DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 22-25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 51-58 are pending.
Notice of 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 14 May 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This Application is the national stage application of an international application that claims a domestic benefit to a US provisional application, filed on 29 Mar 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement, submitted on 10 Sept 2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 because a certification statement was provided. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The Reply rehashes an argument previously provided. In particular, arguments directed the “event-based trigger vs. scheduled configuration” (Reply, 9-10) were addressed by the Advisory Action, dated 21 Apr 2026. All other arguments appear premised on the unsupported claim amendments accompanying this Reply. For the sake of prior art rejections, the Examiner interprets the claimed invention as detecting/receiving SSB/PBCH blocks on a PBCH as “physical-layer detection.” Nam, figure 18 (step 1810) and abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 22-25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, and 51-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In the most recent Reply, all independent claims appear to have been amended to recite, in part, “suppressing UE-initiated UL transmissions in response to physical-layer detection of a first SSB transmission, upon detection of the first SSB initiating a suppression state for UE-initiated UL transmissions, starting from a beginning of a first SSB detected as being transmitted by the radio access node.” This limitation fails to find clear support or antecedent basis within the disclosure. 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). Specifically, the Applicant was not in possession of “physical-layer detection of a first SSB” at the time of invention, let alone initiating a “suppression state” upon executing said “detection.”
The Reply does not proffer any citations to the disclosure as written description support for the most recent claim amendments. Reply, passim. A key word search of “physical” in the disclosure only returned hits for different types of physical channels. E.g. Spec., 1:12-13 (“Physical Broadcast Channel”) and 2:17 (“Physical Downlink Shared Channel”). “PHY” does not appear in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 –
(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.
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 1, 10, 12, 22, 31, 33, 51, 54, 55, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nam (US 20190098590) (cited on IDS dated 29 Sept 2021) or rendered obvious by Nam (of record) in view of NPL 1 on PTO-892, dated 27 Nov 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “LG”) or rendered obvious by Nam (of record) in view of Yi (US 20200067676).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, a method, performed at a User Equipment, and a UE, for handling transmissions in a serving cell Discovery Burst Transmission, DBT, window, the UE comprising: one or more processors; and memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the UE to:
receive a configuration indicating a serving cell DBT window (Nam, ¶¶123, 125 – UE receives SMTC configuration via SIB);
receive a configuration for UE-initiated Uplink, UL, transmission (Nam, ¶¶42, 56 – UE receives SIB with UL/DL composition information or UL/DL configuration);
suppress UE-initiated UL transmissions during at least a portion of the serving cell DBT window (Nam, ¶¶57-58 – UE prioritizes reception of SSB symbols over UL transmission within the SMTC window); and
receiving information indicating candidate Synchronization Signal (SS) Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) Block (SSB) positions that indicate symbols potentially occupied by SSBs (Nam, ¶55 – UE receives SS burst set composition via SIB, which indicates the pattern of symbols upon which SS blocks will be transmitted by the eNB [e.g. figure 10]; Nam, ¶57 – SMTC window [see pg. 82, section 5.5.2.10 of TS 38.331, cited in IDS of 10 Sept 2024, for SMTC standing for “SS/PBCH block measurement timing configuration”]),
and wherein suppressing UE-initiated UL transmissions in response to physical-layer detection of a first SSB transmission, upon detection of the first SSB initiating a suppression state for UE-initiated UL transmissions, starting from a beginning of a first SSB detected as being transmitted by the radio access node. Nam, ¶57 (UE drops UL transmission in the indicated SSB OFDM symbols, while allowing UL transmission in the symbols “around on the indicated SSB OFDM symbols” via rate matching [i.e. suppression does not start until the SSB symbol]); Nam, ¶152 (slot may be 14 symbols); Nam, abstract (SS/PBCH block is conveyed over the “physical broadcast channel” and therefore detection of its symbols constitutes “physical layer detection”).
In the first alternative, Nam does not explicitly teach suppressing UE-initiated UL transmissions “starting from a beginning of a first SSB detected as being transmitted by the radio access node.” However, LG is analogous art because it attempts to address collisions between SS/PBCH blocks and DL/UL control regions. LG, pg. 2 (1st paragraph under figure 1). To do so, LG enables the network to inform the UE of the positions of actual transmitted SS/PBCH blocks. LG, pg. 5 (under heading “The indication of actually transmitted SS/PBCH blocks within 5ms duration”). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to drop UL transmissions that conflicted with SSB symbols, taught by Nam, where the SSB symbols are actually transmitted, as taught by LG, in order to improve resource utilization of the UE’s serving cell, while still executing measurements on the UE’s neighboring cells. LG, pgs. 5-6.
In the second alternative, Nam does not explicitly teach suppressing UE-initiated UL transmissions “starting from a beginning of a first SSB detected as being transmitted by the radio access node.” However, Yi also addresses collisions with a rate-matching pattern. Yi, ¶309. To do so, Yi, rate-matches so that its transmission do not overlap with an indicated resource, such as an “actually transmitted SS block.” Yi, ¶¶312-313. The rate matching of Yi may occur at the symbol level. Yi, ¶319. At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rate-match around SSB symbols, taught by Nam, where the SSB symbols are actually transmitted, as taught by Yi, in order to more efficiently use network resources. Yi, ¶260.
Regarding claims 10 and 31, Nam also teaches suppressing symbols corresponding to potential transmissions of system information. Nam, ¶108 (CORESET properties are provided by the PBCH); Nam, ¶¶5-6 (SS/PBCH carries MIB/SIB information).
Regarding claims 12 and 33, Nam also teaches suppressing UE-initiated UL transmissions during an entire duration of the serving cell DBT window. Nam, ¶¶57-58 (UE prioritizes reception of SSB symbols over UL transmission within the entire SMTC window and does not outside the SMTC window).
Regarding claims 51 and 55, they are directed to a network node instead of a UE and thus require the inverse functionality of claims 1 and 22. The claimed inventions of claim 51 and 55 are rejected based upon the same rationale provided for claims 1 and 22 above.
Regarding claims 54 and 58, Nam or the combination of Nam and Harada teaches transmitting an ssb-PositionsInBurst Information Element. Harada, ¶97.
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 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 23, 25, 27, 28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam or Nam in view of LG or Yi (all of record), further in view of Intel Corp., R1-1814009: Summary of Discussions for Rel-15 NR mobility” 3GPP TSG WG1 Meeting #95, 12-16 Nov 2018, Spokane, Washington, 13 pages (cited on IDS, dated 30 Jan 2023) (hereinafter referred to as “Intel”).
Regarding claims 2 and 23, Nam or the combination of Nam and LG or Yi teaches the method of claim 1, the UE of claim 22, and wherein receiving the configuration indicating the serving cell DBT window (Nam, ¶¶123, 125 – UE receives SMTC configuration via SIB), where the SIB includes an information element that is periodically broadcasted (Nam, ¶¶45, 105). Nam or the combination of Nam and Harada does not explicitly teach its SIB “containing a field that indicates a duration of the serving cell DBT window.” However, Intel teaches the field measurementSlots, where the length of the bit string found in the field indicates the duration of the SMTC window. Intel, pg. 4, 2nd box (the number of slots [i.e. duration] of the SMTC corresponds to the number of bits in the bit string). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the measurementSlots field, taught by Intel, within the SIB, taught by Nam or the combination of Nam and LG or Yi, in order to provide the UE with which slots it should measure the RSSI, thus improving coordination between the eNB and UE for acquiring the RSSI. Ibid. (when “1,” the UE measures the RSSI and when a “0,” the UE does not measure the RSSI).
Regarding claims 4 and 25, the combination of Nam, LG or Yi, and Intel teaches the method of claim 2, the UE of claim 23, and a field that indicates the duration of a serving cell DBT window. Intel, pg. 4, 2nd box (measurementSlots). The described invention seems to have the “discoveryBurstWindowLength-r16” field as containing an enumerated value of s0dot5, s1, s2, s3, s4, or s5. Spec, 16:24-25. The bitmap of measurementSlots similarly contains a value in the form of a binary number, while performing the same function as “discovery- BurstWindowLength-r16,” as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, the combination of Nam and Intel does not teach naming its field being “discovery- BurstWindowLength-r16.” However, naming the field that provides the duration of a DBT window is a matter of design choice. At the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the name “discovery-BurstWindowLength-r16” in place of measurementSlots, as taught by the combination of Nam and Intel, in order to provide a field name that explicitly indicates that the field includes the duration of a SMTC window, thus reducing ambiguity as to the field’s contents.
Regarding claim 6 and 27, Nam or the combination of Nam and LG or Yi teaches the method of claim 1, the UE of claim 22 wherein receiving the information indicating the candidate SSB positions (Nam, ¶55 – UE receives SS burst set composition via SIB, which indicates the pattern of symbols upon which SS blocks will be transmitted by the eNB [see e.g. figure 10]), but does not explicitly teach “receiving a bitmap that indicates the pattern.” However, Intel teaches a measurementSlots field that contains a bit string where “1” indicates that the UE should measure the RSSI of a given slot in the SMTC window. Intel, pg. 4, second box and pg. 6 (box). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the measurementSlots field, taught by Intel, within the SIB, taught by Nam or the combination of Nam and Harada, in order to provide the UE with which slots it should measure the RSSI, thus improving coordination between the eNB and UE for acquiring the RSSI. Ibid. (when “1,” the UE measures the RSSI and when a “0,” the UE does not measure the RSSI).
Regarding claims 7 and 28, the combination of Nam, LG or Yi, and Intel also teaches wherein the bitmap is contained in the Information Element ssb-PositionsInBurst. Intel, pg. 2 (box under “Summary of offline discussions”).
Regarding claims 9 and 30, Nam or the combination of Nam and LG or Yi teaches the method of claim 1, the UE of claim 22, and suppressing the UE-initiated UL transmissions during the at least a portion of the serving cell DBT window (Nam, ¶¶57-58 – UE prioritizes reception of SSB symbols over UL transmission within the SMTC window). Nam does not explicitly teach “suppressing UE-initiated UL transmissions during all symbols of any slot containing symbols potentially occupied by the SSBs according to the candidate SSB positions.” Instead of suppressing all symbols of a slot (i.e. slot-level granularity), Nam teaches suppressing only the symbols that are SSB (i.e. symbol-level granularity). However, Intel teaches slot level granularity for suppressing UL transmissions. Intel, pg. 2, second box (“for reception of SS/PBCH blocks, the UE does not transmit PUSCH, PUCCH, PRACH in the slot if a transmission would overlap with any symbol”). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the slot-level of granularity for prohibiting UL transmissions, as taught by Intel, in place of the symbol-level of granularity, as taught by Nam or the combination of Nam and LG or Yi, in order to simplify the allocation of uplink and downlink resources through the use of larger resource block designations, which eases the hardware requirements on the antenna chain to delineate between smaller resources.
Claims 3, 24, 52, 52, 56, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam in view of Intel (both of record) or Nam in view of LG or Yi and Intel (all of record), as applied above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2021/0360665).
Regarding claims 3 and 24, the combination of Nam, LG or Yi, and Intel teaches the method of claim 2, the UE of claim 23, and a SIB with an information element that is broadcasted. Nam, ¶¶45, 105. The combination of Nam, Harada, and Intel does not explicitly teach “wherein the field in dedicated signaling is ServingCellConfigCommon and the field in broadcast signaling is ServingCellConfigCommonSIB.” However, Takahashi teaches both fields. Takahashi, ¶55 (ServingCellConfigCommonSIB is ServingCellConfigCommon in SIB1). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the field names, taught by Takahashi, for the fields of the SIB, taught by the combination of Nam, LG or Yi, and Intel, in order to take advantage of the flexible signaling of parameters provided by a hierarchical structure conveying cell-specific parameter configuration information to the UE. Id. at ¶¶52, 54; see also id. at ¶26 (layers may be omitted or added as needed).
Regarding claims 52 and 56, Nam or the combination of Nam and LG or Yi teaches the method of claim 51, and the radio access node of claim 55 and transmitting the configuration indicating the serving cell DBT window. Nam, ¶¶123, 125 (UE receives SMTC configuration via SIB). Nam does not explicitly teach “transmitting a ServingCellConfigCommon Information Element, IE, or a ServingCellConfigCommonSlB IE containing a field that indicates a duration of the serving cell DBT window. However, Intel teaches the field measurementSlots, where the length of the bit string that comprises the field indicates the duration of the SMTC window. Intel, pg. 4, 2nd box (the number of slots [i.e. duration] of the SMTC corresponds to the number of bits in the bit string). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include the measurementSlots field, taught by Intel, within the SIB, taught by Nam, in order to provide the UE with which slots it should measure the RSSI, thus improving coordination between the eNB and UE for acquiring the RSSI. Ibid. (when “1,” the UE measures the RSSI and when a “0,” the UE does not measure the RSSI).
The combination of Nam and Intel does not explicitly teach “a ServingCellConfigCommon Information Element” or “a ServingCellConfigCommonSlB IE” conveying the duration of the DBT window. However, Takahashi teaches both fields. Takahashi, ¶55 (ServingCellConfigCommonSIB is ServingCellConfigCommon in SIB1). At the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the field names, taught by Takahashi, for the fields of the SIB, taught by the combination of Nam and Intel, in order to take advantage of the flexible signaling of parameters provided by a hierarchical structure conveying cell-specific parameter configuration information to the UE. Id. at ¶¶52, 54; see also id. at ¶26 (layers may be omitted or added as needed).
Regarding claims 53 and 57, the combination of Nam, LG or Yi, Intel, and Takahashi teaches the method of claim 52, the radio access node of claim 56, and a field that indicates the duration of a serving cell DBT window. Intel, pg. 4, 2nd box (measurementSlots). The described invention seems to have the “discoveryBurstWindowLength-r16” field as containing an enumerated value of s0dot5, s1, s2, s3, s4, or s5. Spec, 16:24-25. The bitmap of measurementSlots similarly contains a value in the form of a binary number, while performing the same function as “discovery- BurstWindowLength-r16,” as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above. However, the combination of Nam and Intel does not teach naming its field being “discovery- BurstWindowLength-r16.” However, naming the field that provides the duration of a DBT window is a matter of design choice. At the effective filing date of the invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the name “discovery-BurstWindowLength-r16” in place of measurementSlots, as taught by the combination of Nam and Intel, in order to provide a field name that explicitly indicates that the field includes the duration of a SMTC window, thus reducing ambiguity as to the field’s contents.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include ¶108 of Kang, which describes a period for a SS block pattern; ¶65 of a second Harada reference (prior art by 1 day), which describes a “duration” parameter for an SMTC window; and pg. 5 of R1-1713121, which describes an indication of “actually transmitted SS/PCH bocks” within a SS burst duration.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN S LAMONT whose telephone number is (571)270-7514 and fax number is 571-270-8514 and email address is benjamin.lamont@uspto.gov (see MPEP 502.03 for authorizing unsecure communication). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am to 3pm 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, Huy Vu can be reached on 571-272-3155. 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 Lamont/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights