DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to amendment for Application 18/705219 filed on 6/30/2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 22-41 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
Response to Arguments
4. Examiner statements in the mailed non-final with respect to obvious limitations including common knowledge or well-known in the art are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the Examiner’s assertion, see MPEP 2144.03 C.
5. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 6/30/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 112 with respect to Claims 29 and 39 have been considered and found unpersuasive because the claims are not clear.
Applicant argues that the claims include positive statement of operation of functionality and does not relate to a future act. This statement is rejected because the limitation “capable of” is not positively recited so that the operation in fact actually do occur. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
6. Applicant’s arguments in the amendment filed on 6/30/2026 regarding claim rejection under 35 USC § 102 have been considered and found unpersuasive because the cited art still teaches the limitations.
a. Applicant argues that Zhang does not teach TA settings adjustments in view of the specification where it states lack of TA updates. This statement is rejected because brining limitations from the specification is improper. The claims and only the claims form the metes and bound of the invention. Zhang expressly teaches the limitations as mapped below.
The applicant provides no explanation at all as to why Zhang’s teachings do not teach the limitation as claimed. Instead points to [0073] in attempt to distinguish the cited art. This is improper because [0073] is not claimed.
b. applicant then argues that Zhang and Cao are not combinable and even if they still lack adjusting TA. Examiner disagrees because the art is combinable.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Zhang and Cao are combinable and the motivation as stated in the office action is It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Cao into the system of Zhang in order to reduce the need for TA update signaling from the base station (¶0004). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to conduct less frequent synchronizations procedures to request new TA values from the base station for each uplink transmission. Id.
c. applicant then states that Examiner has not showing how Cao teaches the art without providing details as why the cited paragraphs and detail explanation to ONE with ordinary skill in the art are not enough! Despite that, Cao still teaches the claimed limitation. For example, in ¶0033; in FIG. 2B at 60, when UE 20 moves but does not receive ΔTA 110 from transmit point 10 to compensate for the change in propagation delay from TP to TP′, UE 20 has the option of applying another open-loop synchronization method to adjust UL timing on its own. In this alternate procedure, at 62, when UE 20 detects a significant difference, ΔTDL, between the actual arrival time of the DL sub-frame from transmit point 10 and the expected arrive time of the DL sub-frame, based on the previous DL timing, UE 20 adjusts the TA 100 to the new timing advance value TA′, by applying a 2ΔTDL correction to the previous TA 100, TA′=TA+2ΔTDL, at 64. This alternate OL synchronization method is based on the assumption that the internal clock of UE 20 has not drifted since the last UL timing update.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if a) all outstanding rejections are overcome and b) rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art of records fail to teach “…wherein the expected time of arrival comprises a time of arrival estimated based on the estimated propagation delay; and in response to a difference between the measured time of arrival and the expected time of arrival is greater than a threshold difference, determining that the estimated propagation delay is less accurate than the threshold accuracy” of claims 26 and 36.
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 29-30 and 39 are 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.
The limitation “…mobile device is capable of operating…” claims 29 and 39 is rejected because the underline limitation is not a positive statement of operation or functionality and relate to a future act that may never occur. Stated differently, the underline limitation “capable of” is not positively recited so that the operation in fact actually do occur. Claim 30 depends on rejected claim 29, thus it is also rejected. Thus, the claim is unclear and rejected for being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
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.
Claims 22, 32 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang) US 2018/0097679 A1.
Regarding Claim 22, Zhang teaches an apparatus (UE in ¶0046-¶0047 or as in Fig. 7) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 7-704);
and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Fig. 7-706), cause the apparatus at least to:
based on data from at least one motion sensor that is local to a mobile device, estimate a propagation delay of transmissions between a base station and the mobile device (¶0047; a UE may adjust its TA settings based on knowledge of the UE's relative or absolute position in the cell/network without using PRACH process with a preamble (so still TA free). For example, a UE that is operating in Operation Mode (a) may use a sensor (e.g., GPS, accelerometer, etc.) to gauge its absolute location in the cell, or a change in the UE's relative location within the cell comparison with the previous location, and then adjust its TA settings in a manner that compensates for an estimated round-trip/propagation-delay between the UE and the serving base station);
determine an updated timing information based on the estimated propagation delay (¶0047; adjust its TA settings in a manner that compensates for an estimated round-trip/propagation-delay between the UE and the serving base station);
and update an internal clock of the mobile device in accordance with the updated timing information (¶0047; UE adjust/updates its TA settings).
Claims 32 and 41 are substantially similar to claim 21, thus the same rationale applies.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 23 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Cao et al. (Cao) US 2016/0295532 A1.
Regarding Claims 23 and 33, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine whether the estimated propagation delay is at least one of: valid, or accurate (¶0047; Additionally, a serving base station may also be able to determine the TA settings based on messages exchanged with the UE, and send the UE an instruction/indication to adjust the TA settings accordingly. The instructions/indication may be sent via higher layer signaling (e.g., RRC signaling), layer one signaling (e.g., DCI messages), and/or even group based (e.g., group common PDCCH). The indication may instruct the UE to use a specific TA setting/parameter for a grant-based or grant-free uplink transmission);
in response to a determination that the estimated propagation delay is at least one of: valid, or accurate, update the internal clock of the mobile device in accordance with the updated timing information (¶0047; UE adjusts its TA settings);
Zhang does not expressly teach and in response to a determination that the estimated propagation delay is not at least one of: valid, or accurate, transition the mobile device out of a sensor-based timing synchronisation mode in which the propagation delay is estimated based on the data from the at least one motion sensor that is local to the mobile device.
Cao teaches and in response to a determination that the estimated propagation delay is not at least one of: valid, or accurate, transition the mobile device out of a sensor-based timing synchronisation mode in which the propagation delay is estimated based on the data from the at least one motion sensor that is local to the mobile device (¶0033; in FIG. 2B at 60, when UE 20 moves but does not receive ΔTA 110 from transmit point 10 to compensate for the change in propagation delay from TP to TP′, UE 20 has the option of applying another open-loop synchronization method to adjust UL timing on its own. In this alternate procedure, at 62, when UE 20 detects a significant difference, ΔTDL, between the actual arrival time of the DL sub-frame from transmit point 10 and the expected arrive time of the DL sub-frame, based on the previous DL timing, UE 20 adjusts the TA 100 to the new timing advance value TA′, by applying a 2ΔTDL correction to the previous TA 100, TA′=TA+2ΔTDL, at 64. This alternate OL synchronization method is based on the assumption that the internal clock of UE 20 has not drifted since the last UL timing update).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Cao into the system of Zhang in order to reduce the need for TA update signaling from the base station (¶0004). Utilizing such teachings enable the system to conduct less frequent synchronizations procedures to request new TA values from the base station for each uplink transmission. Id.
Claims 24-25, 27-31, 34-35 and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang.
Regarding Claim 24, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the determining of whether the estimated propagation delay is at least one of valid, or accurate comprises: determining whether a duration of time for which the mobile device has been in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode exceeds a time threshold; and in response to a determination that the duration of time for which the mobile device has been in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode exceeds the time threshold, determining that the estimated propagation delay is not at least one of: valid, or accurate (¶0030 & Fig. 4; obvious because uplink synchronization without adjusting for timing advance by using cyclic prefix durations that are long enough to compensate for differences in propagation delay. FIG. 4 is a diagram of synchronized uplink transmissions from the UEs 123, 124 to the base station 110. Similar to the uplink transmissions 330, 340, the uplink transmissions 430, 440 include useful symbol portions 432, 442 (respectively) and cyclic prefixes 434, 444 (respectively). However, the cyclic prefixes 434, 444 have duration (or cyclic prefix length) that is sufficient to compensate for the difference in propagation delay between the UEs 123, 124 and the base station 110. As a result, the uplink transmissions 430, 440 are synchronized without adjusting for timing advance, which means that timing advance reference signaling can be omitted from the uplink transmissions 430, 440, thereby reducing overhead. It should be appreciated that the additional overhead attributable to the extended cyclic prefix durations in the uplink transmissions 430, 440 may be less than the overhead associated with timing advance reference signaling when the symbol duration of the uplink transmissions 430, 440 is short enough (e.g., below a threshold) and/or when the maximum propagation delay in the coverage area of the base station 110 is low enough (e.g., below a threshold)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Zhang in view of what is known in the art to reach the claims above. Utilizing such teachings e.g. accurate time synchronization help the system to ensure that different nodes of a radio (e.g. 5G) network (e.g. UPF, gNB, UE) share the same Time of Day (ToD) clock, such as the coordinated universal time (UTC) clock (known in the art).
Regarding Claim 25, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the determining of whether the estimated propagation delay is at least one of valid, or accurate comprises: determining whether the estimated propagation delay is less accurate than a threshold accuracy; and in response to a determination that the estimated propagation delay is less accurate than the threshold accuracy, determining that the estimated propagation delay is not at least one of: valid, or accurate (¶0030 & Fig. 4; obvious because uplink synchronization without adjusting for timing advance by using cyclic prefix durations that are long enough to compensate for differences in propagation delay. FIG. 4 is a diagram of synchronized uplink transmissions from the UEs 123, 124 to the base station 110. Similar to the uplink transmissions 330, 340, the uplink transmissions 430, 440 include useful symbol portions 432, 442 (respectively) and cyclic prefixes 434, 444 (respectively). However, the cyclic prefixes 434, 444 have duration (or cyclic prefix length) that is sufficient to compensate for the difference in propagation delay between the UEs 123, 124 and the base station 110. As a result, the uplink transmissions 430, 440 are synchronized without adjusting for timing advance, which means that timing advance reference signaling can be omitted from the uplink transmissions 430, 440, thereby reducing overhead. It should be appreciated that the additional overhead attributable to the extended cyclic prefix durations in the uplink transmissions 430, 440 may be less than the overhead associated with timing advance reference signaling when the symbol duration of the uplink transmissions 430, 440 is short enough (e.g., below a threshold) and/or when the maximum propagation delay in the coverage area of the base station 110 is low enough (e.g., below a threshold)).
Regarding Claim 27, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the mobile device is operating in a sensor-based timing synchronisation mode in which the propagation delay is estimated based on the data from the at least one motion sensor that is local to the mobile device, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that (¶0047; a UE may adjust its TA settings based on knowledge of the UE's relative or absolute position in the cell/network without using PRACH process with a preamble (so still TA free). For example, a UE that is operating in Operation Mode (a) may use a sensor (e.g., GPS, accelerometer, etc.) to gauge its absolute location in the cell, or a change in the UE's relative location within the cell comparison with the previous location, and then adjust its TA settings in a manner that compensates for an estimated round-trip/propagation-delay between the UE and the serving base station), when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least one of:
monitor downlink transmissions from the base station less often than when the mobile device is not operating in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode (this limitation is obvoius because UE perform transmission to base station without adjusting a timing advance which means that UE monitors downlink transmission “less often” as if UE to adjust a timing advance);
receive the downlink transmissions from the base station less often than when the mobile device is not operating in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode;
cause suspension of uplink transmissions from the mobile device to the base station;
or cause transmission of fewer uplink transmissions from the mobile device to the base station than when the mobile device is not operating in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teachings of Zhang in view of what is known in the art to reach the claims above. Utilizing such teachings e.g. accurate time synchronization help the system to ensure that different nodes of a radio (e.g. 5G) network (e.g. UPF, gNB, UE) share the same Time of Day (ToD) clock, such as the coordinated universal time (UTC) clock (known in the art).
Regarding Claim 28, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: determine to transition the mobile device into a sensor-based timing synchronisation mode in which the propagation delay is estimated based on the data from the at least one motion sensor that is local to the mobile device based on at least one of: a determination to reduce power usage of the mobile device, a determination that an ability to exchange transmissions with the base station has become, or is expected to become, less reliable, or a determination that the mobile device is, or will be, handed over from being served with the base station to being served with an at least partially different base station (¶0047; this limitation is obvious because UE adjust its TA settings without using PRACH process which leads to reduce power usage of mobile device).
Regarding Claim 29, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the base station, a message indicative that the mobile device is capable of operating in a sensor-based timing synchronisation mode in which the propagation delay is estimated based on the data from the at least one motion sensor that is local to the mobile device (¶0024, ¶0042 & ¶0047; obvious because UE can communicate in different modes).
Regarding Claim 30, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 29, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to, after transmission of the message, at least one of: receive, from the base station, timing synchronisation parameters indicative of downlink signal timings for use in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode (see ¶0043-¶0048; obvious from different tables for downlink signal timings according to Operation Mode (a)); or receive, from the base station, an instruction to operate in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode.
Regarding Claim 31, Zhang teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: transmit, to the base station, at least one of: an indication of an intent to transition the mobile device into a sensor-based timing synchronisation mode in which the propagation delay is estimated based on the data from the at least one motion sensor that is local to the mobile device (¶0047; obvious see Operation Mode (a)), a request for permission to transition the mobile device into the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode, information indicative of a maximum duration for which the mobile device will remain in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode before transitioning out of the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode, or information indicative of an estimated accuracy for the updated timing information when the mobile device is operating in the sensor-based timing synchronisation mode.
Claims 34-35 and 37-40 are substantially similar to the above claims, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights