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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11-17 and 20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chande et al. (US 2020/0245157 A1, hereinafter “Chande”).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 19, Chande discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: a transceiver; one or more memories configured to, individually or in combination, store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories, wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination (see Figure 2, UE 104), configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: receive, from a network entity, an indication to modify a synchronization signal block (SSB) configuration in a first subset of a set of time periods (see Figure 4, 402, para. 0075, In method 400, at Block 402, multiple SSB signals can be received from a base station. In an aspect, SSB processing component 252, e.g., in conjunction with processor (s) 212, memory 216, transceiver 202, communicating component 242, etc., can receive the multiple SSB signals from the base station (e.g., from base station 102, as generated and transmitted at Block 504). For example, the multiple SSB signals can be transmitted using beamforming based on different directional beams, as described, and the UE 104 can receive multiple SSB signals that may each have different signal properties. With reference to FIG. 6, for example, UE 104 can receive SSBidx1 602 and SSBidx2 604 transmitted by the base station 102. In another example, UE 104 may also receive SSBidx3 606 and/or SSBidx4 608, but these beams may not have desirable signal properties such to be considered for further communication procedures (e.g., SSBidx3 606 and/or SSBidx4 608); para. 0072, indication of acceptable (first) and preferred (second SSB) and transmit, for the network entity and based on the indication, uplink control information (UCI) indicating whether the apparatus is to transmit uplink communications in a second subset of the set of time periods (see Figure 4, Blocks 404, 406, 410 and 412, para. 0076, 0080, and 0084, modifying the SSB with the preferred SSB of the multiple SSB signals, determination is based on RSRP threshold, acceptable and preferred have different time intervals, time/frequency resources are different for different SSB groups).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chande in view of Huang et al. (US 2023/0052556 A1, hereinafter “Huang”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Chande discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive, for the UE, the uplink communications in at least a portion of the second subset of the set of time periods according to the UCI. However, Huang from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the one or more processors are, individually or in combination, configured to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive, for the UE, the uplink communications in at least a portion of the second subset of the set of time periods according to the UCI (see para. 0011-0012, 0024-0025, portion allocated for uplink transmission in the subset of time periods). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Huang allocation scheme into Chande allocation scheme. The method can be implemented in a base station. The motivation of doing this is to avoid overlap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MOHAMMAD S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights