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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sahlin et al. (US Pub. 2019/0254077).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Sahlin teaches a communication method, comprising: receiving a first synchronization signal/PBCH block (SSB) on a first candidate SSB occasion that is associated with a first random access channel (RACH) time-frequency-code resource (“the MIB1 configures two PRACH resources in different frequency intervals but at the same time. The set of sequences which the UE can select from might be the same or different between these two frequency intervals. A second PBCH contains a MIB 2 which might be indicating the same time and frequency resources as MIB1, but a different set of sequences” in [0063]); and sending random access information on the first RACH time-frequency-code resource (step 730 in Figure 7), wherein the first candidate SSB occasion is comprised in L candidate SSB occasions that comprise a second candidate SSB occasion (see two SS/PBCH blocks containing “MIB1” and “MIB2” in Figure 5), and wherein the first candidate SSB occasion and the second candidate SSB occasion are associated with a same RACH time-frequency-code resource (“a MIB 2 which might be indicating the same time and frequency resources as MIB1, but a different set of sequences” in [0063]).
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.
Claims 14 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahlin et al. in view of Ko et al. (US Pub. 2021/0037488).
Regarding claims 14 and 23, Sahlin teaches the limitations in claims 11 and 20 as shown above. Sahlin, however, does not teach the L candidate SSB occasions are comprised in a half frame. Ko teaches the L candidate SSB occasions are comprised in a half frame (“The SSB burst set may be configured with a 5-ms time window (i.e., half-frame), and an SSB may be repeatedly transmitted up to L times within the SS burst set” in [0091], see also SSB#1…SSB#L in Figure 7). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sahlin to have the L candidate SSB occasions are comprised in a half frame as taught by Ko in order to use the SSB periodicity set to one of {5 ms, 10 ms, 20 ms, 40 ms, 80 ms, 160 ms} by the network [0091].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11, 14, 20 and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 18 and 19 are allowed.
Claims 12, 13, 15-17, 21, 22 and 24-26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art in the record (in particular, US Pub. 2021/0307061 to Huang et al. (hereinafter “Huang”)) does not disclose, with respect to claim 1, the first candidate SSB occasion is comprised in L candidate SSB occasions that are periodically and sequentially associated with RACH time-frequency-code resources, and wherein the L candidate SSB occasions use M adjacent candidate SSB occasions as a mapping periodicity, and wherein M is an integer value that is less than L as claimed. Rather, Huang teaches receiving a first synchronization signal/PBCH block (SSB) on a first candidate SSB occasion that is associated with a first random access channel (RACH) time-frequency-code resource (step 356 in Figure 3b); and sending random access information on the first RACH time-frequency-code resource (step 360 in Figure 3b, see also “at step 356, the terminal 304 receives candidate SSBs in a SS burst set from the base station 302. The candidate SSBs are transmitted from the base station 302 within one or more SSB COT. At step 360, the terminal 304 transmits a PRACH preamble (shown as Msg1) on a RO to the base station 302. The RO is associated with one SSB among the received candidate SSBs” in [0081]). The same reasoning applies to claim 6 mutatis mutandis. The examiner also notes that objected claims 12 and 21 recited similar indicated allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights