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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are pending.
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) 1-3, 10-12, 18, 20, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0351866) in view of Shao (US Pub. No. 2022/0086832) in view of Alriksson et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0200773) in view of Tang (US Pub. No. 2020/0366452).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Park discloses a communications device (figure 18: UE), comprising:
a memory (paragraph 337) having a computer program (paragraph 337) stored thereon, and a processor (figure 18 controller 1810; paragraph 337), wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform a method for processing a synchronous signal block, comprising:
detecting Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) signals sent by a base station at a preset frequency domain location to obtain a first SSB (see figure 5 and paragraphs 76-79, 80: SSB is transmitted at frequency band less than 3 GHz, 3 to 6 GHz, and/or 6 GHz or more. The UE monitors the SSB in frequency domain to receive the SSB. The SSB may be transmitted up to 64 times (repetition) for 5 ms…);
wherein the first SSB comprises a plurality of same SSBs, each having a Cyclic Prefix (CP) (Table 1 and paragraph 59), and the plurality of same SSBs result from an SSB having the CP being repeatedly sent by the base station (see figure 5 and paragraph 79: the SSB may be transmitted up to 64 times for 5 ms…); and
decoding the plurality of same SSBs each having the CP (figure 5 and paragraphs 78 and 82: the UE monitors the SSB in the time and frequency domain to receive the SSB; the UE may acquire an MIB over the PBCH of the SSB).
Park further teaches system operates in 5G-NR with ultra reliable and low latency communication (URLLC) (paragraphs 4, 41, 49, 61, and 151)
Park does not disclose SSB having a target Extended Cyclic Prefix.
In the same field of synchronization, Shao discloses SSB having a target Extended Cyclic Prefix (see figure 4 steps S209, S110, and S220; paragraphs 18 and 192) for URLLC service (paragraphs 5 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park SSB having a target Extended Cyclic Prefix.
The motivation would have been to meet latency and reliability requirements (paragraph 4).
Park and Shao do not disclose jointly decoding the plurality of same SSBs.
In the same field of endeavor, Alriksson discloses jointly decoding plurality of same SSBs repeatedly sent by a base station (paragraph 3: SSB burst set: soft combining/joint decoding to decode plurality of same SSBs (repetition)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park and Shao jointly decoding the plurality of same SSBs.
The motivation would have been to accumulate energy from multiple SSBs transmission when UE is located at the edge of coverage area (paragraph 3).
Park, Shao and Alriksson not teach wherein the preset frequency domain location comprises one or more frequency domain locations in a duplicate synchronization raster of a synchronization raster set and a non- synchronization raster set.
However, in the same field of SSB transmission, Tang discloses wherein the preset frequency domain location comprises one or more frequency domain locations in a duplicate synchronization raster of a synchronization raster set and a non- synchronization raster set (figure 2c, Table 1 and paragraphs 66-77 especially paragraphs 75-77: under broadest reasonable interpretation, the duplicated synchronization raster is a frequency position of SSB transmission that is in a synchronization raster (set) (Table 1) and/or asynchronization raster (set). Examiner notes there is no further information regarding synchronization raster set and non-synchronization raster set in the claim, whether they are even transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park, Shao, and Alriksson the preset frequency domain location comprises one or more frequency domain locations in a duplicate synchronization raster of a synchronization raster set and a non- synchronization raster set.
The motivation would have been for flexibility (paragraph 77).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, all limitations in claims 1 and 18 are disclosed above. Shao teaches target cyclic prefix of SSB comprises an ECP (paragraph 18).
