DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A preliminary amendment received on 7/03/2025 amending claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19, canceling claims 2, 4-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20, and adding claims 21-32 has been entered by the examiner so claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 21-32 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/19/2023 and 7/23/2024 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
35 USC 112 CLAIM REJECTIONS
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 21-25, and 27-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant’s claims 1 and 11 recite “comparing the first reference ID with a second reference ID stored in the UE; and performing a transition of a radio resource control (RRC) state based on the comparison”. Applicant points to FIG. 6 and paragraphs [0090]-[0095], [0112], and [0130] as providing support but examiner doesn’t agree. The word comparison is used three times within the specification at paras. 94, 113, and 131 and just states that the reference IDs are used for comparison but does not say what happens based on this comparison. In the paragraph following each use of comparison, it states that “when there is no traffic for a predetermined period of time, the UE 110 switches to the RRC_Idle state and moves to gNB2 126”, which makes no mention of this happening based on the comparison but only based on traffic. Fig. 6 shows at step 611 to move to RRC Idle but doesn’t provide guidance as to why to move to the idle state. Paras. 77-96 provide guidance to Fig. 6 and state the move to Idle based on no traffic in para. 95, as discussed above. Thus, given the above, this would not allow one to conclude that the inventor had possession of the broadly claimed invention. Dependent claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13, 21-23, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (NOKIA et al., ‘Discussion on 5GS time synchronization status report towards the UE(s)’, R2-2211777 3GPP TSG-RANWG2 Meeting #120, November 4, 2022, Toulouse, France.) IDS submitted by Applicant in view of Chandramoul et al (US 2025/0212142 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Nokia teaches a method/user equipment (UE) performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station, a system information block (SIB) information including a first reference identification (ID) for indicating a status change of the UE (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the gNB, the gNB transmits a report ID in SIB9; This RAN time synchronization status report is generated at the gNB when a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)); and
performing a transition of a radio resource control (RRC) state based on the comparison, wherein the first reference ID is related to time synchronization status (Sec. 2; The UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network by entering RRC_CONNECTED when the UE determines there is a new RAN timing synchronization status report available based on the report ID).
However, while Nokia teaches the UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network by entering RRC_CONNECTED when the UE determines there is a new RAN timing synchronization status report available based on the report ID, which strongly suggest that the UE would need to compare the prior report ID to the new report ID since it is determining that there is a new status report based on the report ID (Sec. 2), he does not specifically disclose a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to; and comparing the first reference ID with a second reference ID stored in the UE.
Chandramoul teaches providing means for determining user equipment impacted by a network timing synchronization status and providing timing resiliency solutions (Abstract). He further teaches a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to (Para. 0065):
and comparing the first reference ID with a second reference ID stored in the UE (Para. 0098; if the UE has more than one time reference, it can use them to compare the time signals and determine if its primary time source is degrading, failing, or have recovered; i.e. time signals would read on the reference IDs and Nokia shows that the status report is sent based on a status change such as a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Chandramoul with the teachings as in Nokia. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide high data throughput in order to realize various services (Chandramoul at para. 0004).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination of references Nokia and Chandramoul teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches wherein the first reference ID includes information on an event (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the gNB, the gNB transmits a report ID in SIB9; This RAN time synchronization status report is generated at the gNB when a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)).
Regarding claims 21 and 27, the combination of references Nokia and Chandramoul teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches wherein the performing of the transition of the RRC state comprises: in case that the first reference ID and the second reference ID are different, performing the transition of the RRC state to an RRC connected state (Sec. 2; The UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network by entering RRC_CONNECTED when the UE determines there is a new RAN timing synchronization status report available based on the report ID).
Regarding claims 22 and 28, the combination of references Nokia and Chandramoul teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches further comprising: determining that the second reference ID changes; and connecting to a network based on the determination (Sec. 2; The UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network by entering RRC_CONNECTED when the UE determines there is a new RAN timing synchronization status report available based on the report ID).
Regarding claims 23 and 29, the combination of references Nokia and Chandramoul teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches further comprising: receiving, from the base station, information related to the time synchronization status via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (Sec. 2; The UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network by entering RRC_CONNECTED when the UE determines there is a new RAN timing synchronization status report available based on the report ID).
Claims 7, 9, 17, 19, 26, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (NOKIA et al., ‘Discussion on 5GS time synchronization status report towards the UE(s)’, R2-2211777 3GPP TSG-RANWG2 Meeting #120, November 4, 2022, Toulouse, France.) IDS submitted by Applicant in view of Shi et al (US 2025/0056454 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Nokia teaches a method/user equipment (UE) performed by a base station in a wireless communication system (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving, from an access and management function (AMF) a request (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the TSCTSF, the TSCTSF may cipher it, and provide it to the gNB via AMF. The gNB broadcasts the ciphered RAN time synchronization status report in SIB); and
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a system information block (SIB) information including a first reference identification (ID) for indicating a status change of the UE (Sec. 2; The UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network by entering RRC_CONNECTED when the UE determines there is a new RAN timing synchronization status report available based on the report ID; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the TSCTSF, the TSCTSF may cipher it, and provide it to the gNB via AMF. The gNB broadcasts the ciphered RAN time synchronization status report in SIB; This RAN time synchronization status report is generated at the gNB when a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)).
However, while Nokia teaches the UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network (Sec. 2), he does not specifically disclose a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to; and a request including synchronization error budget.
Shi teaches a request for one or more timing advance (TA) measurements for a user equipment (UE) with respect to one or more cells served by the DU (Abstract). He further teaches a transceiver; and at least one processor coupled to the transceiver and configured to (Paras. 0211-0212):
and a request including synchronization error budget (Paras. 0095 and 0102-0103; 3GPP has defined time synchronization error budgets for a single radio (Uu) interface in view of the performance requirements shown in Table 1. Table 2 below shows Uu interface error or uncertainty budgets for the most demanding synchronization requirements in Table 1; i.e. time signals would read on the reference IDs and Nokia shows that the status report is sent based on a status change such as a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Shi with the teachings as in Nokia. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improvements to PD compensation in the CU-DU split node architecture (Shi at para. 0012).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination of references Nokia and Shi teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches wherein the first reference ID includes information on an event (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the gNB, the gNB transmits a report ID in SIB9; This RAN time synchronization status report is generated at the gNB when a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)).
Regarding claims 26 and 32, the combination of references Nokia and Shi teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches wherein the synchronization error budget is provided by a time sensitive communication and time synchronization function (TSCTSF) to the AMF (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the TSCTSF, the TSCTSF may cipher it, and provide it to the gNB via AMF. The gNB broadcasts the ciphered RAN time synchronization status report in SIB) and Shi further teaches via a policy control function (PCF) (Fig. 3; Para. 0073; Fig. 3 shows the control plane going through the PCF).
Claims 24-25 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nokia (NOKIA et al., ‘Discussion on 5GS time synchronization status report towards the UE(s)’, R2-2211777 3GPP TSG-RANWG2 Meeting #120, November 4, 2022, Toulouse, France.) IDS submitted by Applicant in view of Chandramoul et al (US 2025/0212142 A1) further in view of Shi et al (US 2025/0056454 A1).
Regarding claims 24 and 30, the combination of references Nokia and Chandramoul teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches wherein the SIB information is transmitted in response to a request from an access and management function (AMF), and wherein the request (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the TSCTSF, the TSCTSF may cipher it, and provide it to the gNB via AMF. The gNB broadcasts the ciphered RAN time synchronization status report in SIB).
However, while Nokia teaches the UE can actively retrieve the RAN timing synchronization status information from the network (Sec. 2), he does not specifically disclose a request including synchronization error budget.
Shi teaches a request for one or more timing advance (TA) measurements for a user equipment (UE) with respect to one or more cells served by the DU (Abstract). He further teaches a request including synchronization error budget (Paras. 0095 and 0102-0103; 3GPP has defined time synchronization error budgets for a single radio (Uu) interface in view of the performance requirements shown in Table 1. Table 2 below shows Uu interface error or uncertainty budgets for the most demanding synchronization requirements in Table 1; i.e. time signals would read on the reference IDs and Nokia shows that the status report is sent based on a status change such as a primary source event occurs (e.g., degradation, failure, recovery)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Shi with the combination of references Nokia and Chandramoul. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide improvements to PD compensation in the CU-DU split node architecture (Shi at para. 0012).
Regarding claims 25 and 31, the combination of references Nokia, Chandramoul, and Shi teach the limitations of the previous claims. Nokia further teaches wherein the synchronization error budget is provided by a time sensitive communication and time synchronization function (TSCTSF) to the AMF via a policy control function (PCF) (Sec. 2; when a new RAN time synchronization status report is available at the TSCTSF, the TSCTSF may cipher it, and provide it to the gNB via AMF. The gNB broadcasts the ciphered RAN time synchronization status report in SIB) and Shi further teaches via a policy control function (PCF) (Fig. 3; Para. 0073; Fig. 3 shows the control plane going through the PCF).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT KRUEGER whose telephone number is (303)297-4238. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Thier can be reached on (571) 272-2832. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/KENT KRUEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474