DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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: 07/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 06/10/2026.
Claims 5-6 and 8-9 are pending for Examination.
Claims 5 and 8-9 have been amended.
Claims 1-4 and 7 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 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 5, 8, and 9, Applicant amended these claims to each recite:
“wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band are applied in a single system,”
“wherein parameters of the control resource set are conveyed in the system information included in the Master Information Block,” and
“wherein the multiplexing pattern applied the first frequency band is limited to a part of the plurality of the multiplexing pattern applied in the second frequency band.”
Applicant then argues that: Liu fails to disclose two frequency bands applied in a single system, and therefore cannot disclose limitation (i), that Liu is silent with respect to limitation (ii), and that Liu does not teach SI in a MIB, and that Liu does not teach the claimed relationship between multiplexing patterns applied in the first frequency band and the second frequency band, as recited in limitation (iii). Applicant additionally argues that Si fails to supply what Liu lacks, with respect to the above three claim limitations. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant provides explicit written description support for its amended claim limitations (i), (ii), and (iii) in paras. [0021]-[0023], [0051]-[0052], and [0137]-[0138]. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 7. These cited paragraphs of Applicant’s disclosure recite:
PNG
media_image1.png
521
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above supporting disclosure of paras. [0021]-[0023], recites a RF system with FR1 and FR2, which has little to do with Applicant’s invention, according to its specification, which describes a NR terminal capable using a frequency range different than FR1/FR2, i.e., FR4 (See e.g., Background and Summary of Invention). Presumably paras. [0021]-[0023] are relied upon to provide support for limitation (i), which generically recites a system with multiple frequency bands.
Next, cited paragraphs [0051]-[0052], recite:
PNG
media_image2.png
564
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above supporting disclosure describes background subject matter that is self-identified to be part of 3GPP TS38.213 V15/13 (Release 15), which is presumably relied upon to provide support for limitation (ii), where parameters of a CORESET are conveyed in SI of a MIB. In the above disclosure, a number of RBs/symbols of CORESET0 can be determined from PDCCH-ConfigSIB1 of MIB. In this regard, limitation (ii) only recites admitted prior art described in 3GPP’s Release 15.
Finally, cited paragraphs [0137]-[0138], recite:
PNG
media_image3.png
259
765
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The above supporting disclosure describes a specific limitation that only a same SCS is supported in SSB and Type 0 PDCCH, which presumably Applicant relied upon to provide support for limitation: (iii) “wherein the multiplexing pattern applied the first frequency band is limited to a part of the plurality of the multiplexing pattern applied in the second frequency band.” However, the Examiner is uncertain how these paragraphs, cited by Applicant, are intended to provide any support for amended limitation (iii). Therefore, Applicant is hereby required to provide specific support for limitation (iii) within its original disclosure, as limitation (iii) recited claim scope that differs from that which was previously recited within cancelled claim 7.
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).
With respect to limitation (i), Liu describes that a first frequency band utilized for transmitting/receiving a SSB can be associated with any NR band (i.e., 28GHz, 45GHz, etc.), depicted in Fig. 1, which is recited as being higher in frequency than that of a 4G communication system operating with typically lower frequency bands (paras. [0004], [0020]-[0021], [0041], [0094]-[0095], and [0197]; and Fig. 1). The Examiner also notes that, any NR communications system operates using numerous designated frequency bands applied within “a single system.”
Moreover, any wireless communication system employing 5G (NR) and/or 4G systems operate using at least first and second frequency bands, among many others, as is even admitted in para. [0003] of Applicants Background Art, relating to 3GPP Releases 15 and 16. Thus, Liu clearly reads on the contested claim feature: “wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band are applied in a single system,” of limitation (i).
With respect to limitation (ii), Liu further describes that in its NR system the MIB can convey system information, i.e., minimum/basic system information of a cell, along with various parameters associated with CORESET#0, as is well-known to anyone of ordinary skill in the art (para. [0020]). Thus, Liu also fairly reads on the limitation (ii).
Moreover, Applicant admits in its supporting disclosure paragraphs [0051]-[0052] that 3GPP TS38.213 V15/13 (Release 15) pre-discloses that parameters of a CORESET are conveyed in SI of a MIB. Within this background disclosure, a number of RBs/symbols of CORESET0 are taught to be determined from PDCCH-ConfigSIB1 of MIB. In this regard, limitation (ii) only actually recites self-admitted prior art described in 3GPP’s Release 15.
With respect to limitation (iii), Liu describes that its multiplexing patterns of patterns 2 and 3 (depicted in Fig. 1) are “limited” with different frequencies, as compared to the multiplexing pattern of pattern 1. In this regard, multiplexing patterns 2 and 3, can operate in different frequency bands as compared to pattern 1 (paras. [0041] and [0097]-[0098]; patterns 1-3 of Fig. 1; and table 10). As such, Liu also fairly reads on the contested subject matter: “wherein the multiplexing pattern applied in the first frequency band is limited to a part of a plurality of the multiplexing pattern applied in the second frequency band, as recited in limitation (iii).
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 claim 6, Applicant only argues this claim as being allowable based on their respective dependence from independent claim 5. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claim 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 5-6 and 8-9 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),
wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band are applied in a single system (paras. [0004], [0020]-[0021], [0041], [0094]-[0095], and [0197]; and Fig. 1 —a first frequency band utilized for transmitting/receiving a SSB can be associated with any NR band (i.e., 28GHz, 45GHz, etc.), depicted in Fig. 1, which is described as higher in frequency than that of a 4G communication system having typically lower frequency bands. A NR system itself has numerous designated frequency bands applied in “a single system.” Moreover, any wireless communication system employing 5G (NR) and/or 4G systems operates using first and second frequency bands, among others, as is even admitted in para. [0003] of Applicants Background Art, relating to 3GPP Releases 15 and 16),
wherein parameters of the control resource set are conveyed in the system information included in Master Information Block (para. [0020] —in the NR system the MIB can convey system information, i.e., minimum/basic system information of a cell, along with parameters associated with a CORESET#0).
wherein the multiplexing pattern applied in the first frequency band is limited to a part of a plurality of the multiplexing pattern applied in the second frequency band (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 that of pattern 1).
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 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
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
Prosecution Insights