DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 01/27/2026.
Claims 5-9 are pending for Examination.
Claims 5, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 have been cancelled to date.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 5, 8, and 9, Applicant argues that the prior art combination of Liu in view of Si, does not fairly teach/suggest the amended claim feature of receiving an SSB on a first frequency band different from a second frequency band including a frequency range(s), “the first frequency band being a higher frequency band than the second frequency band,” under §103 (labeled as item i). Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 5-6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regard to the above-amended claim language, the claimed “second frequency band” is relatively unspecified within Applicant’s independent claims, other than being recited as “…including one or a plurality of frequency ranges,” and being for some reason lower in frequency than the claimed “first frequency band.” Only Applicant’s dependent claims, 6 and 7, provide additional context as to the scope of the claimed “second frequency band.”
For example, dependent claim 6, additionally recites: “…when using the first frequency band…” “…determin[ing] …an information element indicating subcarrier spacing for the system information is used for other purpose different from the second frequency band,” “…based on values of the first frequency band and the second frequency band,” which is somewhat confusingly worded, but seems to indicate that the second frequency band has a value that is at least partially used to determine an information element associated with the first frequency band that indicates a SCS for SI is used for some other purpose, i.e., a different purpose, than that of the second frequency band.
As another example, dependent claim 7, additionally recites: “…the multiplexing pattern applied in the first frequency band is a limited multiplexing pattern in number or content than the multiplexing pattern applied in the second frequency band,” which seems to indicate that that second frequency band is associated with a multiplexing pattern that is somehow less-limited than that of the first frequency band.
Therefore, at best, only the dependent claims narrow the interpretation of the claimed “second frequency band,” by considering its “value” in determinations associated with the “first frequency band,” for claim 6, and by considering its associated “multiplexing pattern” relative to that of the first frequency band,” for claim 7.
However, with respect to each of Applicant’s amended independent claims, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim language applying its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI). In this regard, the claimed “second frequency band” can be reasonably interpreted to be any disclosed frequency band having a “lower frequency” than that of the “first frequency band.”
Lui describes future wireless communications having a “higher” frequency in the range of 28Ghz, 45Ghz, and beyond/etc., described as being higher in frequency than that of a 4G communication system, i.e., NR frequencies, at paras. [0004], [0020], and [0041]. In this regard, Lui teaches communications systems beyond 4G, in terms of operating frequency bands, i.e., NR communications, that have higher frequency ranges than that of legacy 4G systems. This is effectively all that is recited in the independent claims in terms of: a second, lower frequency band, as compared to a first higher frequency band.
The independent claims also require the higher “first frequency band,” such as a frequency band beyond/or higher than a 4G frequency band, which can be used to transmit/receive a SSB. Liu teaches this additional claim subject matter of receiving an SSB in a NR system, at paras. [0020]-[0021], [0094]-[0095], and [0197], in combination with Fig. 1, which visually depicts a SSB block (SS/PBCH block) communicated in a frequency band associated with NR. Therefore, Lui fairly teaches/suggests the amended claim limitation of: “the first frequency band being a higher frequency band than the second frequency band,” applying the Office’s BRI standard. If Applicant wishes the claimed “second frequency band” to be interpreted more narrowly, in-line with their combined disclosure, it must amend its independent claims accordingly.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that various features upon which applicant relies are not recited within the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant also argues that Si fails to teach/suggest the additional claim limitation: “wherein combinations in which the synchronization signal block and the downlink channel have different subcarrier spacings are not supported in the first frequency band,” labeled as item ii. Applicants Remarks at pp. 6-7. This limitation requires a frequency band not supporting SSB-PDCCH combinations with different SCS’, or alternatively stated, a frequency band supporting only SSB-PDCCH combinations with the same SCS, which is recited previously within the same claim. In this regard, the claims effectively recite the same limitation/feature twice, in a different way, which can result in the second limitation being interpreted as failing to further limit existing claim scope in any meaningful way.
Regardless, Si describes an analogous term for sub-carrier spacing (SCS) is “numerology,” and an SSB, i.e., the SS/PBCH block, numerology/SCS can be configured to be the same as that of the RMSI CORESET, which corresponds to PDCCH, i.e., a DL control channel, scheduling RMSI via a table, such as Table 7F where the common SCS/numerology is 120kHz (paras. [0171], [0177], [0182], [0278], [0342], and [0381], as well as, paras. [0074] and [0141] and Table 5 of present disclosure from 3GPP TS38.213 and Release 15). Notably, Applicant’s disclosure similarly equates SCS to numerology, at para. [0037], and indicates various equivalent terminology for CORESET#0, Type0-PDCCH CSS, first/initial resource set, MIB resource set, etc., at para. [0050]. Thus, Si fairly teaches/suggests the contested claim features of: a SCS of a downlink control channel with a same SCS of an SSB, and a frequency band that supports only the same SCS for combination of the SSB and the downlink control channel (the restatement).
Applicant then argues that Si is “completely silent regarding solving the problem” to which its invention is directed. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. However, the Examiner notes that Si is only relied upon under §103 to reject certain features of Applicant’s claimed invention, which Si does, applying the Office’s BRI standard to interpret the corresponding, contested claim limitations. Moreover, in response to Applicant's arguments against the references independently, i.e., against Si alone, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references, i.e., Liu in view of Si. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments asserted for each of amended independent claims 5, 8, and 9, are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive.
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 (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 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.
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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2021/0360619 A1, Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”) in view of US PG Pub 2020/0344097 A1, Si et al. (hereinafter “Si”).
With respect to Claim 5, Liu teaches:
A terminal (mobile terminal of Fig. 2) comprising:
a receiver (para. [0024]; transmitting device 206 of Fig. 2 —the transmitting device is described to be capable of both transmitting and receiving) that receives a SSB on a first frequency band different from a second frequency band including one or a plurality of frequency ranges (paras. [0020], [0032], [0094]-[0095], and [0097]-[0098]; Fig. 1; and Tables 2 and 3 —the SSB is depicted in a first frequency band and the RMSI CORESET is depicted in a second frequency band, that is different from the first frequency band in Fig. 1, i.e., corresponding to multiplexing patterns 2 and 3 —the alternative term “or” does not require examination on the merits for both alternatives, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section, above),
the first frequency band being a higher frequency band than the second frequency band (paras. [0004], [0020]-[0021], [0041], [0094]-[0095], and [0197]; and Fig. 1 —the frequency band utilized for transmitting/receiving a SSB can be associated with a NR band, depicted in Fig. 1, which is described as, and is well-known to be, higher in frequency than that of a 4G communication system having a corresponding lower frequency band)
a processor (para. [0022]; processor 202 of Fig. 2) that applies a multiplexing pattern of a control resource set (RMSI CORESET for multiplexing patterns 2 or 3 of Fig. 1) to a SCS of a downlink control channel (paras. [0094]-[0095], [0097], and [0110] —multiplexing patterns may be selectively applied per a CORESET/SSB correspondence), and
wherein the receiver receives SI based on the control resource set (paras. [0020], [0094]-[0094], and [0098] —the terminal receives SI corresponding to the CORESET),
However, Liu does not explicitly teach:
a SCS of a downlink control channel has the same SCS of the SSB,
wherein the first frequency band supports only the same SCS for combination of the SCS and the downlink control channel;
wherein the multiplexing pattern is selected based on a Type 0 physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) common search space; and
wherein combinations in which the synchronization signal block and the downlink control channel have different subcarrier spacings are not supported in the first frequency band.
Si does teach:
a SCS of a downlink control channel with a same SCS of a SSB (paras. [0171], [0177], [0278], [0342], and [0381]; and Table 7F—an analogous term for sub-carrier spacing (SCS) is “numerology,” and an SSB, i.e., the SS/PBCH block, numerology/SCS can be configured to be the same as that of the RMSI CORESET, which correspond to PDCCH, i.e., a DL control channel, scheduling RMSI via a table, such as Table 7F where the common SCS/numerology is 120kHz (See also paras. [0074] and [0141] and Table 5 of present disclosure from 3GPP TS38.213 and Release 15) —Applicant’s disclosure similarly equates SCS to numerology, at para. [0037], and indicates various equivalent terminology for CORESET#0, Type0-PDCCH CSS, first/initial resource set, MIB resource set, etc., at para. [0050]), and
a frequency band that supports only the same SCS for combination of the SSB and the downlink control channel (paras. [0171], [0177], [0182], and [0381]-[0382]; and Table 7F —the frequency BW can be assigned for a common SCS/numerology of SS/PBCH block and the RMSI CORESET, i.e., PDCCH Type0 resource set),
wherein the multiplexing pattern is selected based on a Type 0 physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) common search space (paras. [0075] and [0381]-[0382]; Fig. 7 and Table 7F —a multiplexing pattern, i.e., pattern 3 of Table 7F, can be indicated/selected via a configuration index associated with a CORESET#0/RMSI CORESET of a particular frequency BW when the SCS numerology of the SSB/RMSI is the same).
wherein combinations in which the synchronization signal block and the downlink control channel have different subcarrier spacings are not supported in the first frequency band (paras. [0278]; and Tables 10A, 12A, 23A, etc. —in one embodiment, for FDM, ONLY combinations where SCS/numerology for SSB is the same as SCS/numerology RMSI CORESET may be supported —in other words, when the SCS for the RMSI CORESET of the PDCCH has a different SCS than that of the SSB, the mixed SCS combination is not supported for FDM).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu’s multiplexing pattern correspondence with common SCS for the SSB and the RMSI CORESET/Type-0 PDCCH, as taught by Si.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve communications and reduce signaling overhead by applying common SCS/numerology for SS/RMSI frequency BW via consolidated table-index referencing, as recognized by Si (paras. [0075], [0182], and [0381]-[0382]; Fig. 7 and Table 7F).
With respect to Claim 6, Liu in view of Si teaches:
The terminal according to claim 5, wherein the processor determines based on values of the first frequency band and the second frequency band, that when using the first frequency band, an information element indicating the subcarrier spacing for the system information is used for other purpose different from the second frequency band (Liu: paras. [0020], [0097]-[0098] and [0106]-[0107]; Fig. 1; and Tables 2 and 3 —the SI includes the MIB and RMSI (SIB1), and the RMSI CORESET can be multiplexed with the SS/PBCCH (SSB) over the PDSCH according to multiplexing patterns where they occupy different frequency ranges —the SIB1 associated SCS can be indicated as in PDCCH-ConfigCommon IE as SearchSpaceZero for a different purpose than that of the frequency band for the SS/PBCCH).
With respect to Claim 7, Liu in view of Si teaches:
The terminal according to claim 5, wherein the multiplexing pattern applied in the first frequency band is a limited multiplexing pattern in number or content than the multiplexing pattern applied in the second frequency band (Liu: paras. [0041] and [0097]-[0098]; patterns 1-3 of Fig. 1; and table 10; Lin: paras. [0083]-[0087; patterns 1-3 of Fig. 4 —the multiplexing patterns of patterns 2 and 3 are “limited” w/different frequencies as compared to pattern 1).
With respect to Claim 8, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 5, except claim 8 is written as a method claim. As such, claim 8 is also rejected under §103 based on Liu in view of Si, for the same reasons explained above for claim 5.
With respect to Claim 9, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 5, except claim 9 is written from the perspective of a radio base station comprising a transmitter and a processor (Lui: paras. [0021]-[0025]; and base station with transmitting device 206 and processor 202 of Fig. 2). As such, claim 9 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Liu in view of Si, for the same reasons explained above for claim 5.
Conclusion
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418