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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/697,113 filed on 29 March 2024. The response filed 22 June 2026 amends claims 1 and 3-15, cancels claim 2, adds claims 16-20, and presents arguments is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Independent Claims 1 and 14
On pages 8-9 of the response filed 22 June 2026, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection made on the 19 March 2026 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the Jeon system fails to teach or suggest “maintain transmission timing alignment while the UE is in the inactive state based on reception of downlink signals or channels, wherein maintaining the transmission timing alignment comprises, in response to detecting a change of a received downlink transmission timing, determining an amount of change of time of the received downlink transmission timing and adjusting a timing advance based on the determined amount of change of time.” Examiner respectfully agrees and finds this argument persuasive. Jeon fails to disclose the newly amended limitations. Therefore, Examiner finds this argument persuasive.
Dependent Claims 3-13
On pages 8-9 of the response filed 22 June 2026, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection made on the 19 March 2026 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant submits that these claims are allowable at least as depending from an allowable independent claim, and further in view of the amendments to the independent claims, and the comments provided above. As per the comments above, Examiner found the arguments persuasive.
Independent Claim 15
On pages 8-9 of the response filed 22 June 2026, Applicant addresses the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection made on the 19 March 2026 Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, have been fully considered.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that the Jeon system fails to teach or suggest “transmit, to the UE, at least one timing alignment parameter for gradually adjusting the timing alignment in the inactive state.” Examiner respectfully agrees and finds this argument persuasive. Jeon fails to disclose the newly amended limitations. Therefore, Examiner finds this argument persuasive. However, a search has been conducted and new art has been found.
Newly Added Claims 16-20
On page 8 of the response filed 22 June 2026, Applicant respectfully requests entry and full consideration of Claims 16-20. Examiner acknowledges this request and will now consider newly added claims 16-20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-14, and 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: “maintain transmission timing alignment while the UE is in the inactive state based on reception of downlink signals or channels, wherein maintaining the transmission timing alignment comprises, in response to detecting a change of a received downlink transmission timing, determining an amount of change of time of the received downlink transmission timing and adjusting a timing advance based on the determined amount of change of time.”
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2022/0046661 A1 to Jeon et al and in view of US PGPUB 2023/0100704 A1 to Raghavan et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Jeon discloses a network equipment (NE) (FIG. 24, base station 2401), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory (FIG. 24, base station 2401) and configured to cause the NE to: transmit, to a user equipment (UE), a configuration for configuring the UE with small data transmissions while in an inactive state (0270 and 0305 provides for base station 2401 transmits, to wireless device 2402, configuration parameters 2403 for configuring the wireless device with small data while in a non-connected/inactive state); and transmit, to the UE, a configuration comprising an initial value of a timing alignment timer for maintaining timing alignment in the inactive state (FIG. 24 and 0270 and 0305 provides for the base station 2401 sending a BFI counter for configuring an initial value by the wireless device). Jeon doesn’t explicitly disclose transmit, to the UE, at least one timing alignment parameter for gradually adjusting the timing alignment in the inactive state. Raghavan, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses transmit, to the UE, at least one timing alignment parameter for gradually adjusting the timing alignment in the inactive state (0105-0106 provides for the best station informs the UE to report a relative timing alignment factor with more granularity). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Raghavan for enabling timing alignment with more granularity. The granular timing alignment of Raghavan, when implemented with the timing alignment value of the Jeon system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to amend the timing alignment configuration sent to the UE in order to adjust the timing alignment granularly. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the granular timing alignment of Raghavan with the timing alignment value of the Jeon system for the desirable purpose of improved the efficiency of timing alignment with granularity.
Regarding Claim 16, similar rejection where the network equipment of claim 5 teaches the method of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2024/0267863 A1 to Hong disclosing timing adjustment.
US PGPUB 2019/0174513 A1 to Loehr et al discloses a finer granularity of the uplink timing alignment.
US PGPUB 2023/0037808 A1 to Park et al discloses the difference in the priority is based on the granularity of timing alignment is based on DL and UL timing.
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 SCHQUITA GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights