TIME DIFFERENCE DETERMINATION METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM

DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1, 7, and 8 have been examined and are pending. Response to Amendment 2. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 8/28/2026, the Office acknowledges the current status of the claims: claims 1, 7, and 8 have been amended, claims 2-6 and 9-24 have been canceled, and no new matter appears to be included. 3. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 8/28/2026, the rejections of claims 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been withdrawn. 4. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 8/28/2026, the objection to the title of the specification has been withdrawn. The new title has been entered. Response to Arguments 5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 7, and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Claims 1, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0259976 A1 to Kurita et al. (hereinafter “Kurita”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0071894 A1 to Abedini et al. (hereinafter “Abedini”). Regarding Claim 1, Kurita discloses a time difference determination method, performed by an integrated access and backhaul (IAB) node comprising: determining a time difference according to at least one of a first-type parameter or a second-type parameter,… wherein the first-type parameter comprise at least one of a timing advance NTA or a first timing advance offset NTA,offset (Kurita: [0042-0043] – Expression 1 includes a timing advance and a timing advance offset (first-type parameter expression).); and the second-type parameter comprise at least one of timing parameter index Tdelta, a timing parameter reference Ndelta, or a timing parameter granularity Gstep (Kurita: [0042-0056] – the second parameter (expression) includes Tdelta (which may represent a plurality of parameters per the expression), Ndelta (further defined in [0070-0072] as a reference timing), and Gstep (as provided in view of Tdelta See also [0060-0070], [0074-0079].); wherein determining the time difference according to at least one of the first-type parameter or the second-type parameter comprises: determining the time difference according to a formula: TTD = TTA/2 + (-NTA,offset/2 + Ndelta + Tdelta*Gstep)*TC, wherein TTA = NTA*TC, or, TTA = (NTA + NTA,offset)*TC, and TC is a basic time unit (Kurita: these expressions can be derived from the equations disclosed in [0069-0070], [0073-0075], [0077-0079], [0083-0086], [0094-0095]). Kurita does not expressly disclose wherein the time difference is a difference between downlink transmitting timing (DTT) of a parent node of the IAB node and downlink reception timing (DRT) of the IAB node, the time difference is used for time alignment between the IAB node and the parent node of the IAB node, the IAB node comprises an IAB mobile terminal (IAB-MT) and communicates with the parent node of the IAB node through the IAB-MT, wherein TTA is a time interval between uplink transmitting timing (UTT) of the IAB-MT and DRT of the IAB-MT, and wherein the IAB node further comprises an IAB distribution unit (IAB-DU), and the UTT of the IAB-MT is set as DTT of the IAB-DU. However, these features cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Abedini. Abedini is similarly concerned with a time difference method performed by an IAB node (Abedini: [0006]). Abedini discloses, a time difference is a difference between downlink transmitting timing (DTT) of a parent node of the IAB node and downlink reception timing (DRT) of the IAB node (Abedini: [0115] – a time difference parameter is determined between a downlink transmission timing of a parent IAB node and the downlink reception timing of an IAB node (the IAB node may perform the adjusting).), the time difference [is used for time alignment between the IAB node and the parent node of the IAB node] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is interpreted as an intended result of the time difference calculated, since the limitation would not impose limits on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the time difference. Examiner respectfully suggests amending the bracketed limitation to positively recite features in order for said limitation to be given patentable distinction.), the IAB node comprises an IAB mobile terminal (IAB-MT) and communicates with the parent node of the IAB node through the IAB-MT (Abedini: [0027], Figure 7B with [0091] – an IAB-MT may be a child of the IAB node operable to communicate with the parent IAB node.), wherein TTA is a time interval between uplink transmitting timing (UTT) of the IAB-MT and DRT of the IAB-MT (Abedini: [0099], [0101] – “If the IAB node operates based on reception timing alignment at the IAB node (e.g., Case 7) with the IAB-MT transmission timing of the node obtained from the parent IAB node through a TA that instructs the IAB-MT to adjust its uplink transmission timing, the IAB node's uplink signal will arrive at the parent node a third time with a third offset to the parent IAB node's downlink transmission timing. The third offset is a function of one-way propagation delay between the parent IAB node and its own parent.” This is representative of an interval of time between an IAB-MT uplink transmission and a reception timing. In [0112], Abedini describes adjusting one or more the transmission and the reception timing of the MT or DU (i.e., IAB-MT/IAB-DU) based on the Tdelta.), and wherein the IAB node further comprises an IAB distribution unit (IAB-DU) (Abedini: [0027], [0090-0091], [0098], [0115] – corresponds to an IAB-DU corresponding to an IAB node or parent IAB node.), and the UTT of the IAB-MT is set as DTT of the IAB-DU (Abedini: Figure 7C with [0092] – “…type of timing alignment that aligns downlink reception timing of the IAB-MT of the IAB node (e.g., the IAB node 704) with the uplink reception timing of the IAB-DU of the IAB node, e.g., which facilitates simultaneous (e.g., overlapping at least partially in time) reception at the IAB node (e.g., the IAB node 704) by the IAB-MT (e.g., DL reception 716) and the IAB-DU (e.g., UL reception 714).” This may be determined based on a Tdelta parameter of the timing difference.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the time difference method of Kurita in view of the time difference method of Abedini to determine a time difference based on uplink transmission timing, downlink transmission timing, and downlink reception timing for the reasons of providing over the air synchronization between nodes in wireless communication. Claims 7 and 8, directed to an apparatus and article of manufacture embodiments, respectively, of claim 1, recite similar features as claim 1 and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Kurita further discloses the apparatus as an electronic device comprising one or more processors, a memory, and a program in at least Figure 4, and the article of manufacture as a non-transitory computer-readable medium in at least [0139-0140]. Conclusion 11. 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. 12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT). 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, Michael Thier can be reached at (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 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. BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV Primary Examiner Art Unit 2474 /BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 September 25, 2026