CTNF 18/727,247 CTNF 85644 DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1, 2, and 7-24 have been examined and are pending (amended claim set received in the Office on 7/08/2024). Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 3. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Drawings 06-37 AIA 4. The drawings were received on 7/08/2024 . These drawings are accepted . Specification 06-11 AIA 5. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 06-11-01 AIA The following title is suggested: MULTI-PARAMETER BASED TIME DIFFERENCE DETERMINATION METHOD, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM . 06-31 AIA 6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 8. Claims 1, 2, and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 1, reciting " determining a time difference according to at least one of a first-type parameter or a second-type parameter ”, is a mental process and thus interpreted as an abstract idea. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. V. Retail Decisions, Inc. , 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Claims 7 and 8 are directed to a device and a non-transitory storage medium, respectively, performing the step of determining, however use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Bilski V. Kappos , 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010). Upon review of the originally-filed disclosure, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but only in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the interpretation allows for a determination that the claim does not improve technology or a technical field. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology or a technical field, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, i.e., that the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. In this case, claims 1, 7, and 8 do not reflect a disclosed improvement. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., “ thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel ”). See, e.g., Ex Parte Desjardins , Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential), in which the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “ catastrophic forgetting ,” and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. Indeed, enumerated improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Claims 2 and 9-24 are dependent therefrom, however they do not contribute anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 9. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 10. 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA 11. Claim s 1, 2, and 7-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0259976 A1 to Kurita et al. (hereinafter “Kurita”) . Regarding Claim 1 , Kurita discloses a time difference determination method, 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 N TA or a first timing advance offset N TA,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 a timing parameter index T delta , a timing parameter reference N delta , or a timing parameter granularity G step (Kurita: [0042-0056] – the second parameter (expression) includes T delta (which may represent a plurality of parameters per the expression), N delta (further defined in [0070-0072] as a reference timing), and G step (as a provided in view of T delta See also [0060-0070], [0074-0079].). 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]. Regarding Claims 2, 15, and 20 , Kurita discloses the time difference determination method according to claim 1, 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: T TD = T TA /2 + (-N TA,offset /2 + N delta + T delta *G step )*T C , wherein T TA = N TA *T C , or, T TA = (N TA + N TA,offset )*T C , and T C 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]). Regarding Claims 9, 16, and 21 , Kurita discloses the time difference determination method according to claim 2, wherein in a first timing mode, T TA is a timing advance of uplink transmitting timing of an integrated access and backhaul mobile terminal (IAB-MT) with respect to downlink receiving timing of the IAB-MT, and is configured by a parent node or a serving node (Kurita: [0046-0047], [0069], [0083] – corresponds to the timing advance between the IAB-MT and its serving cell, an uplink/downlink timing determined by the terminal.). Regarding Claims 10, 17, and 22 , Kurita discloses the time difference determination method according to claim 9, wherein in the first timing mode, the uplink transmitting timing of the IAB-MT is determined by T TA , wherein T TA = (N TA + N TA,offset )*T C (Kurita: [0045-0046] – corresponds to Expression 2 or 3). Regarding Claims 11, 18, and 23 , Kurita discloses the time difference determination method according to claim 2, wherein in a second timing mode, T TA is a time interval between uplink transmitting timing of an IAB-MT and downlink receiving timing of the IAB-MT (Kurita: [0083-0085], [0094-0095] – corresponds to T TA being a time interval “ between the start timing of reception frame i of UL signals and the start timing of the transmission frame of DL signal at the parent node ”.). Regarding Claims 12, 19, and 24 , Kurita discloses the time difference determination method according to claim 11, wherein in the second timing mode, the uplink transmitting timing of the IAB-MT is set as downlink transmitting timing of the IAB-MT (Kurita: [0042-0043], [0062-0063] – corresponds to an expression comprising UL and DL transmission timing of the IAB-MT.). Conclusion 12. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03. 13. 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 May 23, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/727,247 Page 2 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/727,247 Page 3 Art Unit: 2474 Application/Control Number: 18/727,247 Page 4 Art Unit: 2474
Prosecution Insights