DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 29 May 2026. Claims 1-31 are pending in this application.
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 .
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.
Claims 24-30 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.
For Claim 24, it is not clear what is meant by “transmitting, via a non-anchor cell in a multi-carrier operation, a synchronization signal block (SSB) and using a synchronization raster”. This should probably be corrected to --- transmitting, via a non-anchor cell in a multi-carrier operation and using a synchronization raster, a synchronization signal block (SSB)
Remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, 18-19, 23-24, 26 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2025/0039715; this is the US application corresponding to D1 (W02023/132783) from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority) in view of Hong et al. (US 2025/0106794).
For Claims 1 and 16, Tang teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see paragraphs 285 and 289), configured to cause the UE to:
receive, via a non-anchor cell in a multi-carrier operation, a synchronization signal block (SSB), wherein the SSB is a cell defining SSB (CD-SSB) or a non-cell-defining SSB (NCD-SSB) (see paragraphs 101, 127); and
initiate a procedure based at least in part on the SSB (see paragraphs 147-150, 151-154: measuring cell 2).
Though Tang does teach using a synchronization raster as in NR (see paragraphs 23-24), Thang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches receiving based at least in part on a synchronization raster, a synchronization signal block (SSB), wherein the SSB is a cell defining SSB (CD-SSB) or a non-cell-defining SSB (NCD-SSB) (see paragraphs 57, 145-146, 151).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the synchronization raster for both types of SSB as in Myung when implementing the method of Tang. The motivation would be to reduce the search complexity for the terminal device.
For Claims 9 and 24, Tang teaches a method and an apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see paragraphs 299-300, 302), configured to cause the network node to:
transmit, via a non-anchor cell in a multi-carrier operation, a synchronization signal block (SSB), wherein the SSB is a cell defining SSB (CD-SSB) or a non-cell-defining SSB (NCD-SSB) (see paragraphs 101, 127); and
perform signaling associated with a procedure based at least in part on the SSB (see paragraphs 147-150, 151-154: measuring cell 2).
Though Tang does teach using a synchronization raster as in NR (see paragraphs 23-24), Thang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Hong teaches transmitting based at least in part on a synchronization raster, a synchronization signal block (SSB), wherein the SSB is a cell defining SSB (CD-SSB) or a non-cell-defining SSB (NCD-SSB) (see paragraphs 57, 145-146, 151).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use the synchronization raster for both types of SSB as in Myung when implementing the method of Tang. The motivation would be to reduce the search complexity for the terminal device.
For Claims 3, 11, 18, and 26, Tang teaches the apparatus, wherein the UE is configured to receive either CD-SSBs or NCD-SSBs via the non-anchor cell (see Claim 13, paragraphs 101, 127, 135, 142-144).
For Claims 8, 15, 23, and 30, Tang teaches the apparatus, wherein the procedure is associated with one of: an initial access, radio link management, radio resource management, beam failure detection, or quasi co-location (see paragraphs 22, 147-154: RRM measurements).
Claim(s) 2, 10, 17, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2025/0039715; this is the US application corresponding to D1 (W02023/132783) from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority) and Hong et al. (US 2025/0106794) as applied to claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 above, and further in view of CN 117676818 A (D2 from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority).
For Claims 2, 10, 17, and 25, while Tang does indicate that MCD-SSBs and CD-SSBs are alternatively received via the non-anchor cell (see claim 13), the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but D2 teaches the apparatus, wherein the UE is configured to receive only NCD-SSBs and not CD-SSBs via the non-anchor cell (see p. 14 lines 24-25, p. 9 lines 1-4 as indicated in the Written Opinion).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use only NCD-SSBs as in D2 when implementing the apparatus of Tang. The motivation would be to improve measurement accuracy by supporting an expanded range of signal measurement.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 19, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2025/0039715; this is the US application corresponding to D1 (WO2023/132783) from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority) and Hong et al. (US 2025/0106794) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Da Silva (US 2021/0195663).
For Claims 4, 12, 19, and 27, while Tang does teach receiving SSBs via a non-anchor cell (see paragraphs 101, 127), Tang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Da Silva teaches the apparatus, wherein the UE is configured to receive either CD-SSBs or NCD-SSBs with a restriction, wherein the restriction is associated with no system information block type 1 (SIB1) transmission regardless of SSB type, no random access channel (RACH) signaling regardless of the SSB type (see paragraphs 53, 55: no SIB1; paragraph 4: secondary node).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to allow for receiving SSBs with a restriction as in Da Silva when implementing the system of Tang. The motivation would be to reduce signaling overhead.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 20, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2025/0039715; this is the US application corresponding to D1 (W02023/132783) from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority) and Hong et al. (US 2025/0106794) as applied to claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 above, and further in view of Akkarakaran et al. (US 2022/0264477).
For Claims 5, 13, 20, and 28, Tang as modified by Hong above further teaches the apparatus, wherein the SSB is received based at least in part on the synchronization raster regardless of whether the SSB is the CD-SSB or the NCD-SSB (see paragraphs 23-24 of Tang: raster; see paragraphs 57, 145-146, 151 of Hong).
The references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Akkarakaran teaches the one or more processors being further configured to cause the UE to:
receive a master information block (MIB) that includes a flag to indicate that associated system information is provided in another cell (see paragraph 110); and
perform a random access channel (RACH) procedure based at least in part on the SSB transmitted using the synchronization raster (see paragraph 110).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide signaling as in Akkarakaran when implementing the apparatus of Tang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of allowing a low power UE to establish an appropriate connection to the network.
Claim(s) 6-7, 14, 21-22, and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2025/0039715; this is the US application corresponding to D1 (W02023/132783) from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority) and Hong et al. (US 2025/0106794) as applied to claims 1, 9, 16, and 24 above, and further in view of Han (EP4432735 A1).
For Claims 6, 14, 21, and 29, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Han teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive a master information block (MIB) that includes a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) configuration system information block type 1 (pdcch-ConfigSIB1) field to indicate a global synchronization channel number (GSCN) that has a control resource set 0 (CORESET0) for an associated Type0 PDCCH common search space (CSS) set, wherein system information for the non-anchor cell is identified based at least in part on the GSCN (see paragraphs 4, 5, 195-100: SSBs on sync rasters, include MIB, flag, CORESET0, PDCCH config SIB1, SearchSpace0).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ the MIB as in Han when implementing the apparatus of Tang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using known signaling to convey known information and allowing for compatibility with established networks.
For Claims 7, 14, 22, and 30, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Han teaches the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
determine the GSCN of a synchronization signal or physical broadcast channel (SS/PBCH) block having the CORESET0 for the associated Type0 PDCCH CSS set based at least in part on repurposed bits in the pdcch-ConfigSIB1 field (see paragraphs 4-5, 75-76, and 195-100).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ the MIB as in Han when implementing the apparatus of Tang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of using known signaling to convey known information and allowing for compatibility with established networks.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US 2025/0039715; this is the US application corresponding to D1 (W02023/132783) from the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority) and Hong et al. (US 2025/0106794) as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Myung et al. (WO2024/035018, citing to the machine translation provided herewith).
For Claim 31, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Myung teaches the apparatus, wherein a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) payload indicates the restriction associated with the no SIB1 transmission regardless of the SSB type, or the no RACH signaling regardless of the SSB type (see highlighted portions on pages 31-32 of the translation).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to indicate the restriction as in Myung when managing overhead as in Tang and Da Silva. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of controlling overhead.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 29 May 2026 has been entered.
With regards to the rejection of claim 27, this claim was rejected in the rejection directed to claims 4, 12, and 19 which are commensurate in scope. It was misnumbered as 24. The numbering has been corrected. Claim 27 was included in the Office action summary (“Claims 1-30 are rejected.”)
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments. The amendments have resulted in some new rejections under 35 USC 112.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections over prior art have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hong et al. (US 2026/0052478) and Hou et al. (US 2024/0276502) teach systems in which both DC-SSB and NCD-SSB are received on sync rasters.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 6/23/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights