DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/2/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 14-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murgan et al. “Murgan” US 2014/0038587 in view of Palenius et al. “Palenius” EP 3251419 as submitted in Applicant’s IDS.
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 12 Murgan teaches a method, medium and radio node configured for:
Performing cell search on a first frequency range based on at least a first selected bandwidth of a set of signaling bandwidths, the set comprising at least a first and second signaling bandwidth (a mobile terminal performs a cell search within a frequency range; Paragraph 29. For the cell, there are a plurality of bandwidths (i.e. set of signaling bandwidths); Paragraphs 29 and 31. The narrowband value can be considered the selected bandwidth; Paragraph 29. Examiner notes, as there is a plurality of bandwidths that are used in determining the frequency range, any of them can be considered the selected bandwidth for these claims);
Wherein the first selected signaling bandwidth is selected from the set based on an indication of a geographic region (The base station covers particular geographic areas; Paragraphs 14 and 15. The terminal is also located at a geographical position to receive signals from a base station; Paragraph 59. Thus one can see the UE has knowledge of geographic areas and thus any decisions the UE makes can be viewed as “based on a geographic region”);
The first signaling bandwidth is smaller than the second signaling bandwidth (The first bandwidth is smaller than 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 50%, 40%, 30%, 20%, 10%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1% of the second bandwidth; Paragraph 31, see also 201 of Figure 2 and paragraph 26); and
Wherein the selection indication is determined by the radio node from positioning information or provided by a network with signaling using another RAT (The mobile terminal determines the frequency range based on location of the device (i.e. positioning information); Paragraph 29. The selection indication to determine the frequency range to perform a cell search on is determined form position information as claimed. Further yet, the terminal can perform cell searches based on information received from different networks (2g and 3g); Paragraph 30).
Murgan teaches search a subset of frequencies (the terminal searches for and identifies a base station; Paragraph 16. Further, searching/identifying a cell is based on identifying the frequencies. The cell can also listen for broadcast/paging of the cell (i.e. cell identifying signaling); Paragraph 17. Paragraph 85 teaches there can be a range (between 1.4 and 20Mhz). Since the prior art is monitoring a range of frequencies, this would also include a subset of frequencies). Murgan does not disclose a frequency range corresponding to a first and second bandwidth in the first range which is the same set for the first and second signaling bandwidth nor that the search is based on a set of reference frequencies in the first frequency range; However, Palenius teaches performing a cell search (S218). Further, there are additional BWs (i.e. second signaling bandwidth) in step S224, then the next BW is chosen and a cell search is performed on the secondary BW; S218 again; Figure 6B paragraphs 79-85. Thus one can see the cell search is performed on the frequencies for a plurality of bandwidths. The claim states the first and second subset may differ in at least one reference frequency; however, the term “may” does not require this step to occur. Further, Figures 6a and 6B show a terminal performing a cell search and identifying a chunk of frequencies (i.e. set of reference frequencies in the frequency range); Paragraphs 74-75. Based on these frequencies, Palenius further teaches performing a cell search (S218). Further, there are additional BWs (i.e. second signaling bandwidth) in step S224, then the next BW is chosen and a cell search is performed on the secondary BW; S218 again; Figure 6B paragraphs 79-85. Thus one can see the cell search is performed on reference frequencies in the first frequency range).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Murgan to include the frequency range corresponds to a first and second bandwidth and include performing additional searches using the same frequency as taught by Palenius.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can find a cell/frequency to utilize when there are a plurality of bandwidths as taught by Palenius; Paragraphs 78-85.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Murgan teaches the cell search includes monitoring the first frequency range for cell identifying signaling based on the set of bandwidths (the terminal searches for and identifies a base station; Paragraph 16. Further, searching/identifying a cell is based on identifying the frequencies. The cell can also listen for broadcast/paging of the cell (i.e. cell identifying signaling); Paragraph 17).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Murgan teaches the cell search includes monitoring the first frequency range for cell identifying signaling based on the set of bandwidths (the terminal searches for and identifies a base station; Paragraph 16. Further, searching/identifying a cell is based on identifying the frequencies. The cell can also listen for broadcast/paging of the cell (i.e. cell identifying signaling); Paragraph 17. Paragraph 85 teaches there can be a range (between 1.4 and 20Mhz) Further, the claim language does not define what a subrange is, thus since the prior art is monitoring a range of frequencies, this would also include a subrange by definition).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Murgan teaches monitoring for synchronization signaling (Paragraph 20 teaches during the cell search things like slot synchronization is monitored).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Murgan teaches the cell search comprises monitoring the first frequency range for cell identifying signaling wherein the identifying signaling includes multiple components which includes a signaling bandwidth of a set of bandwidths (a mobile terminal performs a cell search within a frequency range; Paragraph 29. For the cell, there are a plurality of bandwidths (i.e. set of signaling bandwidths); Paragraphs 29 and 31. The terminal searches for and identifies a base station; Paragraph 16. Further, searching/identifying a cell is based on identifying the frequencies. The cell can also listen for broadcast/paging of the cell (i.e. cell identifying signaling); Paragraph 17. The signaling carries more than one piece of information thus is viewed as “multiple components”).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Murgan teaches performing a cell search based on first signaling bandwidth as taught in claim 1, Murgan does not disclose performing another search based on second signaling bandwidth if the cell search based on the first was unsuccessful. Palenius teaches performing an initial cell search; S102 Figure 5, see Paragraph 54. When the initial search fails (i.e. unsuccessful), Steps S106 and S108 (i.e. further search using second signaling) are performed; Paragraph 54 and Figure 5).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Murgan to include performing an additional search when the first one fails as taught by Palenius.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can find a cell/frequency to utilize as taught by Palenius; Paragraph 54.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Murgan teaches performing a cell search based on first signaling bandwidth as taught in claim 1, Murgan does not disclose performing a search using a second signaling bandwidth alternating with the first. Palenius teaches performing an initial cell search; S102 Figure 5, see Paragraph 54. Steps S106 and S108 (i.e. further search using second signaling) are performed; Paragraph 54 and Figure 5. This is viewed as the alternating between the first and second bandwidth).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Murgan to include performing an additional search alternating the first and second bandwidth as taught by Palenius.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can find a cell/frequency to utilize as taught by Palenius; Paragraph 54.
Regarding claim 10, Murgan does not disclose reference frequencies in the first range which is the same set for the first and second signaling bandwidth; However, Palenius teaches performing a cell search (S218). Further, there are additional BWs (i.e. second signaling bandwidth) in step S224, then the next BW is chosen and a cell search is performed on the secondary BW; S218 again; Figure 6B paragraphs 79-85. Thus one can see the cell search is performed on the frequencies for a plurality of bandwidths).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Murgan to include performing an additional search on a second bandwidth using the same frequency range as taught by Palenius.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can find a cell/frequency to utilize when there are a plurality of bandwidths as taught by Palenius; Paragraphs 78-85.
Regarding claim 21, Murgan teaches the synchronization signaling is at least one of primary, secondary and broadcast signaling (Paragraphs 18 and 20 teaches during the cell search things like slot synchronization is monitored. This can be viewed as primary and/or secondary signaling because they claims do not go into any detail with respect to what the primary and/or secondary synch signaling is or what it includes. Thus the primary/secondary bears no real weight/meaning).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art teaches does not teach or suggested the amended limitations because Palenius describes a cell search in a chunk of spectrum based on RAT And BW which is not the same as two subsets of reference frequencies belonging to two bandwidths having at least one reference frequency in difference.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the claims state the first and second subset “may differ” in at least one reference frequency. This is optional claim language and thus does not require there to be any difference. In other words, whether they reference frequencies are the same or different in the cited art, the art would properly read on the claims.
Palenius teaches performing a cell search as shown in step (S218). Further, there are additional BWs (i.e. second signaling bandwidth) in step S224, then the next BW is chosen and a cell search is performed on the secondary BW; S218 again; Figure 6B paragraphs 79-85. Thus one can see the cell search is performed on the frequencies for a plurality of bandwidths. The claim states the first and second subset may differ in at least one reference frequency; however, the term “may” does not require this step to occur. Therefore the claims stand properly rejected as the applicants are arguing a limitation that is not required in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights