DETAILED ACTION
This Office action nis responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted April 15, 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 and 4-6 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant’s specification fails to adequately describe the “transmission of the preamble” (claim 4, line 4) after reception of the second synchronization signal block (claim 4, lines 2-3), while also requiring that the terminal “attempts… reception of a second [the] second synchronization signal block” (claim 1, lines 6-7) “after transmission of the preamble” (claim 1, line 6).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4: claim 4 requires “transmission of the preamble” (claim 4, line 4) after reception of the second synchronization signal block (claim 4, lines 2-3), while also requiring that the terminal “attempts… reception of [the] second synchronization signal block” (claim 1, lines 6-7) “after transmission of the preamble” (claim 1, line 6). It is unclear if this is a typographical error, perhaps wherein “the preamble” recited at claim 4, line 4 is a different preamble than recited in claim 1, lines 4 and 6. For purposes of examination, “the preamble” in claim 4 is interpreted to refer to the same instance of preamble transmission of claim 1 or a different instance of preamble transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0358547 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”), in view of either the non-patent literature document titled Views On Mechanism to Recover From Beam Failure (hereinafter “R1-1702799”), alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0297966 A1 (hereinafter “Noh”), and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0225248 A1 (hereinafter “Landis”).
Regarding claims 1, 5, and 6: Liu teaches a terminal comprising: a receiving section that attempts reception of a first synchronization signal block; and a control section that controls, when the reception of the first synchronization signal block has failed, transmission [indicating] report of the failure (see, e.g., [0005], [0054]; a UE transmits a report when reception of an SSB fails).
Liu does not explicitly state transmission of a preamble using a random access occasion. However, this feature is taught by R1-1702799 (see, e.g., section 2; note the association for occasions and preamble transmission; note also overlapping teachings with respect to reporting regarding SSB reception). 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 R1-1702799, such as the signaling functionality, within the system of Liu, in order to improve beam recovery.
Liu modified by R1-1702799 further teaches the feature wherein the receiving section attempts, after transmission of the preamble, reception of a second synchronization signal block (see, e.g., R1-1702799 proposals 2 or 4; note reception of further SS-block).To the extent the said feature is not inherent to Liu modified by R1-1702799, it is nevertheless taught by Noh (see, e.g., [0014], [0023]). 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 Noh, such as the transmission functionality, within the system of Liu modified by R1-1702799, in order to improve channel utilization.
Liu modified by R1-1702799, and alternatively Noh, does not explicitly state “wherein beams of the second synchronization signal block are narrower than beams of the first synchronization signal block.” However, this feature is taught by Landis (see, e.g., [0075]-[0078). 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 Landis, such as the synchronization functionality, within the system of Liu modified by R1-1702799 and Noh, in order to increase flexibility and adaptability in a changing network environment.
The rationale set forth above regarding the terminal of claim 1 is applicable to the method and base station of claims 5 and 6, respectively.
Regarding claim 4: Liu modified by R1-1702799, alternatively Noh, and Landis further teaches wherein when the reception of the first synchronization signal block has failed and the reception of the second synchronization signal block has been successful, the control section controls the transmission of the preamble (see, e.g., Liu [0068]-[0069]).
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. 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