DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 1/8/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected.
Claim 13 is objected to for having allowable subject matter.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/8/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein SSB indices.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear to whether the claim was meant to depend upon claim 4 from which SSB indices does have antecedent basis.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ali et al. (WO 2021/084333)(A1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1,14,15 and 20, A1 teaches a user equipment (UE)(i.e. remote unit)[refer Fig. 2], comprising:
at least one memory [refer Fig. 2; 204]; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory [refer Fig. 2; 202] and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a first configuration (i.e. RRC configuration) comprising a first indication that a first group of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) is associated with a first waveform (i.e. CP-OFDM)[paragraph 0094];
receive a second configuration (i.e. RRC configuration) comprising a second indication that a second group of SSBs is associated with a second waveform different than the first waveform (i.e. DFT-OFDM)[paragraph 0094]; and
determine a respective waveform associated with a received SSB (odd numbered SS blocks are transmitted with the single carrier waveform, even numbered SS blocks are transmitted in a multi-carrier waveform)[paragraph 0105] based at least in part on an SSB index (i.e. SSB indication)[paragraph 0106], the SSB index indicating that the waveform is associated with the received SSB (the SSB carry an indication of the pattern used to alternate the waveform for different burst sets)[paragraph 0106].
Regarding claims 2 and 16, A1 teaches the first waveform associated with the first group of SSBs comprises a cyclic prefix orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (CP-OFDM) waveform [paragraph 0094]; and
the second waveform associated with the second group of SSBs comprises a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) waveform [paragraph 0094].
Regarding claims 3 and 17, A1 teaches the first waveform associated with the first group of SSBs (i.e. even numbered SS blocks) comprises an OFDM-based [paragraph 0094] multi-carrier waveform [paragraph 0105] and the second waveform associated with the second group of SSBs (i.e. odd numbered SS blocks) comprises a single carrier- based waveform [paragraph 0105].
Regarding claims 4 and 18, A1 teaches the first group of SSBs, the second group of SSBs, or both, correspond to a set of SSB indices [paragraph 0098], the set of SSB indices are separately assigned (i.e. are different for different SS blocks)[paragraph 0098], and a quantity of SSB indices of the set of SSB indices are separately configured [paragraph 0105].
Regarding claims 5 and 19, A1 teaches the first group of SSBs, the second group of SSBs, or both, correspond to a respective SSB pattern [paragraph 0106].
Regarding claim 6, A1 teaches the first group of SSBs is associated with a first SSB pattern, and the second group of SSBs is associated with a second SSB pattern different than the first SSB pattern [paragraph 0106].
Regarding claim 7, A1 teaches SSB indices are assigned jointly to multiple groups of SSBs associated with different waveforms [paragraph 0105], a total range of the SSB indices (i.e. maximum number of SS blocks) is equal to a sum of the SSBs within each group (i.e. SS burst)[paragraph 0097].
Regarding claim 8, A1 teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to determine an association between an SSB beam and the SSB index indicating the respective waveform associated with the received SSB.
Regarding claim 9, A1 teaches a periodicity associated with the first group of SSBs, the second group of SSBs, or both, is based at least in part on a frequency range [paragraph 0097].
Claims 1,8,14,15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US Pub. 2024/0147544)(L1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1,14,15 and 20, L1 teaches a user equipment (UE)[refer Fig. 2; 284][paragraph 0018], comprising:
at least one memory [refer Fig. 2; 282]; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive, from a base station [refer Fig. 2; 130][paragraph 0060], a first configuration [paragraph 0095] comprising a first indication that a first group of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) is associated with a first waveform (i.e. numerology)[paragraph 0156];
receive a second configuration [paragraph 0096] comprising a second indication that a second group of SSBs is associated with a second waveform different than the first waveform [paragraph 0156]; and
determine a respective waveform associated with a received SSB based at least in part on an SSB index [paragraph 0177], the SSB index indicating that the waveform is associated with the received SSB [paragraph 0177].
Regarding claim 8, L1 teaches the UE to determine an association between an SSB beam (the base station sends the SSBs on multiple beams in an SSB burst)[paragraph 0156] and the SSB index indicating the respective waveform associated with the received SSB [paragraph 0177].
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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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.
Claims 2,9-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US Pub. 2024/0147544)(L1 hereafter) in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US Pub. 2018/0287840)(A2 hereafter).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, L1 provides support for the use of CP-OFDM and DFT-OFDM [paragraph 0063], numerologies for OFDM are reference to configuration of waveform parameters, different numerologies correspond to different configured OFDM waveform parameters [paragraph 0083].
However, L1 fails to explicitly disclose the first waveform associated with the first group of SSBs comprises a cyclic prefix orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (CP-OFDM) waveform; and the second waveform associated with the second group of SSBs comprises a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (DFT-s-OFDM) waveform.
A2 discloses that a SSB can be configurable using either a first waveform or a second waveform, the first waveform having higher peak to average power characteristics, such as OFDM, which can be with a cyclic prefix [refer paragraph 0066], and a second waveform that has lower PAPR characteristics, such as DFT-OFDM [refer Abstract][paragraph 0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate specific waveforms, such as the CP-OFDM and DFT-OFDM waveforms supported, to be specifically applied to the transmission of SSBs as taught by A2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of utilizing multiple types of waveforms to capitalize on the respective advantages that each provide [refer A2; paragraph 0003].
Regarding claim 9, L1 fails to disclose a periodicity associated with the first group of SSBs, the second group of SSBs, or both, is based at least in part on a frequency range, a carrier frequency, a frequency raster, or a subcarrier spacing, or a combination thereof.
A2 discloses SSBs that reside within a particular frequency band may be known to use one waveform type, while another SSB resident in another frequency band can use another waveform, each waveform type can have different SSB periodicities [paragraph 0100].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate specific waveforms to be specifically applied to the transmission of SSBs using different periodicities and frequency band as taught by A2. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of utilizing multiple types of waveforms to capitalize on the respective advantages that each provide [refer A2; paragraph 0003].
Regarding claim 10, L1 teaches each of one or more repeated SSB indices with a different waveform is associated with one or more separate random access channel (RACH) occasions (ROs) [paragraph 0141]; and
each RO is associated with the respective waveform corresponding to the at least one received SSB (RACH occasions are associated with respective numerologies)[paragraph 0144].
Regarding claim 11, L1 teaches at least two ROs are associated with the at least one received SSB [paragraph 0144], and each of the ROs is associated with a different waveform (RACH occasions are associated with respective numerologies)[paragraph 0144].
Regarding claim 12, L1 teaches the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to autonomously select one of the two ROs (a RACH occasion associated with a respective numerology can be preferred by the UE)[paragraph 0144] associated with the at least one received SSB; and
the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform an uplink (UL) transmission during a RACH procedure using the respective waveform associated with one of the two selected Ros [paragraph 0145].
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L1 in view of Sakhnini et al. (US Pub. 2022/0200746)(S1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, L1 fails to disclose the first waveform associated with the first group of SSBs comprises an OFDM-based multi-carrier waveform and the second waveform associated with the second group of SSBs comprises a single carrier-based waveform.
S1 discloses that different waveforms can be used for different SSB transmissions, such as a single carrier waveform used for a PSS and SSS and an OFDM waveform (i.e. OFDM-based multi-carrier waveform) used for a PBCH transmission [paragraph 0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate specific carrier waveforms to be specifically applied to the transmission of SSBs as taught by S1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of providing a waveform for the SSB based upon channel characteristics [refer S1; paragraph 0049].
Claims 4-7,18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over L1 in view of Akkarkaran et al. (US Pub. 2020/0412590)(A3 hereafter).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, L1 provides support for an SSBs to be associated with an index [paragraph 0176], however L1 fails to disclose the first group of SSBs, the second group of SSBs, or both, correspond to a set of SSB indices, the set of SSB indices are separately assigned, and a quantity of SSB indices of the set of SSB indices are separately configured.
A3 discloses that one or more number of indicator bits (i.e. indices) associated with SSBs or SSB groups may be increased to accommodate a larger number of SSBs [paragraph 0061][paragraph 0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate specific indices for groups of SSBs as taught by A3. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of identifying of one or more groups of SSBS that are transmitted by the base station [refer A3; paragraph 0030].
Regarding claims 5 and 19, L1 teaches the first group of SSBs, the second group of SSBs, or both, correspond to a respective SSB pattern (i.e. rate matching pattern)[paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 6, L1 teaches the first group of SSBs is associated with a first SSB pattern, and the second group of SSBs is associated with a second SSB pattern different than the first SSB pattern (rate-matching pattern is used to match around SSB signals associated with different numerology)[paragraph 0105].
Regarding claim 7, L1 fails to disclose SSB indices are assigned jointly to multiple groups of SSBs associated with different waveforms, a total range of the SSB indices is equal to a sum of the SSBs within each group.
A3 discloses that one or more number of indicator bits (i.e. indices) associated with SSBs or SSB groups may be increased to accommodate a larger number of SSBs [paragraph 0061][paragraph 0114].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of L1 to incorporate specific indices for groups of SSBs as taught by A3. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of identifying of one or more groups of SSBS that are transmitted by the base station [refer A3; paragraph 0030].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or reasonably suggest that in response to a RACH configuration being received without a subcarrier spacing value, a UE is to perform an uplink (UL) transmission during a RACH procedure using a single carrier-based waveform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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 C Jiang can be reached on 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412