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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a Division of application 17/153,474 (filed 01/20/2021, now patent# 11751150B2), which claims priority from provisional application 62978656 (filed 02/19/2020).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 36 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36, after careful review of applicant’s specification, the examiner cannot find supports for the newly amended limitation “…wherein the set of SSBs comprise two SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period of the DRS transmission window”, as currently recited in new claim 36. To be more specific, while the Remarks filed on 11/19/2025 does not mention any supports, there is no mention in any portion of the specification nor in any figures that “...the set of SSBs comprise two SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period of the DRS transmission window”. Clarification is respectfully requested. In particular, the examiner respectfully requests for understanding in which figure(s) and/or section of paragraphs that disclose “two SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period”, in order to determine whether rejection can be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20200404601 A1, hereinafter Lin), in view of Li et al. (US 20210136800 A1, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Lin teaches a base station for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (see at least fig. 2, e.g. components of an gNB),
the one or more processors configured to (in general, see fig. 11-12 and at least their paragraphs 105-109, in view of fig. 10 and its paragraphs 96-104):
determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a transmission window
[(x)] that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107, for one non-limiting example, when “the time unit can be extended to 20 ms”, the example of “30kHz L_SSB=8” would have 80 potential SSB locations, i.e. more than 64 candidate SSB positions)
and
[(y)] that includes candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the transmission window, based at least in part on an indexing scheme for SSBs that are included in the transmission window (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107, following the same non-limiting example above, when “the time unit can be extended to 20 ms” and utilizing the example of “30kHz L_SSB=8”, each slot of this first set of 6 slots can be used for potential SSB locations in this 5ms half frame, note that this merely one non-limiting example, as any one or more of the “30kHz L_SSB=4”, “120kHz L_SSB=64”, “240kHz L_SSB=64”, etc. may also applied)
wherein the indexing scheme includes one of:
[(i)] a consecutive indexing scheme in which all of the SSBs are indexed from earlier positions in the transmission window to later positions in the transmission window,
or
[(ii)] a non-consecutive indexing scheme in which a first subset of the SSBs are indexed in ascending order from earlier positions in the transmission window to later positions in the transmission window and a second subset of the SSBs are indexed in ascending order from earlier positions in the transmission window to later positions in the transmission window, wherein an earliest SSB included in the second subset occurs prior to at least one SSB in the first subset and has a higher index value than all SSBs in the first subset (Lin, for condition(i), see at least fig. 9 and para. 94 in view of fig. 21-22 and at least para. 224, e.g. symbols mapped for SS/PBCH blocks with different index); and
transmit the SSB and an indication of the index value in a candidate SSB position of the DRS transmission window (Lin, see at least para. 234 along with para. 160, e.g. UE can acquire the timing information within the time-domain unit by detecting the index of SSB).
Lin does not specifically teach (a) [SSB within a] discovery reference signal (DRS) transmission window, and (b) [SSBs are indexed] consecutively in ascending order.
Li teaches (a) [SSB within a] discovery reference signal (DRS) transmission window (see at least para. 30, e.g. DRS measurement timing configuration (DMTC) window is defined to provide multiple times of transmission for an SSB), as well as (b) [SSBs are indexed] consecutively in ascending order (see at least fig. 2 and para. 65 in addition to fig. 3, e.g. as an example, 9 consecutive SSB indexes in the interlace are allocated starting from SSB index 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Li into the apparatus of Lin for improving the reliability for SSB transmissions.
Regarding claim 2, Lin in view of Li teaches the DRS transmission window includes a set of SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period of the DRS transmission window. (Lin, see at least fig. 11, e.g. either the 120kHz L=64 or 240kHz L=64 has set of SSBs in every 0.25ms)
Regarding claim 3, Lin in view of Li teaches the DRS transmission window has a duration of 5 milliseconds. (Lin, see at least fig. 11, e.g. half frame in 5ms; Li, see at least fig. 1B, e.g. 5ms DMTC)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Li into the apparatus of Lin for improving the reliability for SSB transmissions.
Regarding claim 4, Lin in view of Li teaches the SSBs are positioned within the DRS transmission window with a sub-carrier spacing of 120 kilohertz. (Lin, see at least fig. 11, e.g. 120kHz L=64)
Regarding claim 5, Lin in view of Li teaches the DRS transmission window includes 80 candidate SSB positions. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. an embodiment of 30kHz L=8 in extended potential SSB locations, hence 80 positions)
Regarding claim 6, Lin in view of Li teaches the earliest SSB included in the second subset has an index value of 64. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. either embodiment of 120kHz L=64 or 240kHz L=64 which would have a next extended index value of 64, Li, see at least fig. 2, e.g. ascending indexing)
Regarding claim 7, Lin in view of Li teaches the earliest SSB included in the second subset has an index value of 128. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. either embodiment of 120kHz L=64 or 240kHz L=64 which would have a next extended index value of 128, Li, see at least fig. 2, e.g. ascending indexing)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Li into the apparatus of Lin for improving the reliability for SSB transmissions.
Regarding claim 8, Lin in view of Li teaches the SSBs are positioned within the DRS transmission window with a sub-carrier spacing of 240 kilohertz. (Lin, see at least fig. 11, e.g. embodiment of 240kHz L=64)
Regarding claim 9, Lin in view of Li teaches a portion of the SSBs are positioned in a second half of the DRS transmission window. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. some of the remaining slots within a half frame can be utilized for extended potential SSB locations, such as to double the number of totally potential SSB locations)
Regarding claim 10, Lin in view of Li teaches the DRS transmission window includes 128 candidate SSBs positions. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. embodiment of 240kHz L=64, hence 128 candidate SSBs positions)
Regarding claim 11, Lin in view of Li teaches the DRS transmission window includes 160 candidate SSBs positions. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. embodiment of 240kHz L=64, when some of the remaining slots within a half frame can be utilized for extended potential SSB locations, hence 160 candidate SSBs positions)
Regarding claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Regarding claims 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively, except each of these claims is in computer-readable medium claim format.
To be more specific, Lin in view of Li also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising computer-readable medium (Lin, see at least fig. 2), which is well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 31, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in apparatus claim format.
To be more specific, Lin in view of Li also teaches a same or similar apparatus comprising means for performing various functions (Lin, see at least fig. 2), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 32, Lin in view of Li teaches at least one slot gap of the set of slot gaps is between a first set of candidate SSB positions in the DRS transmission window and a second set of SSB candidate positions in the DRS transmission window. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107 and claim 1 rejection above, e.g. for one example, but not limited to, the one or more embodiments shown in fig. 11)
Regarding claim 33, Lin in view of Li teaches each slot gap, of the set of slot gaps, comprises two slots, wherein the DRS transmission window is configured to include each slot gap, of set of slot gaps, after a set of slots that includes the candidate SSB positions. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107 and claim 1 rejection above, e.g. for one example, but not limited to, the one or more embodiments shown in fig. 11)
Regarding claim 34, Lin in view of Li teaches the set of slots comprises at least eight slots. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107 and claim 1 rejection above, e.g. for one example, but not limited to, the one or more embodiments shown in fig. 11)
Regarding claim 35, Lin in view of Li teaches the set of slots gaps comprise four total slot gaps in the DRS transmissions window. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107 and claim 1 rejection above, e.g. for one example, but not limited to, the one or more embodiments shown in fig. 11)
Regarding claim 36, Lin in view of Li teaches the set of SSBs comprise two SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period of the DRS transmission window. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with at least fig. 25 and/or fig. 26, e.g. either example of the 120kHz L=64 or 240kHz L=64 may apply, in which either example has set of SSBs comprise two SSBs set in every 0.25ms)
Regarding claim 37, Lin in view of Li teaches the DRS transmission window has a duration of 5 milliseconds and includes at least 80 SSB candidate positions. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with para. 106-107, e.g. an embodiment of 30kHz L=8 in extended potential SSB locations, hence at least 80 positions)
Regarding claim 38, Lin in view of Li teaches the set of SSBs comprise up to four SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period of the DRS transmission window. (Lin, see at least fig. 11 along with at least fig. 25 and/or fig. 26, e.g. either one or both examples of the 120kHz L=64 or 240kHz L=64 may apply, in which either one or both examples has set of SSBs up four SSBs set in every 0.25ms)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 23, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Regarding claim 36, the rejection is maintained because of the following reason(s). In the Remarks applicant states that (applicant’s emphasis included):
“Regarding "wherein the set of SSBs comprise two SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period of the DRS transmission window," as recited in claim 36, written support can be found throughout the specification, and at least at paragraphs 84, 100, 113, as well as Figures 5 and 6. Specifically, the specification states "In some aspects, the DRS transmission window may include at least one candidate SSB position in every slot in the DRS transmission window. Additionally, or alternatively, the DRS transmission window may include a set of candidate SSB positions (e.g., up to four candidate SSB positions) in every 0.25 millisecond time period (e.g. every two slots) of the DRS transmission window." See Specification, paragraph 84. The Specification also states "Additionally, or alternatively, a DRS transmission window having a duration of 5 milliseconds on a band with an SCS of 240 kHz may be configured without a four slot gap (e.g., having a length of 0.25 milliseconds) after every 16 slots (e.g., 1 millisecond) that include SSBs. For example, eight candidate SSB positions may be included in a seventeenth through twentieth slot (e.g., between 1 millisecond and 1.25 milliseconds) in the DRS transmission window, in a thirty-seventh through fortieth slot (e.g., between 2.25 milliseconds and 2.50 milliseconds) in the DRS transmission window, in a fifty-seventh through sixtieth slot (e.g., between 3.5 milliseconds and 3.75 milliseconds) in the DRS transmission window, and/or in a seventy-seventh through eightieth slot (e.g., between 4.75 milliseconds and 5 milliseconds) in the DRS transmission window." See id., paragraph 100. Thus, claim 36 satisfies the written description requirement and the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” (Remarks, pages 13-14)
The statements are carefully reviewed, but the examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 84 plus the section above appear to describe, in short, a set of candidate SSB positions is up to four candidate SSB positions in every 0.25ms. Paragraph 84 of the Specification does not describe the set of candidate SSB positions comprise two candidate SSBs in every 0.25ms. Examiner respectfully requests for further clarification of the features “...the set of SSBs comprise two SSBs in every 0.25 millisecond time period...”.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on LIN and LI
A. The applied Li-Lin reference combination does not properly support the 103 rejection, thus the rejection is not supported by record evidence.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that:
“... The Office Action alleges that LIN discloses "determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a discovery reference signal (DRS) transmission window that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions and that includes candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the DRS transmission window, based at least in part on an indexing scheme for SSBs that are included in the DRS transmission window," as recited in claim 1 (See Office Action, page 5). Yet the Li-Lin reference combination does not support this contention, as explained below.
...
... Thus, LIN describes extended SSB locations, illustrated in Figure 11 by "extended slot locations containing potential SSB locations," which extend the potential SSB location to the end of the half frame, and double the potential locations. However, LIN does not describe including SSBs in the illustrated slot gaps. In Figure 11 of LIN, when the SSB location are extended to the end of the frame, LIN maintains the slot gaps in Figure 11, as outlined below:
[modified fig. 11 of LIN in the Remarks, but not reproduced]
(emphasis added). Therefore, LIN does not disclose or suggest "determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a discovery reference signal (DRS) transmission window that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions and that includes candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the DRS transmission window, based at least in part on an indexing scheme for SSBs that are included in the DRS transmission window," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added).
The Office Action does not rely upon LI to cure the deficiencies of LIN discussed above, and the cited portions of LI do not cure the deficiencies of LIN discussed above.” (Remarks, pages 15, 17, and 18)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. LIN in its figures 10 and 11 shows how SSBs can be placed. For example, LIN in para. 103 discloses the SS/PBCH blocks are transmitted according to predefined time-domain locations (e.g., potential SSB locations) within a half frame (e.g., 5 ms). LIN later in para. 105 discloses FIG. 11 illustrates an example extended potential SSB locations within a half frame 1100 according to embodiments of the present disclosure. LIN further in para. 106 states that the slot(s) containing potential SSB locations within a half frame can be extended. For one example, extended to the end of the half frame. For another example, some of the remaining slots within a half frame can be utilized for extended potential SSB locations. In other words, one person skilled in the art would have know that the remaining slots (e.g. those that are pointed out in the modified fig. 11 shown in the Remarks page 18) can preferably be placed with SSBs to archive extension. Hence, LIN’s fig. 11 and its corresponding paragraphs indeed satisfy the conditions of including more than 64 candidate SSB positions and including candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the DRS transmission window. Therefore, LIN (or combined with LI) indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a discovery reference signal (DRS) transmission window that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions and that includes candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the DRS transmission window, based at least in part on an indexing scheme for SSBs that are included in the DRS transmission window," as recited in claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 12, 23, and 31, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 31, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
B. The 103 rejection fails to follow controlling CAFC precedence and thus is legally defective for lack of proper combination rationale.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that:
“...
Here, the Office Action does not provide a sufficient rationale for why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the cited multiple embodiments of a single reference (LIN) or why such a combination would have been expected to succeed. Absent such reasoning, the rejection is improper and should be withdrawn. For example, the Office Action alleges, in the rejection of claim 1, that "Lin teaches determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a transmission window [(x)] that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions (Lin, see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107 and [(y)] that includes candidate SSB positions in one or more slot gaps, based at least in part on an indexing scheme for SSBs that are included in the transmission window (see at least fig. 11 in view of para. 106-107," See Office Action, page 5.
Paragraph 106 of LIN states "[iln one embodiment the slot (s) containing potential SSB locations within a half frame can be extended from NR Rel-15 as illustrated in FIG. 11 For example, extended to the end of the half frame. For another example, some of the remaining slots within a half frame can be utilized for extended potential SSB locations, such as to double the number of totally potential SSB locations." See LIN, paragraph 106. Paragraph 107 of LIN states "[iln one embodiment, the time unit to contain potential SSB locations can be extended from a half frame to a lager [sic] time duration. In one example, the time unit can be extended to one frame (e.g., 10 ms). In another example, the time unit can be extended to 20 ms (which is the assumed default periodicity for initial access for NR Rel-15 legacy UEs)." See id., paragraph 107. Thus, the Office Action relies on two unrelated embodiments of LIN, one embodiment describing "potential SSB locations within a half frame can be extended to the end of the half frame," (Paragraph 106 of LIN) and one embodiment describing "the time unit to contain potential SSB locations can be extended from a half frame to one frame," (Paragraph 107 of LIN) for allegedly disclosing "determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a transmission window that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions and that includes candidate SSB positions in one or more slot gaps," as recited in claim 1. LIN does not equate or tie together the separate embodiments, nor does the Office Action show that LIN does equate or tie together the separate embodiments. Additionally, the Office Action has not provided a basis of combination of the two embodiments for allegedly disclosing "determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a transmission window that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions and that includes candidate SSB positions in one or more slot gaps," as recited in claim 1. Absent any rationale or suggestion to combine different LIN embodiments, the Office Action's use of LIN for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection is incomplete and legally defective. See CAFC In Re Stepan, Footnote 1.” (Remarks, page. 20-21)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. To be more specific, even thought LIN in para. 106 and para. 107 appear to disclose two embodiments, they are alternative of one other but also can be applied together. Nonetheless, either one or both of these embodiments can be used for claim 1 rejection. For example, LIN in para. 106 states that the slot(s) containing potential SSB locations within a half frame can be extended. For one example, extended to the end of the half frame. For another example, some of the remaining slots within a half frame can be utilized for extended potential SSB locations. In other words, one person skilled in the art would have know that the remaining slots (e.g. those that are pointed out in the modified fig. 11 shown in the Remarks page 18) can preferably be placed with SSBs to archive extension. Hence, LIN’s fig. 11 and its corresponding paragraphs indeed satisfy the conditions of including more than 64 candidate SSB positions and including candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the DRS transmission window. Therefore, LIN (or combined with LI) indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...determine an index value of a synchronization signal block (SSB), included in a discovery reference signal (DRS) transmission window that includes more than 64 candidate SSB positions and that includes candidate SSB positions in each slot gap of a set of slot gaps configured in the DRS transmission window, based at least in part on an indexing scheme for SSBs that are included in the DRS transmission window," as recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that:
“Further, the Office Action also alleges, in the rejection of claim 1, that "Lin teaches (i) a consecutive indexing scheme in which all of the SSBs are indexed from earlier positions in the transmission window to later positions in the transmission window for condition (i), see at least fig. 9 and para. 94 in view of fig. 21-22 and at least para 224." See Office Action, page 6.
Paragraph 94 of LIN states "[i]n NR Rel-15, SS/PBCH blocks could be transmitted in a beam-sweeping way up to network implementation, and multiple candidate location for transmitting SS/PBCH blocks are predefined within a unit of half frame. The mapping pattern of SS/PBCH blocks to 1 slot with respect to 15 kHz as the reference SCS for frequency range 1 (FRI) from 410 MHz to 7.125 GHz and with respect to 60 kHz as the reference SCS for frequency range 2 (FR2) from 24.25 GHz to 52.6 GHz are illustrated in FIG. 9." See LIN, paragraph 94. Paragraphs 222-224 of LIN state "[i]n one embodiment for the frequency-domain repetition pattern 2, a UE can determine an SSB index from the detected SSB. For one example, the SSB index is defined the same as NR Rel-15. [f]or yet another example, the SSB index is defined as the potential SSB location index within a burst, and it can be determined using the DMRS sequence of PBCH or the combination of DMRS sequence of PBCH and the content of PBCH (according to the frequency range), wherein the range of the index can be exceeding the one in NR Rel-15." See LIN ,paragraph 224. Thus, the cited portions of LIN correspond to two different embodiments. The first embodiment is "NR Rel-15", and the second embodiment is "exceeding the one in NR Rel-15," (See id.). However, the Office Action has not provided a basis of combination of the two embodiments for allegedly disclosing "a consecutive indexing scheme in which all of the SSBs are indexed consecutively in ascending order from earlier positions in the DRS transmission window to later positions in the DRS transmission window," as recited in claim 1. Absent any rationale or suggestion to combine different LIN embodiments, the Office Action's use of LIN for the rejection is incomplete and legally defective. See CAFC In Re Stepan, Footnote 1.” (Remarks, page. 21-22)
Examiner again respectfully disagrees. A person skilled in the art would have known that fig. 9 of LIN shows details of fig. 11 with SSB indexes in patterns and orders, not different embodiments. Hence, LIN indeed teaches or suggests the argued features of “...a consecutive indexing scheme in which all of the SSBs are indexed from earlier positions in the DRS transmission window to later positions in the DRS transmission window...”, as cited in claim 1.
Regarding independent claims 12, 23, and 31, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 12, 23, and 31, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights