth supported by NR-light such as wearable devices is reduced and a number of antennas is also reduced.
Regarding claim 2, please see the rejection of claim 1. “condition” is when the UE 120a-fig.5 of Bergstrom fails to receive a TA command containing an update for a TA value with an expired TA timer, see 0008.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1. Mu teaches there is a Bluetooth (short range) connection between the wearable device (first device) and the smart phone (second device), see 0025 and 0034. The TA shared by the smart phone to the wearable device via the Bluetooth signal, see 0044.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Bergstrom-Mu for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Bergstrom-Mu for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
6. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom, in view of Mu, and further in view of Tang et al. (US (20200163074), hereinafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding claim 6, Bergstrom and Mu disclose all claimed limitations, except enter an idle status, in response to the first terminal not meeting the shared TA using condition.
Tang teaches when the terminal does not send the data e.g., timing advance, see 0158, in a long time, the first network device may send a radio resource control (Radio Resource Control. RRC) connection release message to the terminal, to instruct the terminal to release an RRC connection, and the terminal enters into an idle state, see 0185. In other words, Tang suggests that when timing advance information has not been sent to the network device for a while, the terminal is instructed to enter idle state.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Tang into the combined system of Bergstrom-Mu. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce a number of obtaining uplink synchronization via a random-access process including a timing advance (TA) related to synchronization.
7. Claim 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom, in view of Mu, and further in view of Christoffersson et al. US 2022/0191939), hereinafter referred to as Christoffersson.
Regarding claim 9, Bergstrom and Mu disclose all claimed limitations, except acquire the TA shared by the second terminal to the first terminal from a server, wherein the server is configured to receive and store the TA shared by the second terminal. However, it is noted that in MU, a terminal-fig. 1 may access to a network through a network device such as a base station. Data backhaul and fronthaul may be completed by the network device and a core network for various communication services.
Christoffersson teaches core network 1440-fig. 14 can further communicate
with an external packet data network, illustrated in FIG. 14 as Internet 1450, according to various protocols and interfaces known to persons of ordinary skill in the art. Many other devices and/or networks can also connect to and communicate via Internet 1450, such as exemplary host computer 1460. In some exemplary embodiments, host computer 1460 can communicate with UE 1410-fig. 14 using Internet 1450, core network 1440, and RAN 1430 as intermediaries. Host computer 1460 can be a server (e.g., an application server) under ownership and/or control of a service provider, see 0125.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a server taught by Christoffersson into the combined system of Bergstrom and MU. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the server to act as a centralized repository and service provider, that stores, manages, receives and delivers data to client devices (like computers or phone) upon request.
Regarding claim 19, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected under Bergstrom-Mu-Christoffersson for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 9.
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergstrom and Mu, in view of Christoffersson, and further in view of Szilagyi et al. US 2017/0244639), hereinafter referred to as Szilagyi.
Regarding claim 12, Bergstrom, Mu and Christoffersson disclose all claimed limitations, except “send the notification information to the server, in response to the first terminal failing to receive the TA sent by the base station in time”.
Szilagyi teachest the client may also send explicit receiver reports (RR) to the server to inform the server about dedicated client-side measurements such as loss, delay, jitter, and the like, see 0006, 0104. In other words, Szilagyi suggests a client, e.g., a UE-fig.2 can inform or send a notification to a server any related information regarding timing advance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Szilagyi into the combined system of Bergstrom-Mu-Christoffersson. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide accurate information regarding the passage of data through a network between a client and a server of a content provider.
Allowable subject matter
9. Claims 3-5, 7-8, 11 and 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brisebois et al. (US 2014/0071856); Li (US 12,342,303); Wang et al. (US 2020/0029326) are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465