DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statements submitted on December 13, 2023, and October 1, 2025, have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 7, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Hosseini et al., US 11659573 B2, hereinafter “Hosseini,” in view of Kim et al., US 11432251 B2, hereinafter “Kim.”
Consider claim 7. Hosseini discloses:
a terminal (UE 115, fig. 1,) comprising:
a reception unit (610, fig. 6; column 27 lines 2-5) configured to receive information via a broadcast channel (column 1 lines 21-23) based on detection of a block including a synchronization signal and the broadcast channel (column 18 lines 38-42); and
a control unit (615, fig. 6; column 33 lines 45-50) configured to determine a monitoring occasion (column 29 lines 7-9) for monitoring a search space for receiving a control channel, based on the information (column 18 lines 33-38).
Although Hosseini suggests wherein the control unit determines the monitoring occasion that does not overlap with the block in a time domain (column 18 lines 54-59; column 19 lines 24-27), based on a parameter that has a different value depending on a subcarrier spacing (column 19 lines 7-11 and 28-31), he is silent regarding subcarrier spacing in a second frequency band that is higher than a first frequency band.
Kim, in related art, suggest subcarrier spacing in a second frequency band that is higher than a first frequency band (see column 27 lines 6-7 and 50-59: transmitting a Synchronization Signal (SS) by a base station (BS) in a wireless communication system… wherein the SS is transmitted based on a periodicity of 20 ms, wherein 4 subcarrier spacings (SCSs) are used for the SS, and the 4 SCSs are 15 kHz SCS, 30 kHz SCS, 120 kHz SCS and 240 kHz SCS, wherein the 15 kHz SCS and 30 kHz SCS are used for a first frequency range and the 120 kHz SCS and 240 kHz SCS are used for a second frequency range, wherein the second frequency range is higher than the first frequency range).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider Kim’s teachings in relation to the claimed invention, thus providing means for reducing the timing ambiguity problem due to Carrier Frequency Offset (CFO) in a wireless communication system supportive of the next generation New RAT (NR) system, with low detection complexity, as discussed by Kim (see column 11 lines 64-67 through column 12 lines 1-2).
Claim 11 claims a communication method performed by a configuration of the terminal of claim 7; therefore, similar rejection rationale applies.
Claim 12 claims a communication system comprising the terminal of claim 7 and the base station for said terminal to perform communication with; therefore, similar rejection rationale applies.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Hosseini et al., US 11659573 B2, hereinafter “Hosseini,” in view of Kim et al., US 11432251 B2, hereinafter “Kim,” as applied to claim 7, further in view of Zewail et al., US 12096420 B2, hereinafter “Zewail.”
Consider claim 8. Hosseini in view of Kim teaches claim 7, but is silent regarding wherein the second frequency band is a frequency band that is equal to or greater than 52.6 GHz, and the subcarrier spacing is 480 kHz or 960 kHz.
Zewail, in related art, suggests wherein the second frequency band is a frequency band that is equal to or greater than 52.6 GHz, and the subcarrier spacing is 480 kHz or 960 kHz (see column 14 lines 27-40: In general, the default timing offset values may cause challenges in higher frequency bands, such as frequencies in FR4 (e.g., from 52.6 GHz to 71 GHz), where a large subcarrier spacing (e.g., 480 kHz, 960 kHz, 1.9 MHz, 3.8 MHz, or higher) may be needed to support a larger bandwidth with the same Fast Fourier transform (FFT) size as lower frequency bands. For example, a higher subcarrier spacing is generally associated with a shorter slot duration (e.g., whereas a 15 kHz subcarrier spacing is associated with a 1 millisecond (ms) slot duration and a 30 kHz subcarrier spacing is associated with a 0.5 ms slot duration, a 480 kHz subcarrier spacing is associated with a slot duration of 31.25 microseconds (μs) and a 960 kHz subcarrier spacing is associated with a 15.625 μs slot duration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider Zewail’s teachings in relation to the claimed invention, thus providing techniques and apparatuses for timing offset indications for higher frequency bands, thus improving wireless communication as demand for mobile broadband access continues to increase, as discussed by Zewail (see column 1 lines 21-67 through column 2 lines 1-4).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Hosseini et al., US 11659573 B2, hereinafter “Hosseini,” in view of Kim et al., US 11432251 B2, hereinafter “Kim,” as applied to claim 7, further in view of HE, US 20230006796 A1, hereinafter “HE.”
Consider claim 9. Hosseini in view of Kim teaches claim 7, but is silent regarding wherein n0 that is a slot of the monitoring occasion is calculated based on a formula below
n0 = (O. 2μ + [i . M])
M
o
d
s
l
o
t
N
f
r
a
m
e
,
μ
and the parameter is a parameter O in the formula.
HE, in related art, discloses wherein n0 that is a slot of the monitoring occasion is calculated based on a formula below
n0 = (O. 2μ + [i . M])
M
o
d
s
l
o
t
N
f
r
a
m
e
,
μ
and the parameter is a parameter O in the formula (see paragraphs [0078]-[0079]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider HE’s teachings in relation to the claimed invention, thus providing a method and apparatus for determining a monitoring occasion which ensures the transmission performance of the PDCCH is repeatedly transmitted in a time domain, where, the terminal device monitors the repeatedly transmitted PDCCH through a monitoring occasion indicated by a PDCCH search space, as discussed by HE (see Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0004]).
Consider claim 10. Hosseini in view of Kim and HE teaches claim 9; and HE further suggests wherein a value of the parameter O is 1.25 in a case where the subcarrier spacing is 480 kHz (see paragraph [0079]: …the value set of the parameter O in the frequency domain below 6 GHz (frequency band range 1) is {0, 2, 5, 7}; that is, 480 kHz < 6 GHz and the value 1.25 is between {0 and 2}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to consider HE’s teachings in relation to the claimed invention, thus providing a method and apparatus for determining a monitoring occasion which ensures the transmission performance of the PDCCH is repeatedly transmitted in a time domain, where, the terminal device monitors the repeatedly transmitted PDCCH through a monitoring occasion indicated by a PDCCH search space, as discussed by HE (see Abstract and paragraphs [0002]-[0004]).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following references, although not relied upon, are considered to be pertinent prior art since they disclose subject matter related to the invention claimed by the present application, i.e., monitoring occasions in non-consecutive slots.
US 12267847 B2 US 12096420 B2 US 12057935 B2
US 12028871 B2 US 11968550 B2 US 20230396402 A1
US 11824807 B2 US 11737081 B2 US 20230050541 A1
US 11510155 B2 US 11464008 B2 US 11229003 B2
US 11201718 B2 US 11051208 B2 US 10912071 B2
US 10681673 B2 US 20200022144 A1 US 20190098637 A1
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amancio González, whose telephone number is (571) 270-1106. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez, can be reached at (571) 272-7915. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/AMANCIO GONZALEZ/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
December 2, 2025
Prosecution Insights