Regarding claims 3, all limitations in claims 1 are disclosed above. Park further teaches the preset frequency domain location is one or more frequency domain locations in the synchronization raster (paragraph 81).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Park discloses a method for processing a synchronization block, a communication device comprising:
a memory (paragraph 337) having a computer program (paragraphs 337 and 338) stored thereon, and a processor (figure 19 controller 1910; paragraphs 337 and 338), wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform a method for processing a synchronous signal block, comprising:
sending a first Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) by a base station at a preset frequency domain location (see figure 5 and paragraphs 76-79, 80: SSB is transmitted at frequency band less than 3 GHz, 3 to 6 GHz, and/or 6 GHz or more. The UE monitors the SSB in frequency domain to receive the SSB. The SSB may be transmitted up to 64 times (repetition) for 5 ms…);
wherein the first SSB comprises a plurality of same SSBs, each having a Cyclic Prefix (CP) (Table 1 and paragraph 59), and the plurality of same SSBs result from an SSB having the CP being repeatedly sent by the base station (see figure 5 and paragraph 79: the SSB may be transmitted up to 64 times for 5 ms…); and
wherein the plurality of same SSBs each having the CP is decoded (figure 5 and paragraphs 78 and 82: the UE monitors the SSB in the time and frequency domain to receive the SSB; the UE may acquire an MIB over the PBCH of the SSB).
Park further teaches system operates in 5G-NR with ultra reliable and low latency communication (URLLC) (paragraphs 4, 41, 49, 61, and 151)
Park does not disclose SSB having a target Extended Cyclic Prefix.
In the same field of synchronization, Shao discloses SSB having a target Extended Cyclic Prefix (see figure 4 steps S209, S110, and S220; paragraphs 18 and 192).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park SSB having a target Extended Cyclic Prefix.
The motivation would have been to meet latency and reliability requirements (paragraph 4).
Park and Shao do not disclose jointly decoding the plurality of same SSBs.
In the same field of endeavor, Alriksson discloses jointly decoding plurality of same SSBs repeatedly sent by a base station (paragraph 3: SSB burst set: soft combining/joint decoding to decode plurality of same SSBs (repetition)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park and Shao jointly decoding the plurality of same SSBs.
The motivation would have been to accumulate energy from multiple SSBs transmission when UE is located at the edge of coverage area (paragraph 3).
Park, Shao and Alriksson not teach wherein the preset frequency domain location comprises one or more frequency domain locations in a duplicate synchronization raster of a synchronization raster set and a non- synchronization raster set.
However, in the same field of SSB transmission, Tang discloses wherein the preset frequency domain location comprises one or more frequency domain locations in a duplicate synchronization raster of a synchronization raster set and a non- synchronization raster set (figure 2c, Table 1 and paragraphs 66-77 especially paragraphs 75-77: under broadest reasonable interpretation, the duplicated synchronization raster is a frequency position of SSB transmission that is in a synchronization raster (set) (Table 1) and/or asynchronization raster (set). Examiner notes that there is no further information regarding synchronization raster set and non-synchronization raster set in the claim, whether they are even transmitted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park, Shao, and Alriksson the preset frequency domain location comprises one or more frequency domain locations in a duplicate synchronization raster of a synchronization raster set and a non- synchronization raster set.
The motivation would have been for flexibility (paragraph 77).
Regarding claim 11, all limitations in claim 10 are disclosed above. Shao teaches target cyclic prefix of SSB comprises an ECP (paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 12, all limitations in claims 1 are disclosed above. Park further teaches the preset frequency domain location is one or more frequency domain locations in a synchronization raster (paragraph 81).
Claims 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0351866) in view of Shao (US Pub. No. 2022/0086832) in view of Alriksson et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0200773) in view of Tang (US Pub. No. 2020/0366452) in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0404601).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, all limitations in claims 1 and 18 are disclosed above. Park, Shao, and Alriksson do not teach but Lin discloses the preset frequency domain location is a plurality of frequency domain locations corresponding to a same time domain in a plurality of synchronization rasters (abstract, figures 9, 10 and 11; paragraphs 93 and 94, 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park, Shao, and Alriksson the preset frequency domain location is a plurality of frequency domain locations corresponding to a same time domain in a plurality of synchronization rasters.
The motivation would have been for SSB location.
Claims 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0351866) in view of Shao (US Pub. No. 2022/0086832) in view of Alriksson et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0200773) in view of Tang (US Pub. No. 2020/0366452) in view of Berliner et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0189175)
Regarding claims 5, all limitations in claim 1 are disclosed above. Park further discloses the preset frequency domain location is a frequency domain location corresponding to a first time domain location set (paragraph 80: one slot includes 2 SSBs).
Park, Shao, and Alriksson do not teach but Berliner discloses SSBs corresponding to the first time domain location set comprise SSBs whose indexes are consecutive (see figure 5 SSB 2 and SSB 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park, Shao, and Alriksson SSBs corresponding to the first time domain location set comprise SSBs whose indexes are consecutive for easier recognition and decoding.
Regarding claims 6, all limitations in claim 1 are disclosed above. Park, Shao, and Alriksson do not teach but Berliner discloses the SSBs whose time intervals meet the preset relationship comprise consecutive SSBs (see figure 5 slot 1 with SSB2 and SSB3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park, Shao, and Alriksson the SSBs whose time intervals meet the preset relationship comprise consecutive SSBs for easier recognition and decoding.
Regarding claims 7, all limitations in claim 1 are disclosed above. Park, Shao, and Alriksson do not teach but Berliner discloses the preset relationship is a predefined preset relationship (see figure 5 same slot same consecutive SSBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park, Shao, and Alriksson the preset relationship is a predefined preset relationship for easier recognition and decoding.
Regarding claims 8, all limitations in claims 5 are disclosed above. Park further teaches the preset relationship is configured based on a Master System Information Block (MIB) (paragraph 82).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0351866) in view of Shao (US Pub. No. 2022/0086832) in view of Alriksson et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0200773) in view of Tang (US Pub. No. 2020/0366452) in view of Lin et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0404601).
Regarding claim 13, all limitations in claim 10 are disclosed above. Park and Shao and Alriksson do not teach but Lin discloses the preset frequency domain location is a plurality of frequency domain locations corresponding to a same time domain in a plurality of synchronization rasters (abstract, figures 9, 10 and 11; paragraphs 93 and 94, 96).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park and Shao and Alriksson the preset frequency domain location is a plurality of frequency domain locations corresponding to a same time domain in a plurality of synchronization rasters.
The motivation would have been for SSB location.
Claims 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0351866) in view of Shao (US Pub. No. 2022/0086832) in view of Alriksson et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0200773) in view of Tang (US Pub. No. 2020/0366452) in view of Berliner et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0189175)
Regarding claim 14, all limitations in claim 10 are disclosed above. Park further discloses the preset frequency domain location is a frequency domain location corresponding to a first time domain location set (paragraph 80: one slot includes 2 SSBs).
Park and Shao and Alriksson do not teach but Berliner discloses SSBs corresponding to the first time domain location set comprise SSBs whose indexes are consecutive (see figure 5 SSB 2 and SSB 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park and Shao and Alriksson SSBs corresponding to the first time domain location set comprise SSBs whose indexes are consecutive for easier recognition and decoding.
Regarding claim 15, all limitations in claim 1 are disclosed above. Park and Shao do not teach but Berliner discloses the SSBs whose time intervals meet the preset relationship comprise consecutive SSBs (see figure 5 slot 1 with SSB2 and SSB3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park and Shao and Alriksson the SSBs whose time intervals meet the preset relationship comprise consecutive SSBs for easier recognition and decoding.
Regarding claim 16, all limitations in claim 14 are disclosed above. Park and Shao and Alriksson do not teach but Berliner discloses the preset relationship is a predefined preset relationship (see figure 5 same slot same consecutive SSBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement in Park and Shao and Alriksson the preset relationship is a predefined preset relationship for easier recognition and decoding.
Regarding claim 17, all limitations in claims 16 are disclosed above. Park further teaches the preset relationship is configured based on a Master System Information Block (MIB) (paragraph 82).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 10-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TITO Q PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/TITO Q PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights