DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted March 18, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1, 3, 5-17, 19, and 21-30 are currently pending (claims 29 and 30 are withdrawn from consideration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach the amended portions of the claims. Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully disagrees.
For instance, Applicant argues “Lee alone or in combination with Nilsson fails to describe [the amended limitations]” (Remarks, p. 12). The Examiner notes that this argument does not consider the full combination of references set forth in the previous Office action (see below for the breakdown of the references’ teachings). One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. 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).
Applicant contends that the TSS in Lee does not teach a secondary synchronization signal with a bandwidth larger that a PSS, stating that this signal is “additional…[to] the existing SSB structure,” further stating “[it] is structurally distinct from the SSS, carries no cell identity, and is depicted in Figures 19A and 19B” (Id.). Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Lee teaches modifying the SSB to assist with implementation of the radar function, which includes either modifying the SSS(s) or adding a TSS (see, e.g., [0127] and figure 18; note that these are structural changes to the SSB, wherein the TSS is also a synchronization second). Second, the secondary reference Nilsson, which teaches utilizing the FMCW for radar implementation, acknowledges that multiple “SSB designs can be imagined” ([0075]). Third, the reference Xiong was alternatively applied (only if required, and for purposes of promoting compact prosecution) for explicitly showing that the said architecture was contemplated for SSB design. Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate these shown signal structures (and variations) within the system of Lee, in order to implement the said radar functionality.
Applicant also argues that Lee “teaches away” via the TSS solution (Id.). Examiner disagrees. As noted, the TSS solution is a structural change to the SSB. Further, other solutions are contemplated in the art, including SSS redesign, as previously explained.
Applicant also argues there is “no signal component in Lee that simultaneously performs both functions [of communication and sensing]” (Remarks, pp. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees. For instance, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Lee alone teaches wherein the implementation of radar signal via SSB signaling is for both sensing and communication – because of the functionality of radar and the communication that follows. However, Applicant’s argument again fails to consider the teachings of Nilsson in this regard, which were cited for not only FMCW implementation, but for more explicitly describing these forward-looking features of combining communication and sensing (radar), also known as joint communication and sensing (JCAS) (see Nilsson [0002]), which is a main aspect of Applicant invention (see Applicant’s specification at [0001]).
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 5-7, 12, 13, 16, 17, 21-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0224386 A1 (hereinafter “Lee”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2025/0370087 A1 (hereinafter “Nilsson”), in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0296749 A1 (hereinafter “Manica”), and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0295896 A1 (hereinafter “Xiong”).
Regarding claims 1 and 17: Lee teaches a network device for wireless communications, the network device comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
configure a synchronization signal block (SSB) based on parameters, wherein the SSB comprises a primary synchronization signal (PSS), one or more secondary synchronization signals (SSSs), and one or more physical broadcast channels (PBCHs) (see, e.g., figures 3, 4, 18, and/or 19, [0072], [0116], [0123]-[0129]; note SSB structure including a PSS, SSSs, and PBCHs); and transmit the SSB in one or more signals, wherein each of the one or more SSSs of the SSB is configured for simultaneous sensing and communication (see, e.g., [0005]-[0012]; note SSB transmission).
Lee teaches wherein at least one of the one or more SSSs is a radar signal (see, e.g., [0123]), does not explicitly state wherein at least one of the one or more SSSs is a phase-coded frequency modulated continuous wave (PC-FMCW). However, Nilsson teaches this feature (see, e.g., [0075]). Also, Lee does not explicitly state “wherein each of the one or more SSSs of the SSB is configured for simultaneous sensing and communication.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to Lee (due to the breadth of the terms “communication” and “sensing,” and/or due to the signal modification discussed therein; note, e.g., [0127]), it is nevertheless taught in Nilsson (see, e.g., [0002], [0073]-[0075]; note the functionality described, which is sometimes referred to as joint communication and sensing). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Nilsson, such as the synchronization and/or radar functionality, within the system of Lee, in order to improve network monitoring.
Lee modified by Nilsson does not explicitly state wherein the FMCW signal is phase coded (i.e. “PC”). However, this feature is taught by Manica (see, e.g., [0031]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Manica, such as the coding functionality, within the system of Lee alternatively modified by Nilsson, in order to enable or protect signal identification.
Lee modified by Nilsson and Manica further teaches the feature wherein a bandwidth of at least one of the one or more SSSs is larger than a bandwidth of the PSS (see, e.g., Lee figures 18, 19B, and [0127]; note exemplary SSB structural changes include modifying the SSS or adding a tertiary signal, which is a further secondary signal in function). To the extent the said feature is not inherent to the system of Lee alternatively modified by Nilsson, it is nevertheless taught in Xiong (see, e.g., figures 12, 13). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Xiong, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Lee alternatively modified by Nilsson, in order to improve power amplifier efficiency and/or accommodate a particular band utilization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 1 is applicable to the method of claim 17.
Regarding claims 5 and 21: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches the feature wherein a bandwidth of each of the one or more SSSs is larger than a bandwidth of each of the one or more PBCHs (see, e.g., Lee figures 18, 19B, and [0127]; note exemplary SSB structural changes include modifying the SSS or adding a tertiary signal, which is a further secondary signal in function; alternatively, see Xiong figures 12, 13). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 5.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 5 is applicable to the method of claim 21.
Regarding claims 6 and 22: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the parameters comprise at least one of a total number of the one or more SSSs, a phase coded sequence, a start frequency, a bandwidth, or a frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) slope (see, e.g., Lee figures 2, 3, 18, and/or 19, [0072]; and/or Nilsson [0073]-[0075]; note alternative limitations; alternatively, see Manica [0026], [0031]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 6.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 6 is applicable to the method of claim 22.
Regarding claims 7 and 23: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the parameters are predefined within standards (See, e.g., Nilsson [0109], [0117], [0141], [0149]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 7.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 7 is applicable to the method of claim 23.
Regarding claims 12 and 25: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the parameters are indicated by at least one of radio resource control (RRC) signaling, medium access control-control element (MAC-CE) signaling, or downlink control information (DCI) signaling (see, e.g., Nilsson [0087], [0094], [0095], [0145], [0164]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 12.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 12 is applicable to the method of claim 25.
Regarding claims 13 and 26: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to stitch secondary synchronization signals (SSSs) together to create a larger bandwidth for the SSB (see, e.g., Lee figures 18, 19B, and [0127]; note exemplary SSB structural changes include modifying the SSS or adding a tertiary signal, which is a further secondary signal in function; alternatively, see Xiong figures 12, 13). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 1 is applicable to claim 13.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 13 is applicable to the method of claim 26.
Regarding claim 16: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the network device is one of user equipment (UE) or a base station (see, e.g., Lee [0123], [0124).
8. Claims 3 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Nilsson, in further view of Manica, alternatively in further view of Xiong, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0195435 A1 (hereinafter “Rimini”).
Regarding claims 3 and 19: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong does not explicitly state wherein each of the one or more SSSs comprises a frequency increasing over time. However, Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong teaches wherein each of the one or more SSSs is implemented via a frequency modulated carrier wave (FMCW) – the frequency changes over time, i.e. either increasing or decreasing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to select an increasing FMCW within the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, in order to utilize known signaling functions.
Nevertheless, Rimini alternatively teaches wherein a FMCW signal increases over time (See, e.g., [0051]-[0054]; note also [0029] and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Rimini, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong, in order to utilize frequency modulation.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 3 is applicable to the method of claim 19.
9. Claims 8-11, 14, 15, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Nilsson, in further view of Manica, alternatively in further view of Xiong, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0163931 A1 (hereinafter “Bang”).
Regarding claims 8 and 24: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong does not explicitly state wherein the parameters are based on a narrowband SSB. However, this feature is taught by Bang (see, e.g., [0014], [0066], [0091]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Bang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong, in order to increase versatility and efficiency in the network.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 8 is applicable to the method of claim 24.
Regarding claim 9: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, Xiong, and Bang further teaches wherein the narrowband SSB comprises a PSS, a SSS, and a plurality of PBCHs, and wherein the SSS of the narrowband SSB has a same bandwidth as the PSS (see, e.g., Bang figure 4D). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, Xiong, and Bang further teaches wherein the parameters are based on a physical cell identification (PCID) of the narrowband SSB (see, e.g., Bang [0090]; note also Nilsson [0040], [0128], [0153], [0167]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, Xiong, and Bang further teaches wherein the parameters are from a system information block (SIB) associated with the narrowband SSB (see, e.g., Bang [0012]-[0014], [0065]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 8 is applicable to claim 11.
Regarding claims 14 and 27: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to multiplex in one of a time domain or a frequency domain a secondary synchronization signals (SSS) of the SSB with a control resource set (CORESET) and physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (see, e.g., Nilsson [0122], [0123], [0167]). To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong, it is nevertheless taught by Bang (see, e.g., [0056]-[0060], [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Bang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong, in order to increase versatility and efficiency in the network.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 14 is applicable to the method of claim 27.
Regarding claims 15 and 28: Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to multiplex in a time and frequency domain a secondary synchronization signals (SSS) of the SSB with a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) (see, e.g., Nilsson [0122], [0123], [0167]). To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong, it is nevertheless taught by Bang (see, e.g., [0056]-[0060], [0111]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Bang, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Lee modified by Nilsson, Manica, and Xiong, in order to increase versatility and efficiency in the network.
The rationale set forth above regarding the device of claim 15 is applicable to the method of claim 28.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights