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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the claims received on 5/8/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims 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 Interpretation
Plain Meaning (MPEP 2111.01): MPEP 2111.01 states: The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification. An applicant is entitled to be their own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s) in the specification at the relevant time. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case:
“Terminal device”: Regarding independent claims 15, 31, claimed "terminal device" is a portable user device and is not a generic placeholder or a substitute for "means". Therefore, the independent claims are not single means claims.
Subject Matter Eligible under 35 USC 101
Please refer to the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes in MPEP 2106 and in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, hereinafter, the “2019 PEG”:
Step 1: See MPEP 2106.03: 35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. Claims 15-19, 21-32, 34-35 are directed to statutory categories "process" and "machine". Therefore, the answer in step 1 is YES.
Step 2A: MPEP 2106 subclause II. “ELIGIBILITY STEP 2A: WHETHER A CLAIM IS DIRECTED TO A JUDICIAL EXCEPTION” explains that Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A prong 1: The 2019 PEG explains that Step 2A prong 1 procedure for determining whether a claim “recites” an abstract idea is: identify the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determine whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, which are: Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), Mental Processes, concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). In this case, the independent claims recite an abstract idea of concept performed in the human mind, including an observation, of exchanging information between two parties; therefore, the answer to Step 2 prong 1 is YES.
Step 2A prong 2: Yes, the claim does recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Par. 3 of the specification describes a problem of prior art systems where, when two terminal devices do not function as a synchronization source of one another, there may be a synchronization timing difference between these two terminal devices, leading to many problems. Par. 17 of the specification describes a solution to the problem, which includes adding a process for eliminating the impact resulted from synchronization timing differences between two terminals by exchanging synchronization information between the two terminals, as claimed. Therefore, the claimed invention provides an improvement to the state-of-the-art peer-to-peer communications, which is therefore a specific improvement over prior systems, and the claimed invention reflects such practical application. Please refer to MPEP 2106.04(d): "Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application" under the header "Relevant considerations for evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application": "Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: • An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)". See for example the court decision in 118 USPQ2d 1684 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp; U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, page 1689: “much of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes”. Therefore, the answer to prong 2 is YES, and the claims are eligible in step 2A.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to due to the following informalities: "sending, by the first terminal device, first information, wherein…" Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 18, 21-23, 29 incorporate all limitations of claim 17, and are therefore objected to for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
Joint Inventors, Common Ownership Presumed
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Test for Obviousness
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 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 15, 24, 26, 28, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (publication number 2015/0119056), hereinafter Lee, and further in view of Li et al (publication number 2018/0139706), hereinafter Li.
Lee uses the following terminology and acronyms:
[0014] Device-to-Device (D2D) communication.
[0045] In the entire specification, a terminal may indicate a mobile terminal (MT), a mobile station (MS), an advanced mobile station (AMS), a high reliability mobile station (HR-MS), a subscriber station (SS), a portable subscriber station (PSS), an access terminal (AT), and user equipment (UE).
[0046] A base station (BS) may indicate an advanced base station (ABS), a high reliability base station (HR-BS), a node B, an evolved node B (eNodeB), an access point (AP), a radio access station (RAS), a base transceiver station (BTS).
[0046], [0052], Table 1 after [0059]: a UE can relay information from the base station to other UE's.
[0059] A physical channel used for synchronization of a terminal is divided into a synchronization signal and a synchronization channel. The synchronization signal can be a Primary Synchronization Signal (PSS) or a Secondary Synchronization Signal (SSS).
[0071] A centralized control device can be a UE such as UE9 in Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches a method for sidelink communication (please refer to Lee method represented in Fig. 3 and [0051] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a communication environment of D2D communication), comprising:
sending, by a first terminal device (claimed "first terminal device" equates to Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]: A centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts, through an uplink, a synchronization signal; or BS1 and BS2 broadcast, through a downlink, a synchronization signal. [0059] The information listed in Table 1 right after [0059] may be broadcasted through a synchronization channel or in a synchronization signal), a type of one or more synchronization sources for D2D (Lee Table 1: Type of Synchronization Source, representing a characteristic of a device (e.g., eNodeB, UE, broadcasting UE, CH, etc.), cell identity information corresponding to the one or more synchronization sources for D2D (Lee Table 1: Physical cell ID is a cell identifier of a base station; Centralized control device ID is an identifier of a device broadcasting a synchronization signal), and synchronization accuracy information of the one or more synchronization sources for D2D (Lee Table 1: Accuracy of a synchronization signal can be an error range or a hop count when synchronization of a base station is relayed – it would have been obvious for a UE to relay part or all the information it receives from a base station) to a first device (claimed "first device" equates to Lee's general UE6-UE8 in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]: General UE6-UE8, that do not have a function of the centralized control device, continuously perform an operation that receives an uplink synchronization signal that a centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts through an uplink).
Lee does not explicitly teach "sidelink".
Li teaches sidelink (Li [0043] In FIG. 2, the first and second UEs 12, 13 are D2D capable devices and also have a side link, denoted Link 3 in the figure, over which they may communicate directly with each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of Li into the disclosure of Lee, in order to enable accurate measurements for handling of a device-to-device side link in a cellular system, e.g. in view of power control and link adaptation, and because there is a need for methods to handle problems relating to the D2D link resulting e.g. from the dynamically changing transmission power, for example, for the reception node to estimate the pathloss to the transmitting node, to perform power control for the D2D reverse link in order to mitigate D2D link interference, and for the reception node to estimate CSI for the D2D forward link (Li [0001], [0006]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee teaches wherein (this wherein clause does not have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In order to have patentable weight, this wherein clause should be positively recited such as, for example, "receiving, by the first terminal device, from one of…") the type of one or more synchronization sources for sidelink, the cell identity information corresponding to the one or more synchronization sources for sidelink, and the synchronization accuracy information of the one or more synchronization sources for sidelink (Lee Table 1 as previously explained) are received by the first terminal device (claimed "first terminal device" equates to Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee [0071]. The centralized control device in Lee Fig. 1 is UE9. It would have been obvious to configure a UE other than UE9 as the centralized control device) from at least one of a first synchronization source (BS1 in Lee [0071]: A centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts, through an uplink, a synchronization signal; or BS1 and BS2 broadcast, through a downlink, a synchronization signal) and a second synchronization source (UE9 in Lee [0071]), wherein the first terminal device is synchronized with the first synchronization source (Lee [0055] In order for a terminal to participate in D2D communication, the terminal should maintain time synchronization. For example, terminal UE1 uses a synchronization signal that the BS1 broadcasts through a downlink), and a second terminal device is synchronized with the second synchronization source (Lee [0105] The UE6 acquires a synchronization signal that the UE9 operating as a centralized control device broadcasts through an uplink).
Regarding claim 26, Lee teaches further comprising: receiving, by the first terminal device (claimed "first terminal device" equates to Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]: A centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts, through an uplink, a synchronization signal; or BS1 and BS2 broadcast, through a downlink, a synchronization signal), second information (Lee [0059] The information listed in Table 1 right after [0059] may be broadcasted through a synchronization channel or in a synchronization signal) from the first device (claimed "first device" equates to Lee's general UE6-UE8 in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]: General UE6-UE8, that do not have a function of the centralized control device, continuously perform an operation that receives an uplink synchronization signal that a centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts through an uplink), wherein (this wherein clause does not have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In order to have patentable weight, this wherein clause should be positively recited such as, for example, "requesting, via second information, target synchronization…") the second information is configured to request (Lee [0010] Terminals participating in D2D communication should maintain time and frequency synchronization, and a synchronization procedure for this is requested. [0067] Transmission/reception of a message for distribution synchronization is required, and a procedure thereof is as follows. Specifically, the base station (e.g., BS1) sends a request to a peripheral terminal to determine whether the peripheral terminal may operate as a centralized control device) target synchronization information comprising at least one of synchronization information of the first terminal device (Lee Table 1: Type of Synchronization Source, representing a characteristic of a device (e.g., eNodeB, UE, broadcasting UE, CH, etc.) or synchronization information of the second terminal device.
Regarding claim 28, Lee teaches wherein the type of one or more synchronization sources for sidelink, the cell identity information corresponding to the one or more synchronization sources for sidelink, and the synchronization accuracy information of the one or more synchronization sources for sidelink (Lee Table 1 as previously explained) are used by the first device to position a third terminal device (Lee Table 1: Location information of a centralized control device).
Regarding claim 31, Lee teaches a first terminal device (claimed "first terminal device" equates to Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]), comprising:
at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media (Lee Fig. 8 and [0134] The terminal 100 includes a processor 110, a memory 120) for first terminal device (Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]) to perform operations comprising:
sending a type of one or more synchronization sources for D2D (Lee Table 1: Type of Synchronization Source, representing a characteristic of a device (e.g., eNodeB, UE, broadcasting UE, CH, etc.), cell identity information corresponding to the one or more synchronization sources for D2D (Lee Table 1: Physical cell ID is a cell identifier of a base station; Centralized control device ID is an identifier of a device broadcasting a synchronization signal), and synchronization accuracy information of the one or more synchronization sources for D2D (Lee Table 1: Accuracy of a synchronization signal can be an error range or a hop count when synchronization of a base station is relayed – it would have been obvious for a UE to relay part or all the information it receives from a base station) to a first device (claimed "first device" equates to Lee's general UE6-UE8 in Lee Fig. 1 and [0071]: General UE6-UE8, that do not have a function of the centralized control device, continuously perform an operation that receives an uplink synchronization signal that a centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts through an uplink).
Lee does not explicitly teach "sidelink"; "programming instructions".
Li teaches sidelink (Li [0043] In FIG. 2, the first and second UEs 12, 13 are D2D capable devices and also have a side link, denoted Link 3 in the figure, over which they may communicate directly with each other); at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor, wherein the programming instructions, when executed, cause the first terminal device to perform operations (Li [0088] processor 40, 50; software instructions stored in a memory 41, 51; computer program product 41, 51. The processor 40, 50 can be configured to execute any of the various embodiments of the method 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee, by incorporating the teachings of Li into the disclosure of Lee, in order to enable accurate measurements for handling of a device-to-device side link in a cellular system, e.g. in view of power control and link adaptation, and because there is a need for methods to handle problems relating to the D2D link resulting e.g. from the dynamically changing transmission power, for example, for the reception node to estimate the pathloss to the transmitting node, to perform power control for the D2D reverse link in order to mitigate D2D link interference, and for the reception node to estimate CSI for the D2D forward link (Li [0001], [0006]).
Claims 16, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Li, and further in view of Ljung et al (publication number 2020/0328859), hereinafter Ljung.
Regarding claims 16, 32, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach: sending, by the first terminal device, pilot signals to a third terminal device; or receiving, by the first terminal device, pilot signals sent by the third terminal device; wherein the pilot signals are signals configured for sidelink positioning.
Ljung teaches sending, by the first terminal device, pilot signals to a third terminal device (Ljung [0094] FIG. 8A illustrates aspects with respect to the terminal 130-1 receiving the UL pilot signals 901 transmitted by the terminal 130-2. [0074] The pilot signals 310 may be uplink pilot signals, downlink pilot signals, and/or sidelink pilot signals); or receiving, by the first terminal device, pilot signals sent by the third terminal device; wherein (this wherein clause does not have patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In order to have patentable weight, this wherein clause should be positively recited such as, for example, "performing, based on the pilot signals, sidelink positioning") the pilot signals are signals configured for sidelink positioning (Ljung [0183] At 2052, the relative position of the first terminal 130, 130-1-130-4 with respect to the second terminal 130, 130-1-130-4 may be determined. As part of 2052, the travel time of the UL pilot signals 310-318 from the second terminal 130, 130-1-130-4 to the first terminal 130, 130-1-130-4 can be taken into account. Triangulation techniques may be employed. Alternatively or additionally, the travel time of the UL pilot signals 310-318 from the second terminal 130, 130-1-130-4 to the respective eNB 112, 112-1-112-3 can be taken into account. See also Ljung's claim 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Ljung into the disclosure of Lee as modified, in order to develop techniques which enable to efficiently communicate pilot signals such as UL pilot signals or DL pilot signals or sidelink pilot signals, and to ensure that the eNB has knowledge on the position of the participating terminals, in which case, resources may be re-used for communicating pilot signals in different parts of a cell where no or only little interference is expected; thus, pilot contamination can be avoided; while, at the same time, resources are efficiently utilized (Ljung [0177], [0190]).
Claims 17-18, 21-23, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Li, and further in view of Agrawal et al (publication number 2017/0078851), hereinafter Agrawal.
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches further comprising: sending, by a first terminal device, first information (claimed "first terminal device" equates to Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee [0071]: A centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts, through an uplink, a synchronization signal; or BS1 and BS2 broadcast, through a downlink, a synchronization signal. [0059] The information listed in Table 1 right after [0059] may be broadcasted through a synchronization channel or in a synchronization signal).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and a second terminal device; or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device.
Agrawal teaches wherein the first information comprises at least one of: time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and a second terminal device (claimed features until this point don’t limit the claim, and aren’t required, because they are alternative to another limitation already taught by prior art. See MPEP 2143.03); or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Agrawal [0025] In an indoor environment, certain mobile devices may obtain an indoor position fix by utilizing positioning assistance data provided by an indoor navigation or like system. Such positioning assistance data includes information to facilitate measurements of ranges to wireless access points at known fixed locations, for example, round-trip delay times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Agrawal into the disclosure of Lee as modified, in order to implement sufficient indoor positioning, facilitating or supporting mobile applications while improving power consumption of mobile devices, reducing complexity and/or associated costs (Agrawal [0028]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches wherein the first information comprises at least one of: a coverage of the one or more synchronization sources (Lee [0104]-[0106] The UE6 of Fig. 1 receives synchronization information and terminal coverage communication information from UE9); or a synchronization connection status of the one or more synchronization sources.
Regarding claims 21-23, 29: claim 21 recites "The method according to claim 17, wherein the time difference information comprises at least one of…". However, claimed “time difference information comprises…” doesn’t limit the claim, and isn’t required, because it is alternative to another limitation already taught by prior art in intervening claim 17. See MPEP 2143.03. Claims 22-23, 29 depend upon claim 21 and therefore they are not limiting for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 30, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach "positioning server".
Agrawal teaches wherein the first device is a positioning server (Agrawal [0034] Servers may include, for example, a location server 116, positioning assistance server 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Agrawal into the disclosure of Lee as modified, in order to implement sufficient indoor positioning, facilitating or supporting mobile applications while improving power consumption of mobile devices, reducing complexity and/or associated costs (Agrawal [0028]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Li, and further in view of Aoki et al (publication number 2022/0360845), hereinafter Aoki.
Regarding claim 19, Lee as modified does not explicitly teach "an accuracy unit of a synchronization estimation, and the accuracy unit comprises one or more of: an integer multiple of a sampling interval; nanosecond (ns); microsecond (µs); or millisecond (ms)".
Aoki teaches wherein the synchronization accuracy information comprises an accuracy unit of a synchronization estimation, and the accuracy unit comprises one or more of: an integer multiple of a sampling interval; nanosecond (ns); microsecond (µs); or millisecond (ms, Aoki [0074] Note that synchronization using a network time protocol (NPT) is achieved with ms (millisecond)-unit accuracy between a server and a client, whereas the synchronization using the PTP can be achieved in 1 μs (microsecond) or less).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Aoki into the disclosure of Lee as modified, in order to achieve a reduction in memory and low-latency encoding/decoding without unnecessary data accumulation for avoiding the underflow of a decoder buffer, and in order to prevent occurrence of skipping for suppression of buffer overflow owing to unnecessary data accumulation and repetition owing to buffer underflow, and in order to improve media presentation quality (Aoki [0013]).
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Li, in view of Ljung, in view of Agrawal.
Regarding claim 34, Lee teaches further comprising: sending, by a first terminal device, first information (claimed "first terminal device" equates to Lee's "centralized control device" (UE9) in Lee [0071]: A centralized control device (UE9) broadcasts, through an uplink, a synchronization signal; or BS1 and BS2 broadcast, through a downlink, a synchronization signal. [0059] The information listed in Table 1 right after [0059] may be broadcasted through a synchronization channel or in a synchronization signal).
Lee as modified does not explicitly teach time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and a second terminal device; or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device.
Agrawal teaches wherein the first information comprises at least one of: time difference information associated with at least one of the first terminal device and a second terminal device (claimed features until this point don’t limit the claim, and aren’t required, because they are alternative to another limitation already taught by prior art. See MPEP 2143.03); or round-trip delay between the first terminal device and the second terminal device (Agrawal [0025] In an indoor environment, certain mobile devices may obtain an indoor position fix by utilizing positioning assistance data provided by an indoor navigation or like system. Such positioning assistance data includes information to facilitate measurements of ranges to wireless access points at known fixed locations, for example, round-trip delay times).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Lee as modified, by incorporating the teachings of Agrawal into the disclosure of Lee as modified, in order to implement sufficient indoor positioning, facilitating or supporting mobile applications while improving power consumption of mobile devices, reducing complexity and/or associated costs (Agrawal [0028]).
Regarding claim 35, Lee teaches wherein the first information comprises at least one of: a coverage of the one or more synchronization sources (Lee [0104]-[0106] The UE6 of Fig. 1 receives synchronization information and terminal coverage communication information from UE9); or a synchronization connection status of the one or more synchronization sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant’s reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Reasons for Indicating Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 25, Lee teaches in Table 1, various types of information exchanged between base stations and mobile devices, and exchanged also by mobile devices among each other. However, Lee falls short of notifying a synchronization source to report its own source type.
Regarding claim 27, Lee teaches in Table 1, various types of information exchanged between base stations and mobile devices, and exchanged also by mobile devices among each other. However, Lee's Table 1 falls short of a device identifier of a device associated with the target synchronization information; and expected synchronization accuracy information corresponding to the target synchronization information.
Therefore, in view of their respective base claims, the further limitations of the above-mentioned claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious by the prior art.
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 extension fee 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 RONALD EISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3334. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Tuesday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats see MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RONALD EISNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights