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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 12, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-30 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Hu in view of Zhou do not disclose “associated with a first type of time synchronization” nor “receiving… based at least in part on the first type of time synchronization, a reference signal associated with a second type of time synchronization on the second cell, wherein the reference signal is received within a time window from a reference time based on the first type of time synchronization.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. These portions are taught by paragraphs 65-66, 75, and 93 of Hu. Examiner notes that the terms “associated with” and “based on” have broad meanings and that the instant claim provides no specifications on what the “time window” is. Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 13, 25, and 28 are based on their similarity to claim 1 and are respectfully disagrees with for similar reasons. Applicant’s arguments regarding the remaining claims are based on their dependence to claims 1, 13, 25, and 28 and are respectfully disagreed with for similar reasons.
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 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) 1-3, 8-9, 12,13-15, 20-21, 25-26, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20230337033 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20220182951 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu discloses:
“A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: receiving, via a first cell, an indication…” ([¶ 0065]: “Referring to FIG. 5, in step 501, an SCell light RS configuration is received from a PCell.”)
“receiving, via the second cell and based at least in part on reception of the indication… a synchronization signal block (SSB) associated with a first type of time synchronization of the UE on the second cell,” ([¶ 0066]: “In step 502, measurements of light RS are performed.”)
“the SSB including a primary synchronization signal and the SSB omitting one or more of a physical broadcast channel (PBCH), demodulation reference signals (DMRSs), or a master information block; and” ([¶ 0093]: “Referring to FIG. 8, the light RS may include a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) only, and no PBCH, which may provide frequency and time synchronization to an SCell.” Wherein although Hu describes the light RS as distinct from an SSB, it is composed of a PSS and SSS and is thus equivalent to the light SSB in the instant claim.)
“receiving, via the second cell and based at least in part on the first type of time synchronization, a reference signal associated with a second type of time synchronization on the second cell, wherein the reference signal is received within a time window from a reference time based on the first type of time synchronization, and wherein the reference signal is further associated with one or more of: a frequency synchronization on the second cell, or an automatic gain control (AGC) synchronization on the second cell.” ([¶ 0075]: “The UE may receive SSB for the carrier frequency and perform legacy SSB based RRM measurements, and may stop monitoring the associated light RS.”; [¶ 0065]: “The configuration may be provided by RRC signaling (dedicated or common), and may include one or more of a transmission periodicity for the light RS, the frequency resources where the light RS is transmitted, a time interval when the UE can be expected to receive the light RS, an index of a light RS that uniquely identifies the light RS, and the corresponding SSB quasi co-location (QCL)-type D with the light RS.”; [¶ 0093]: “Referring to FIG. 8, the light RS may include a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) only, and no PBCH, which may provide frequency and time synchronization to an SCell.”)
Hu does not explicitly disclose the indication is “to activate a second cell,” nor that the following reception is a result of the activation.
However, Zhou discloses the missing features the indication is “to activate a second cell” and that the following reception is a result of the activation. ([¶ 0062]: “In step 1102, the method receives a command to activate a secondary cell of a wireless network for wireless communication.”; [¶ 0065]: “In step 1108, the method performs a second secondary cell activation within a second time period based on the timing information being unknown. In embodiments, the second secondary cell activation includes acquiring at least one of a primary synchronization signal (PSS) or a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) for the secondary cell to determine the timing information for the secondary cell.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu and Zhou, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to occur upon a notification of secondary cell activation as disclosed by Zhou. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents unnecessary communication, thus improving efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu further discloses “wherein the SSB comprises: a primary synchronization signal, and a secondary synchronization signal.” ([¶ 0093]: “Referring to FIG. 8, the light RS may include a primary synchronization signal (PSS) and a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) only…”)
Regarding claim 3, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu further discloses “receiving the SSB within a proper subset of resource blocks associated with bandwidth of the second cell.” ([¶ 0065]: “In order to be able to detect SCells, the UE may receive a configuration from the network of the light RS configurations it can be expected to detect for a given carrier frequency.” In Fig. 3 the light RS is transmitted on the bandwidth of the Scell)
Regarding claim 8, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu further discloses “wherein the reference signal comprises an aperiodic tracking reference signal.” ([¶ 0112]: “In addition, other signals may be used instead of the RRC WUS. For example, the WUS may be an SRS (with possibly a new SRS usage that is not presently defined by 3GPP in Rel-18), or a newly defined RS. Parameters similarly configured may include time-frequency resources on where to transmit the RS (aperiodic transmission could also be used (like for CSI-RS)) and/or a resource index.”)
Regarding claim 9, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu further discloses “obtaining the first type of time synchronization based at least in part on the reception of the SSB.” ([¶ 0088]: “The operations during the phase 353 can incur a delay 312, denoted T.sub.MAC_CE. Considering capability of the UE 101, the delay T.sub.MAC_CE 312 can be bounded to be smaller than or equal to 3 ms in order to control a total SCell activation delay,”)
Regarding claim 12, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu further discloses “wherein reception of the indication to activate the second cell comprises: an indication of a resource of the reference signal on the second cell.” ([¶ 0065]: “The configuration may be provided by RRC signaling (dedicated or common), and may include one or more of a transmission periodicity for the light RS, the frequency resources where the light RS is transmitted, a time interval when the UE can be expected to receive the light RS, an index of a light RS that uniquely identifies the light RS, and the corresponding SSB quasi co-location (QCL)-type D with the light RS.”)
Claims 13-15, 20-21, and 24 are substantially similar to claims 1-3, 8-9, and 12, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-3, 8-9, and 12 are directed towards a method while claims 13-15, 20-21, and 24 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Hu in paragraph 139. Thus, claims 13-15, 20-21, and 24 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-3, 8-9, and 12.
Claims 25-26 are substantially similar to claims 1-2, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2 are directed towards a method while claims 25-26 are directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Such a medium is taught by Hu in paragraph 158. Thus, claims 25-26 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2.
Claims 25-26 are substantially similar to claims 1-2, with the differences amounting to that claims 1-2 are directed towards a method while claims 25-26 are directed towards an apparatus. Such an apparatus is taught by Hu in paragraph 139. Thus, claims 25-26 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-2.
Claim(s) 4-7, 10, 16-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20230337033 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20220182951 A1) and further in view of Tang (US 20210251040 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu does not explicitly disclose “wherein a first time of reception of the SSB is based at least in part on a second time of reception of the indication to activate the second cell.”
However, Tang discloses “wherein a first time of reception of the SSB is based at least in part on a second time of reception of the indication to activate the second cell.” ([¶ 0089]: “At phase 354, a fine time-frequency synchronization process (e.g., processes 323 and 324) can be performed. In the process 323, the UE 101 may wait for arrival of a first complete SSB, and perform reception of the SSB.” Also see Fig. 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu, Zhou, and Tang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to occur according to the timeline as disclosed by Tang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou and Tang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu does not explicitly disclose “transmitting an acknowledgement (ACK) of the indication to activate the second cell, wherein a first time of reception of the SSB is based at least in part on a second time of transmission of the ACK.”
However, Tang discloses “transmitting an acknowledgement (ACK) of the indication to activate the second cell, wherein a first time of reception of the SSB is based at least in part on a second time of transmission of the ACK.” ([¶ 0089]: “At phase 354, a fine time-frequency synchronization process (e.g., processes 323 and 324) can be performed. In the process 323, the UE 101 may wait for arrival of a first complete SSB, and perform reception of the SSB.” Also see Fig. 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu, Zhou, and Tang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to occur according to the timeline as disclosed by Tang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou and Tang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Hu in view of Zhou and Tang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu does not explicitly disclose “wherein the second time of transmission of the ACK is based at least in part on a third time of reception of the indication to activate the second cell.”
However, Tang discloses “wherein the second time of transmission of the ACK is based at least in part on a third time of reception of the indication to activate the second cell.” ([¶ 0079]: “A delay between the PDSCH 331 and the ACK 332 is denoted T.sub.HARQ 301.” Also see Fig. 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu, Zhou, and Tang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to occur according to the timeline as disclosed by Tang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou and Tang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Hu in view of Zhou and Tang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu does not explicitly disclose “transmitting an indication of a capability to configure the UE to receive the SSB, wherein the first time is based at least in part on the capability of the UE.”
However, Tang discloses “transmitting an indication of a capability to configure the UE to receive the SSB, wherein the first time is based at least in part on the capability of the UE.” ([¶ 0088]: “The operations during the phase 353 can incur a delay 312, denoted T.sub.MAC_CE. Considering capability of the UE 101, the delay T.sub.MAC_CE 312 can be bounded to be smaller than or equal to 3 ms in order to control a total SCell activation delay,” Also see Fig. 3.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu, Zhou, and Tang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to occur according to the timeline as disclosed by Tang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou and Tang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Hu in view of Zhou and Tang discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu does not explicitly disclose “wherein a first network node associated with the first cell and a second network node associated with the second cell are co-located.”
However, Tang discloses “wherein a first network node associated with the first cell and a second network node associated with the second cell are co-located.” ([¶ 0129]: “In some examples, one MAC CE command is used to activate multiple inter-band FR2 SCells. The inter-band FR2 SCells may or may not be co-located.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu, Zhou, and Tang, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to occur in co-located cells as disclosed by Tang. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou and Tang to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 16-19 and 22 are substantially similar to 4-7 and 10, with the differences amounting to that claims 4-7 and 10 are directed towards a method while claims 16-19 and 22 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Hu in paragraph 139. Thus, claims 16-19 and 22 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 4-7 and 10.
Claim(s) 11, 27, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20230337033 A1) in view of Zhou (US 20220182951 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20230076852 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Hu in view of Zhou discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Hu does not explicitly disclose “estimating one or more of a propagation delay or a signal strength of the second cell based at least in part on reception of a signal of the first cell.”
However, Kim discloses “estimating one or more of a propagation delay or a signal strength of the second cell based at least in part on reception of a signal of the first cell.” ([¶ 0200]: “If a SCell exists in the configured throughput table, the electronic device 101 may calculate ranks and CQI with respect to each SCell and a PCell, or calculate a rank and CQI of a PCell and estimate a value of a SCell to be the same as the value of the PCell.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Hu, Zhou, and Kim, to modify the technique as disclosed by Hu, to include estimation as disclosed by Kim. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hu with Zhou and Kim to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 27 and 30 are substantially similar to claim 11, with the differences amounting to that claim 11 is directed towards a method while claims 27-30 are directed towards a computer readable medium and an apparatus. Such hardware is taught by Hu in paragraph 139 and 158. Thus, claims 27 and 30 are rejected for similar reasons to claim 11.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412