DETAILED ACTION
This communication is response to the amendment submitted on 07/27/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-23 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 21-23 are new claims.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Notice of Allowance on 04/28/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Prosecution on the merits of this application is reopened on claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 considered unpatentable for the reasons indicated below:
The indicated allowability of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) and submitted IDS. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 9, 16, 19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “TDM Based Unified SS Block Design for Both Above and Below 6 GHz” to MediaTek Inc (hereafter MediaTek), see IDS dated 05/31/2024 in view of “Discussion on Multiplexing initial access signals” by Samsung (hereafter Samsung), see IDS dated 07/21/2026.
Regarding claim 1, MediaTek discloses a method performed by a wireless transmit / receive unit (WTRU) (see MediaTek, Section 4.1, UE), the method comprising:
receiving at least one symbol of a synchronization signal block (SSB) that consists of four symbols (see MediaTek, Fig 1 showing exemplary SSB having 7 symbols slot; Fig 4; section 4.1: the uses the same RX beam to receive all the SS block in one burst period); obviously, the symbols can be reduce from 7 to 4 based on user design preference
wherein a first in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a primary synchronization signal (PSS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2; Section 2, 3rd ¶: the PSS and SS are placed in symbols 1 and 3, respectively);
wherein a second in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a first physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal and a first demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2 showing exemplary DMRS and PBCH placed in symbols 2 and 4 of SS block; Section 2, last ¶: Interleaved with the PBCH in symbols 2, and 4 are two DMRS for demodulation of PBCH);
wherein a third in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2; Section 2, 3rd ¶: the PSS and SS are placed in symbols 1 and 3, respectively); and
wherein a fourth in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a second PBCH signal and a second DMRS (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2 showing exemplary DMRS and PBCH placed in symbols 2 and 4 of SS block; Section 2, last ¶: Interleaved with the PBCH in symbols 2, and 4 are two DMRS for demodulation of PBCH).
MediaTek discloses the SSB consists of seven symbols but does not explicitly disclose the SSB consists of four symbols.
However, Samsung discloses receiving at least one symbol of a synchronization signal block (SSB) that consists of four symbols (see Samsung, Fig 1: nominal sync symbol design (TDM vs FDM), signal 1/2/3/4 can represent either of the NR-PSS/NR-SSS/NR-PBCH; page 2, discloses four symbols TDM and FDM designs, comprising signals 1-signals 4, which represents either of NR-PSS/NR-SSS/NR-PBCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teaching of four symbols SSB of Samsung and incorporate it into the system MediaTek to achieve improved synchronization multiplexing design for initial access (see Samsung, page 1, section 1: Introduction).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, MediaTek discloses the network device of claim 16, wherein the network device comprises a g Node-B (gNB) and/or a transmission point (TRP) (see MediaTek, Fig 4, TRP).
Regarding claim 21, MediaTek in view of Samsung discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a first subcarrier occupied by the second DMRS and a second subcarrier occupied by the second DMRS are separated by three subcarriers.
However, since MediaTek discloses the first DMRS and second DMRS is located in different symbols of the SB, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the first DMRS and the second DMRS using three subcarriers and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek based on user design preference to achieve desired design goal of efficient synchronization.
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 21.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 16, 19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “TDM Based Unified SS Block Design for Both Above and Below 6 GHz” to MediaTek Inc (hereafter MediaTek), see IDS dated 05/31/2024 in view of US 10,660,054 to Lee et al. (hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, MediaTek discloses a method performed by a wireless transmit / receive unit (WTRU) (see MediaTek, Section 4.1, UE), the method comprising:
receiving at least one symbol of a synchronization signal block (SSB) that consists of four symbols (see MediaTek, Fig 1 showing exemplary SSB having 7 symbols slot; Fig 4; section 4.1: the uses the same RX beam to receive all the SS block in one burst period); obviously, the symbols can be reduce from 7 to 4 based on user design preference
wherein a first in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a primary synchronization signal (PSS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2; Section 2, 3rd ¶: the PSS and SS are placed in symbols 1 and 3, respectively);
wherein a second in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a first physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal and a first demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2 showing exemplary DMRS and PBCH placed in symbols 2 and 4 of SS block; Section 2, last ¶: Interleaved with the PBCH in symbols 2, and 4 are two DMRS for demodulation of PBCH);
wherein a third in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2; Section 2, 3rd ¶: the PSS and SS are placed in symbols 1 and 3, respectively); and
wherein a fourth in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a second PBCH signal and a second DMRS (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2 showing exemplary DMRS and PBCH placed in symbols 2 and 4 of SS block; Section 2, last ¶: Interleaved with the PBCH in symbols 2, and 4 are two DMRS for demodulation of PBCH).
MediaTek discloses the SSB consists of seven symbols but does not explicitly disclose the SSB consists of four symbols.
However, Lee discloses receiving at least one symbol of a synchronization signal block (SSB) that consists of four symbols (see Lee, Fig 4 and Fig 5; Col 7 lines 4-10: FIG. 4 illustrates a case that a PSS/SSS/PBCH is repeatedly transmitted over 4 OFDM symbols in a single wide beam region. In particular, a resource region corresponding to a single wide beam region where a synchronization signal is repeatedly transmitted by a plurality of RF chains is referred to as a ‘basic synchronization signal block’; Col 7 lines 25-28: PSS group corresponds to PSSs included in a basic synchronization signal block. FIG. 4 illustrates a case that a basic synchronization signal block includes four 01-DM symbols).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teaching of four symbols SSB of Samsung and incorporate it into the system MediaTek to improve efficiency of a synchronization procedure (see Lee, Col 2 lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the network device of claim 16, wherein the network device comprises a g Node-B (gNB) and/or a transmission point (TRP) (see MediaTek, Fig 4, TRP).
Regarding claim 21, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a first subcarrier occupied by the second DMRS and a second subcarrier occupied by the second DMRS are separated by three subcarriers.
However, since MediaTek discloses the first DMRS and second DMRS is located in different symbols of the SB, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the first DMRS and the second DMRS using three subcarriers and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek based on user design preference to achieve desired design goal of efficient synchronization.
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 21.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 16, 19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “TDM Based Unified SS Block Design for Both Above and Below 6 GHz” to MediaTek Inc (hereafter MediaTek), see IDS dated 05/31/2024 in view of US 2018/0167195 to LY et al. (hereafter Ly).
Regarding claim 1, MediaTek discloses a method performed by a wireless transmit / receive unit (WTRU) (see MediaTek, Section 4.1, UE), the method comprising:
receiving at least one symbol of a synchronization signal block (SSB) that consists of four symbols (see MediaTek, Fig 1 showing exemplary SSB having 7 symbols slot; Fig 4; section 4.1: the uses the same RX beam to receive all the SS block in one burst period); obviously, the symbols can be reduce from 7 to 4 based on user design preference
wherein a first in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a primary synchronization signal (PSS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2; Section 2, 3rd ¶: the PSS and SS are placed in symbols 1 and 3, respectively);
wherein a second in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a first physical broadcast channel (PBCH) signal and a first demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2 showing exemplary DMRS and PBCH placed in symbols 2 and 4 of SS block; Section 2, last ¶: Interleaved with the PBCH in symbols 2, and 4 are two DMRS for demodulation of PBCH);
wherein a third in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a secondary synchronization signal (SSS) (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2; Section 2, 3rd ¶: the PSS and SS are placed in symbols 1 and 3, respectively); and
wherein a fourth in time symbol of the four symbols comprises a second PBCH signal and a second DMRS (see MediaTek, Fig 1 and Fig 2 showing exemplary DMRS and PBCH placed in symbols 2 and 4 of SS block; Section 2, last ¶: Interleaved with the PBCH in symbols 2, and 4 are two DMRS for demodulation of PBCH).
MediaTek discloses the SSB consists of seven symbols but does not explicitly disclose the SSB consists of four symbols.
However, Ly discloses receiving at least one symbol of a synchronization signal block (SSB) that consists of four symbols (see Ly, Fig 3A; ¶ 0046: a synchronization signal block 308 may include four (4) symbols for PBCH, SSS, PSS, and PBCH, as shown in FIG. 3A; ¶ 0060: a synchronization signal block 308 may include 4 symbols for PBCH, SSS, PSS, and PBCH, as shown in FIG. 3B. In this example, the synchronization signal block 308 may be at a frequency band that below 6 GHz, and may have 2.16 MHz synchronization signal bandwidth with 15 kHz synchronization numerology or channel spacing (e.g., see parameters in Table 4)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teaching of four symbols SSB of Ly and incorporate it into the system MediaTek to improve the signaling and synchronization, enhance system reliability, and improve user experience in wireless communications (see Ly, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, MediaTek in view of Ly discloses the network device of claim 16, wherein the network device comprises a g Node-B (gNB) and/or a transmission point (TRP) (see MediaTek, Fig 4, TRP).
Regarding claim 21, MediaTek in view of Ly discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a first subcarrier occupied by the second DMRS and a second subcarrier occupied by the second DMRS are separated by three subcarriers.
However, since MediaTek discloses the first DMRS and second DMRS is located in different symbols of the SB, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the first DMRS and the second DMRS using three subcarriers and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek based on user design preference to achieve desired design goal of efficient synchronization.
Regarding claim 22, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 21. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 21.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MediaTek in view of Lee and further in view of WO 2011015065 A1 to DAI, BO et al. (hereafter DAI).
Regarding claim 2, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first DMRS and the second DMRS are located in same subcarriers.
However, DAI discloses wherein the first DMRS and the second DMRS are located in same subcarriers.
However, DAI discloses wherein the first DMRS and the second DMRS are located in same subcarriers (see DAI, pages 3-4: And mapping the reference signals in the group 3 to the second OFDM symbol and the fourth OFDM symbol of the four OFDM symbols, occupying the same three subcarriers in the frequency domain as the reference signal in the group 1; The reference signals in the group 4 are sequentially mapped onto the second OFDM symbol and the fourth OFDM symbol of the four OFDM symbols, occupying the same three subcarriers in the frequency domain as the reference signals in the group 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by DAI and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek to improve transmission performance of reference signal in the communication system (see DAI, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first DMRS and the second DMRS are located in same frequency locations.
However, DAI discloses wherein the first DMRS and the second DMRS are located in same frequency locations (see DAI, pages 3-4: And mapping the reference signals in the group 3 to the second OFDM symbol and the fourth OFDM symbol of the four OFDM symbols, occupying the same three subcarriers in the frequency domain as the reference signal in the group 1; The reference signals in the group 4 are sequentially mapped onto the second OFDM symbol and the fourth OFDM symbol of the four OFDM symbols, occupying the same three subcarriers in the frequency domain as the reference signals in the group 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by DAI and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek to improve transmission performance of reference signal in the communication system (see DAI, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 3. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 3.
Claim(s) 5-7, 13, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MediaTek in view of Lee and further in view of “Idle mode RRM measurements” to ZTE (hereafter ZTE), see IDS dated 05/31/2024.
Regarding claim 5, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the PSS and the SSS occupy a same frequency spectrum.
However, ZTE discloses wherein the PSS and the SSS occupy a same frequency spectrum (see ZTE, Section 3, 1st ¶ and 2nd ¶).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by ZTE and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek for efficient resource allocation in the communication system.
Regarding claim 6, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PBCH signal and the second PBCH occupy a larger frequency spectrum than the PSS and the SSS.
However, ZTE discloses wherein the first PBCH signal and the second PBCH occupy a larger frequency spectrum than the PSS and the SSS (see ZTE, Section 3, 1st ¶ and 2nd ¶).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by ZTE and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek for efficient resource allocation in the communication system.
Regarding claim 7, MediaTek in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first PBCH signal and the second PBCH occupy a wider frequency spectrum than the PSS and the SSS.
However, ZTE wherein the first PBCH signal and the second PBCH occupy a wider frequency spectrum than the PSS and the SSS (see ZTE, Section 3, 1st ¶ and 2nd ¶).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the above teaching as taught by ZTE and incorporate it into the system of MediaTek for efficient resource allocation in the communication system.
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 5 and 6. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claims 5 and 6.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 7. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claim 7.
Regarding claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 5 and 6. Although phrased as an apparatus claim, the claim is nevertheless simple repetitions of the subject matter of claims 5 and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHEED GIDADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/RASHEED GIDADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights