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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22, 31, 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claims 22, 31, the phrase “and/or” should be re-written to “or” beings the broadest reasonable interpretation of a Boolean OR truth table includes AND. The limitation to “determine at least one of an accuracy and a reliability…” should match in scope with “determine whether to modify the first and/or second configuration in dependence on the determined accuracy and/or reliability”.
The term “more accurate” in claim 37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more accurate” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Paragraphs 0193-0194 of the specification discuss how to make the timing more accurate but do not provide a degree of accuracy that would determine the scope of the claim.
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 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.
Claim(s) 22-34, 36, 39-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20230032067 A1) in view of Ryu et al. (US 20190159149 A1), hereinafter Ryu.
Regarding claim 22 Edge teaches,
An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and (Figure 7, label 702)
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (Figure 7, label 704)
signal, to a user equipment, a first configuration for the user equipment to perform at least one measurement for determining a propagation delay for signaling between the user equipment and the access point at a first time and a third time using a first propagation delay mechanism; (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆. Paragraph 0086 – The timing may be a SSB or CSI-RS message or signal.)
signal, to the user equipment, a second configuration indicating at least one measurement event for determining a propagation delay for signaling between the user equipment and the access point at a second time using a second propagation delay mechanism, wherein the second time is configured relative to the first time and occurs between the first and third times; (paragraph 0079 – The timing advance is received by the UE and the propagation delay can be obtained as half of the timing advance. The timing advance can be received on a subframe and implemented that same subframe).
receive, from the user equipment, an indication of at least one measurement associated with the first and second configurations; (paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is measured in the first configuration and includes a reception time (label 356) and local time (label 354). The UE receives the response message (label 358) and determines the propagation delay). Paragraph 0106 – The second configuration contains a measurement of the delays Δ1 and Δ2 if an attacking device is present.
determine at least one of an accuracy and a reliability of the second propagation delay mechanism using the received at least one indication of at least one measurement; (Paragraph 0106, figure 4b – The accuracy of the timing advance is determined by comparing it with an expected value based on a maximum calculated possible range for the second configuration. Paragraph 0107 – The RTT which is the first configuration can be used in place of the propagation delay in figure 4b and the accuracy can be determined in the same manner).
Edge does not explicitly teach,
determine whether to modify the first and/or second configuration in dependence on the determined accuracy and/or reliability; and
when it is determined to modify the first and/or second configuration, signal the modified first and/or second configuration to the user equipment.
Ryu teaches,
determine whether to modify the first and/or second configuration in dependence on the determined accuracy and/or reliability; and (paragraph 0125-0128 – The downlink beam departure may be adjusted to increase accuracy
when it is determined to modify the first and/or second configuration, signal the modified first and/or second configuration to the user equipment. (paragraph 0128-0129 The UE receives the updated uplink timing advance and may perform additional adjustment.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edge to incorporate the modification of the configuration teachings of Ryu. Doing so would increase the accuracy by adjusting the uplink timing advance value by the base station that can be done autonomously (paragraph 0008-0009).
Regarding claim 23 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to determine a first value for a propagation delay for signaling using the first propagation delay mechanism at the first time and at least one measurement associated with the first configuration received from the user equipment. (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is measured at a point time t in the first configuration and is received at the UE).
Regarding claim 24 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein the receiving comprises receiving a first value for a propagation delay associated with the first configuration at the first time. (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is measured at a point time t in the first configuration and is received at the UE. The time t is the first value needed to calculate the propagation delay. Paragraph 008 – The transmission is received by the base station at a local time t+2Δ).
Regarding claim 25, Edge teaches:
The apparatus as claimed in claim 23, wherein the second configuration indicates a plurality of times between the first time and the third time for said measurement events. (Figure 4b, paragraphs 0106, 0107 – The second configuration which is the timing advance mechanism measures delays Δ1 and Δ2 by the attacking device which occur in between the first configuration (RTT) first and third measurements.
Regarding claim 26 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to determine a second value for a propagation delay using the first propagation delay mechanisms at the third time and at least one measurement associated with the first configuration received from the user equipment. (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆. The time t+2∆ is the second value needed to calculate the propagation delay.)
Regarding claim 27 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the receiving comprises receiving a second value for a propagation delay associated with the first configuration at the third time. (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆. The time t+2∆ is the second value needed to calculate the propagation delay and is received by the UE).
Regarding claim 28 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the determining an accuracy of the second propagation delay comprises:
determining a first difference between the first value and the second value; (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆ which are the first and second values respectively).
determining a first sum of propagation delay values associated with the second configuration at the plurality of times; and (paragraph 0106 - The total propagation delay of the second configuration includes the sum of the delays Δ1 and Δ2).
determining an accuracy of the second propagation delay mechanism by comparing a difference between the first difference and said sum to a first threshold. (Figure 4b, paragraph 0106 - The accuracy of the propagation delay can be compared against the expected maximum value based on the distance between the UE and base station).
Regarding claim 29 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 25, wherein the determining an accuracy of the second propagation delay comprises:
determining a second sum of propagation delay values associated with the second configuration at the plurality of times using measurements performed by the access point; (paragraph 0096, Figure 3b – The UE receives a timing advance from the base station (gNB).
receiving a third sum of propagation delay values associated with the second configuration at the plurality of times from the user equipment; and (paragraph 0105, Figure 4b – The UE receives a different timing advance from the base station)
determining a reliability of the second delay mechanism by comparing a difference between the second sum and the third sum to a second threshold. (paragraph 0105 – The timing advance difference between the sums one of which would include an extra delay due to an attacking device can be compared to a threshold, an example given in the reference being 1us to determine reliability.)
Regarding claim 30 Edge teaches,
An apparatus as claimed in claim 26, wherein the indication of at least one measurement comprises a difference between a first difference between the first value and the second value and a first sum of propagation delay values associated with the second configuration at the plurality of times. (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆ which are the first and second values respectively). (paragraph 0106 - The total propagation delay of the first sum of the second configuration includes the sum of the delays Δ1 and Δ2). (paragraph 0105 – The timing advance difference between the sums one of which would include an extra delay due to an attacking device can be compared using a threshold, an example given in the reference being 1us to determine reliability.)
Regarding claim 31 Edge teaches,
An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and (Figure 6, label 602)
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: (Figure 6, label 604)
receive, from an access point, signaling of a first configuration for the user equipment to perform at least one measurement for determining a propagation delay for signaling between the user equipment and the access point at a first time and a third time using a first propagation delay mechanism; (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆).
receive, from the access point, signaling of a second configuration indicating at least one measurement event for determining a propagation delay for signaling between the user equipment and the access point at a second time using a second propagation delay mechanism, wherein the second time is configured relative to the first time and occurs between the first and third times; (paragraph 0079 – The timing advance is received by the access point, and the propagation delay can be obtained as half of the timing advance. The timing advance can be received on a subframe and implemented that same subframe).
perform measurements in accordance with the first and second configurations;
(Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is calculated as the difference between time t and time t+2∆ which are the first and second values respectively). (paragraph 0106 - The total propagation delay of the first sum of the second configuration includes the sum of the delays Δ1 and Δ2).
signal an indication of at least one measurement associated with at least one of the first and second configurations to the access point; and (paragraph 0079 – The timing advance is received by the access point, and the propagation delay can be obtained as half of the timing advance for the second configuration. Paragraph 0102 - Figure 4b, label 457 – The base station (gNB) receives the time of the arrival of the message that was sent in the first configuration.)
Edge fails to teach,
receive at least one modified first configuration and/or modified second configuration.
Zhang teaches,
receive at least one modified first configuration and/or modified second configuration. (paragraph 0081 – The base station starts the synchronization process that is modified based on the first configuration).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edge to incorporate the modification of the configuration teachings of Zhang. The purpose of doing so is to improve the clock synchronization (paragraph 0080).
Regarding claim 32 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
determine a first value for a propagation delay for signaling using the first propagation delay mechanism at the first time; and (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay is measured at a point time t in the first configuration).
signal the first value to the access point. (Figure 3b, paragraphs 0085-0090 – The propagation delay value can be transmitted to the base station).
Regarding claim 33 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31,
wherein the second configuration indicates a plurality of times between the first time and the third time for said measurement events. (Figure 4b, paragraphs 0106, 0107 – The second configuration which is the timing advance mechanism measures delays Δ1 and Δ2 by the attacking device which occur in between the first configuration (RTT) first and third measurements.
Regarding claim 36 Edge teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the first propagation delay mechanism is a round trip time mechanism and the second propagation delay mechanism is a timing advance mechanism. (paragraphs 0085-0090 – The first propagation mechanism is a round trip time mechanism. paragraph 0096 – The second propagation delay mechanism is a timing advance.)
Claim 39 is a method of claim 31 and is thus rejected.
Claim 40 is a method of claim 32 and is thus rejected.
Claim 41 is a method of claim 33 and is thus rejected.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge-Zhang in view of Dalsgaard et al. (US 20140348107 A1), hereinafter Dalsgaard.
Regarding claim 34, Edge-Zhang fails to teach,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the modified second configuration indicates that measurements according to the second configuration should cease.
Dalsgaard teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the modified second configuration indicates that measurements according to the second configuration should cease. (paragraph 0026 – The measurements may stop being transmitted if the unit becomes immobile. The timing advance connection of the second configuration will still remain but no new measurements need to be sent while the mobile device is stationary).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edge-Zhang to incorporate the ceasing of transmission teachings of Dalsgaard. The purpose of doing so is to limit air interference and conserve battery life for mobile devices (paragraph 0005).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge-Zhang in view of Cui et al. (US 20240031077 A1), hereinafter Cui.
Regarding claim 35, Edge-Zhang fails to teach,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the modified first configuration indicates that a time between making measurements associated with the first propagation delay mechanism should increase.
Cui teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the modified first configuration indicates that a time between making measurements associated with the first propagation delay mechanism should increase. (paragraph 0030 – The measurements of the RTT become more frequent by implementing HARQ feedback disabling as opposed to a traditional setup if the RTT time is large).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edge-Zhang to incorporate the RTT measurement time increases teachings of Cui. The purpose of doing so is to not waste the period of time between which the a first HARQ transmission finishes and the start time of a second HARQ transmission in a situation in which the RTT is long as in a NTN in the first configuration.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge-Zhang in view of Singh et al. (US 20220141784 A1), hereinafter Singh.
Regarding claim 37 Edge-Zhang fails to teach,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the first propagation delay mechanism provides a more accurate value for a propagation delay between the access point and the user equipment than the second propagation delay mechanism.
Singh teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the first propagation delay mechanism provides a more accurate value for a propagation delay between the access point and the user equipment than the second propagation delay mechanism. (paragraph 0052 – The first propagation delay mechanism of using a RTT can be provide a higher accuracy compared to the second propagation delay mechanism of timing advance).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edge-Zhang to incorporate the increased accuracy using RTT teachings of Singh. The purpose of doing so is to increase the accuracy in a TSN network where the existing timing advance may not be sufficient (paragraph 0003).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge-Zhang in view of Jiang et al. (US 20240073845 A1), hereinafter Jiang.
Regarding claim 38 Edge-Zhang fails to teach,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the first propagation delay mechanism comprises more signaling overhead for calculating a propagation delay between the access point and the user equipment than the second propagation delay mechanism.
Jiang teaches,
The apparatus as claimed in claim 31, wherein the first propagation delay mechanism comprises more signaling overhead for calculating a propagation delay between the access point and the user equipment than the second propagation delay mechanism. (paragraph 0047 - The RTT of the first propagation delay mechanism requires more signaling overhead than the timing advance of the second propagation delay mechanism.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Edge-Zhang to incorporate the more signaling overhead using the second propagation delay mechanism teachings of Jiang. The purpose of doing so is to reduce delays in a NTN network where transmissions take a longer period of time as the ground base station communicates with a satellite (paragraph 0004).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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.
/RYAN ALEXANDER CRIGLER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights