DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted June 10, 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 13-42 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant requests withdrawal of the objection(s) to the drawings, arguing “the specification of the present application clearly integrates the components illustrated in Figures 2-5 into novel concepts described therein” (Remarks, p. 14). Examiner has carefully considered this point, but respectfully notes that the said drawings do not actually illustrate any novel concepts. Rather, they are duplicate drawings from prior art documents. For at least this reason, the objections to the drawings are maintained.
Applicant argues the prior art of record fails to teach the new limitation amended into each independent claim (Remarks, pp. 15-17). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art teaches wherein a particular quantity of SSBs to be monitored is indicated (e.g. Katranaras [0014], [0019]), and wherein configuration corresponds to UE capability (e.g. Ma [0120]-[0128]). The Examiner maintains that the combination under 35 USC 103 incorporating features from Ma into the system of Katranaras, is proper.
For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13, 23, 31, 39, and all dependent thereon, are 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 claims 13, 23, 31, and 39: The claim(s) include the limitation “wherein a plurality of types of receiving UEs are defined, each type corresponding to a different sidelink SSB monitoring capability, and wherein the configuration information indicates, for each type, a different quantity of sidelink SSBs to be monitored” (claim 1, lines 8-11; emphasis added by Examiner). This limitation renders both the UEs of claims 13 and 23, as well as the methods of claims 31 and 39, indefinite. This is because it is unclear if or how, for a particular UE, the defining of other UEs limits the claim(s). That is, claims 1 and 23 are directed to the configuration of a particular UE, but go on to state that configuration for other UEs is different. The same reasoning is applicable to the method claims. For purposes of examination, the said limitation is interpreted such that the UE obtains configuration information including a particular quantity (of SSBs to be monitored), and wherein the said quantity corresponds to a capability of the UE.
Drawings
Figures 2-5 and 13 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see, e.g., U.S. Publication Nos: 2022/0247457 A1; 2022/0240309 A1; 2022/0248397 A1). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 13-16, 18-20, 22, 31-34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication No. 2020/125424 A1 (hereinafter “Katranaras”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2026/0040334 A1 (hereinafter “Ma”), and alternatively in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0235420 A1 (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claims 13 and 31: Katranaras teaches a receiving user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain configuration information associated with sidelink synchronization signal block (SSB) monitoring, the configuration information indicating a quantity of sidelink SSBs to be monitored by the receiving UE, wherein a plurality of types of receiving UEs are defined, and wherein the configuration information indicates, for each type, a different quantity of sidelink SSbs to be monitored (see, e.g., [0014], [0019]; a particular quantity of SL SSBs is obtained by a receiving UE and a transmitting UE); and
monitor the quantity of sidelink SSBs in accordance with the configuration information (see, e.g., [0014], [0019]; transmission and reception alignment is in accordance with the configuration).
Katranaras does not explicitly state the accordance with a sidelink SSB monitoring capability of the receiving UE, and therefore doesn’t explicitly state “each type corresponding to a different sidelink SSB monitoring capability.” However, this feature is taught by Ma (see, e.g., [0120]-[0128]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to configuring and/or indicating a quantity of S-SSBs). 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 Ma, such as the configuration functionality, within the system of Katranaras, in order to ensure synchronization among terminals with different capabilities.
Katranaras modified by Ma does explicitly state configuration to “monitor” according to the obtained configuration information. To the extent this feature is not inherent to Katranaras modified by Ma (by virtue of the configured reception in accordance with obtained configuration information taught therein, Id.; note also Ma [0120]), this feature is nevertheless taught in Kim (see, e.g., [0215]-[0217]). 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 Kim, such as the configuration functionality, within the system of Katranaras modified by Ma, in order to determine transmitted SSBs.
The rationale set forth above regarding the receiving UE of claim 13 is applicable to the method of claim 31.
Regarding claims 14 and 32: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to obtain the configuration information that indicates the quantity of sidelink SSBs to be monitored by the receiving UE, are configured to obtain configuration information that indicates for the receiving UE to monitor for a first quantity of sidelink SSBs in accordance with the receiving UE being a first type of receiving UE having a first sidelink SSB monitoring capability, a second quantity of sidelink SSBs in accordance with the receiving UE being a second type of receiving UE having a second sidelink SSB monitoring capability, the second quantity of sidelink SSBs being greater than the first quantity of sidelink SSBs, or a third quantity of sidelink SSBs in accordance with the receiving UE being a third type of receiving UE having a third sidelink SSB monitoring capability, the third quantity of sidelink SSBs being greater than the second quantity of sidelink SSBs (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 14.
The rationale set forth above regarding the receiving UE of claim 14 is applicable to the method of claim 32.
Regarding claims 15 and 33: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the first quantity of sidelink SSBs corresponds to a single sidelink SSB that is located in a first sidelink SSB candidate slot, the second quantity of sidelink SSBs corresponds to a subset of sidelink SSBs having a quantity that is greater than one and that is less than a total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates, and the third quantity of sidelink SSBs corresponds to all sidelink SSBs included in the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 15.
The rationale set forth above regarding the receiving UE of claim 15 is applicable to the method of claim 33.
Regarding claim 16: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to monitor the quantity of sidelink SSBs, are configured to monitor, in accordance with the receiving ULE being the first type of receiving UE having the first sidelink SSB monitoring capability, the single sidelink SSB in the first sidelink SSB candidate slot using a physical sidelink broadcast channel (PSBCH) scrambling sequence (see, e.g., Katranaras [0016, [0044], [0062]; Ma [0039]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 16.
Regarding claims 18 and 36: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to identify a location of the first sidelink SSB candidate slot, and configure a resource pool in an initial synchronization, in accordance with a previous sidelink SSB candidate slot location (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144], [0155]). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 18.
The rationale set forth above regarding the receiving UE of claim 18 is applicable to the method of claim 36.
Regarding claim 19: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to monitor the quantity of sidelink SSBs, are configured to monitor, in accordance with the receiving ULE being the second type of receiving UE having the second sidelink SSB monitoring capability, the subset of sidelink SSBs having the quantity that is greater than one and that is less than the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 19.
Regarding claims 20 and 37: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the subset of sidelink SSBs corresponds to a plurality of contiguous sidelink SSBs that begins at the first sidelink SSB candidate slot (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 20.
The rationale set forth above regarding the receiving UE of claim 20 is applicable to the method of claim 37.
Regarding claim 22: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to monitor the quantity of sidelink SSBs, are configured to monitor, in accordance with the receiving ULE being the third type of receiving ULE having the third sidelink SSB monitoring capability, all sidelink SSBs included in the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 13 is applicable to claim 22.
Regarding claim 34: Katranaras modified by Ma, and alternatively Kim, further teaches wherein monitoring the quantity of sidelink SSBs comprises at least one of monitoring, in accordance with the receiving UE being the first type of receiving UE having the first sidelink SSB monitoring capability, the single sidelink SSB in the first sidelink SSB candidate slot using a physical sidelink broadcast channel (PSBCH) scrambling sequence (see, e.g., Katranaras [0016, [0044], [0062]; Ma [0039]); monitoring, in accordance with the receiving UE being the second type of receiving UE having the second sidelink SSB monitoring capability, the subset of sidelink SSBs having the quantity that is greater than one and that is less than the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates; or monitoring, in accordance with the receiving UE being the third type of receiving UE having the third sidelink SSB monitoring capability, all sidelink SSBs included in the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 31 is applicable to claim 34.
10. Claims 23-26, 28-30, and 39-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katranaras, in view of Ma.
Regarding claims 23 and 39: Katranaras teaches a transmitting user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
obtain configuration information associated with a sidelink synchronization signal block (SSB) transmission, the configuration information indicating one or more sidelink SSB candidates to be used by the transmitting ULE for transmitting sidelink SSBs (see, e.g., [0014], [0019]; a quantity of SL SSBs is obtained by a receiving UE and a transmitting UE); and
transmit a quantity of sidelink SSBs in the one or more sidelink SSB candidates in accordance with the configuration information and (see, e.g., [0014], [0019]; transmission and reception alignment is in accordance with the configuration). Katranaras does not explicitly state the accordance with a sidelink SSB monitoring capability of the receiving UE. However, this feature is taught by Ma (see, e.g., [0120]-[0128]; note also overlapping teachings with respect to configuring and/or indicating a quantity of S-SSBs). 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 Ma, such as the configuration functionality, within the system of Katranaras, in order to ensure synchronization among terminals with different capabilities.
The rationale set forth above regarding the transmitting UE of claim 23 is applicable to the method of claim 39.
Regarding claims 24 and 40: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to obtain the configuration information that indicates the one or more sidelink SSB candidates to be used by the transmitting UE for transmitting sidelink SSBs, are configured to obtain configuration information that indicates for the transmitting UE to transmit one or more sidelink SSBs in a first quantity of sidelink SSB candidates in accordance with the transmitting UE being a first type of transmitting UE having a first sidelink SSB transmission capability, one or more sidelink SSBs in a second quantity of sidelink SSB candidates in accordance with the transmitting UE being a second type of transmitting UE having a second sidelink SSB transmission capability, the second quantity of sidelink SSB candidates being greater than the first quantity of sidelink SSB candidates, or one or more sidelink SSB in a third quantity of sidelink SSB candidates in accordance with the transmitting UE being a third type of transmitting UE having a third sidelink SSB transmission capability, the third quantity of sidelink SSB candidates being greater than the second quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 23 is applicable to claim 24.
The rationale set forth above regarding the transmitting UE of claim 24 is applicable to the method of claim 40.
Regarding claims 25 and 41: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein the first quantity of sidelink SSB candidates corresponds to a single sidelink SSB candidate that is located in a first sidelink SSB candidate slot, the second quantity of sidelink SSB candidates corresponds to a subset of sidelink SSB candidates having a quantity that is greater than one and that is less than a total quantity of candidate sidelink SSB candidates, and the third quantity of sidelink SSB candidates corresponds to all sidelink SSB candidates included in the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 23 is applicable to claim 25.
The rationale set forth above regarding the transmitting UE of claim 25 is applicable to the method of claim 41.
Regarding claim 26: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the quantity of sidelink SSBs, are configured to transmit, in accordance with the transmitting UE being the first type of transmitting UE having the first sidelink SSB transmission capability, a single sidelink SSB in the first sidelink SSB candidate slot (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 23 is applicable to claim 26.
Regarding claim 28: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the quantity of sidelink SSBs, are configured to transmit, in accordance with the transmitting UE being the second type of transmitting UE having the second sidelink SSB transmission capability, a subset of sidelink SSBs in the subset of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 23 is applicable to claim 28.
Regarding claim 29: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein the subset of sidelink SSB candidates corresponds to a plurality of contiguous sidelink SSB candidates that begins at the first sidelink SSB candidate slot (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 23 is applicable to claim 29.
Regarding claim 30: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the quantity of sidelink SSBs, are configured to transmit, in accordance with the transmitting UE being the third type of transmitting UE having the third sidelink SSB transmission capability, sidelink SSBs in all sidelink SSB candidates included in the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 23 is applicable to claim 30.
Regarding claim 42: Katranaras modified by Ma further teaches wherein transmitting the quantity of sidelink SSBs comprises at least one of transmitting, in accordance with the transmitting ULE being the first type of transmitting UE having the first sidelink SSB transmission capability, a single sidelink SSB in the first sidelink SSB candidate slot; transmitting, in accordance with the transmitting UE being the second type of transmitting UE having the second sidelink SSB transmission capability, a subset of sidelink SSBs in the subset of sidelink SSB candidates; or transmitting, in accordance with the transmitting UE being the third type of transmitting UE having the third sidelink SSB transmission capability, sidelink SSBs in all sidelink SSB candidates included in the total quantity of sidelink SSB candidates (see, e.g., Katranaras [0038]-[0042]; Ma [0128]-[0132], [0138]-[0144]; note terminal types and quantity variations). The motivation for modification set forth above regarding claim 39 is applicable to claim 42.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 17, 21, 27, 35, and 38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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