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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the communication(s) filed 02/05/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are currently presenting for examination.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, and 16 is/are independent claim(s).
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-20 is/are objected to.
This action has been made NON-FINAL.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US_20200412590_A1_Akkarakaran in view of WO_2022245100_A1_Pettersson.
Regarding claim 1, Akkarakaran discloses a synchronization raster design method (Akkarakaran figure 5, paragraph 95), comprising: determining, by a network device, a first bandwidth (Akkarakaran paragraph 95, “…Base station 105-a may transmit the SSB 220 over a predefined bandwidth …”), wherein a frequency range corresponding to the first bandwidth is above 52.6 gigahertz (GHz) (Akkarakaran paragraph 96, “In some examples, base station 105-a and UE 115-a may communicate in a frequency range (e.g., FR4) that includes higher frequencies ( e.g., frequencies above 52.6 GHz).…”); and sending, by the network device, a synchronization signal block (SSB) at a frequency domain location of a synchronization raster (Akkarakaran figure 5, step 535, paragraph 101, “Basing an SSB configuration on the synchronization raster point may lower UE search complexity…”), but does not disclose sending the SSB at a frequency domain location of a synchronization raster corresponding to a global synchronization number in the frequency range.
Pettersson discloses sending the SSB at a frequency domain location of a synchronization raster corresponding to a global synchronization number in the frequency range (Pettersson paragraphs 194-200, table 8 shows examples of GSCN parameters for the global frequency raster).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Pettersson’s global synchronization raster in Akkarakaran’s system to allow fast, efficient initial cell searching by the UE. This method for improving the system of Akkarakaran was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Pettersson. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Pettersson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Akkarakaran and Pettersson disclose the method according to claim 1, and Pettersson further discloses wherein the determining, by the network device, the first bandwidth comprises: determining, by the network device, the first bandwidth based on a first subcarrier spacing of the SSB (Pettersson paragraph 78, table 1, paragraph 80, table 2), wherein the first subcarrier spacing is 120 kilohertz (kHz), and the first bandwidth is 100 megahertz (MHz) (Pettersson paragraphs 224, “In FIGS. 11a and 11b, SCS of 120kHz is applied. SSB center means center frequency of SSB. SSB Flow may mean lower edge of SSB. SSB Fhigh may mean higher edge of SSB. Offset to channel center may mean distance from channel center based on 100MHz channel raster”); the first subcarrier spacing is 480 kHz, and the first bandwidth is 400 MHz (Pettersson paragraph 253, “This example shows SSB configuration for 52.6GHz-71GHz frequency range with 100MHz wide channels for SSB with 120kHz SCS and SSB configuration for 52.6GHz-71GHz frequency range with 400MHz wide channels for SSB with 480kHz SCS. …”); or the first subcarrier spacing is 960 kHz, and the first bandwidth is 400 MHz (Pettersson paragraph 253, “The 400MHz raster is also applicable for operation with 960kHz SCS and 2GHz or 2.16Ghz wide channels”).
Regarding claim 6, Akkarakaran discloses a synchronization raster design method (Akkarakaran figure 5, paragraph 95), comprising: determining, by a terminal device, a frequency range corresponding to a first bandwidth (Akkarakaran paragraph 95, “…Base station 105-a may transmit the SSB 220 over a predefined bandwidth …”, paragraph 96, “In some examples, base station 105-a and UE 115-a may communicate in a frequency range (e.g., FR4) that includes higher frequencies ( e.g., frequencies above 52.6 GHz).…”)); and searching, by the terminal device, for a synchronization signal block (SSB) at a frequency domain location of a synchronization raster (Akkarakaran figure 5, step 530-535, paragraph 127, “At 530, UE 115-b may monitor resources for the SSB from base station 105-b, where the SSB includes the set of synchronization signals”, paragraph 101, “Basing an SSB configuration on the synchronization raster point may lower UE search complexity…”), but does not disclose searching the SSB at a frequency domain location of a synchronization raster corresponding to a global synchronization number in the frequency range.
Pettersson discloses searching the SSB at a frequency domain location of a synchronization raster corresponding to a global synchronization number in the frequency range (Pettersson paragraphs 194-200, table 8 shows examples of GSCN parameters for the global frequency raster, and paragraph 211).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Pettersson’s global synchronization raster in Akkarakaran’s system to allow fast, efficient initial cell searching by the UE. This method for improving the system of Akkarakaran was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Pettersson. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Pettersson to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Akkarakaran and Pettersson disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, Akkarakaran and Pettersson disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Akkarakaran and Pettersson disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Akkarakaran and Pettersson disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, Akkarakaran and Pettersson disclose the limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 8-10, 13-15, and 18-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIBIN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM - 6:00PM.
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571)272-8586. 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.
/W.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471