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 .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hadani et al. (2019/342136).
For claim 8 Hadani et al. (2019/342136) discloses:
an access method, wherein the method is characterized by comprising:
° mapping, by a first network side device, a pilot signal on a resource location of a first delay Doppler domain resource block, to obtain a second delay Doppler domain data set (paragraphs [0050]-[0087], [0162]); and
° sending, by the first network side device, a time domain sampling point to a terminal, wherein the time domain sampling point is determined based on the second delay Doppler domain data set (paragraphs [0058], [0074]).
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.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadani et al. in view of VIVO LTD( EP 4277183).
For claims 9-10 , Hadani et al. discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of wherein the pilot signal is: a pilot pulse or a pilot sequence and wherein when the pilot signal is the pilot pulse, the first network side device is temporally synchronous with the terminal in a communications network. VIVO from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the pilot signal is: a pilot pulse or a pilot sequence and wherein when the pilot signal is the pilot pulse, the first network side device is temporally synchronous with the terminal in a communications network ( See paragraphs 0042 and oo47 ( a pilot pulse) and paragraph 0049( a pilot sequence). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the pilot signal is: a pilot pulse or a pilot sequence and wherein when the pilot signal is the pilot pulse, the first network side device is temporally synchronous with the terminal in a communications network as taught by VIVO LTD in the communications network of Hadani et al. for the purpose of synchronizing the network.
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadani et al. in view of .Nam ( 2016/0157218).
For Claims 18-20, Hadani et al. discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes in a communications network. Nam et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of the memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes ( See paragraphs 0014 and 0052). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use memory, processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable codes as taught by Nam et al. in the communication network of Hadani et al. for the purpose of storing codes in the memory to execute the process by the processor.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yuan et al. (2023/0308238) is cited to show a system which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
.
Claims 1-7 and 11-17 are allowed.
For claims 1-7 and 11-17, the prior art fails to teach a combination of obtaining, by a terminal, a first delay Doppler domain data set, wherein the first delay Doppler domain data set is obtained by mapping N pilot signals on a resource location of a first delay Doppler domain resource block, and N is an integer greater than 1; and accessing, by the terminal, P first network side devices based on a detection result of the first delay Doppler domain data set, wherein P is an integer less than or equal to N, wherein the P first network side devices are any of the following: P first network side devices corresponding to P first resource locations, wherein the P first resource locations are P resource locations where peak values are detected on the first delay Doppler domain resource block; or P first network side devices corresponding to P first pilot signals, wherein the P first pilot signals are P pilot signals where peak values are detected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476