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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05-20-2026 has been entered and considered.
Claims 5-6, 9-12, and 18-20 are pending in the current application.
Claims 5-6, 9-12, and 18-20 remain rejected as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
Claims 5-6, 9-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al (US 2025/0184053) in view of Akkarakaran et al (US 2021/0051610). Hereinafter referred to as Sun and Akkarakaran.
Regarding claims 5, and 12. Sun discloses a method performed by a WTRU comprising receiving configuration information comprising at least a first frequency for a first sidelink synchronization signal/physical sidelink broadcast channel (S-SS/PSBCH) transmission and a second frequency for a second S-SS/PSBCH transmission (see at least paragraphs [0040]-[0042], [0049]-[0053] and figures 1-2); monitoring for reception of the first S-SS/PSBCH transmission on the first frequency at a first time; and monitoring for reception of the second S-SS/PSBCH transmission on the second frequency at a second time (see at least paragraphs [0040]-[0042], [0049]-[0053] and figures 1-2).
Sun discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the first time and second time are different, and the first time and the second time are within a signal S-SSB transmission period. However, Akkarakaran, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the first time and second time are different, and the first time and the second time are within a signal S-SSB transmission period (see at least paragraphs [0068], and [0085]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Akkarakaran, as indicated, into the communication method of Sun for the purpose of improving distance coverage.
Regarding claim 6. Sun in view of Akkarakaran discloses a method wherein the configuration information is received during a radio resource control (RRC) configuration or a system information message (see at least paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18. Sun in view of Akkarakaran discloses a method wherein the WTRU performs beam sweeping comprising a plurality of beam directions and wherein the first S-SS/PSBCH transmission and the second S-SS/PSBCH transmission are made in a first beam direction, and every subsequent two S-SS/PSBCH transmissions are made in the first and second frequencies per each remaining beam direction within a beam sweep (see at least figure 12, abstract and Embodiment of Multibeam S-SSB Enhancement).
Regarding claims 10 and 19. Sun in view of Akkarakaran discloses a method wherein the WTRU performs beam sweeping comprising a plurality of beam directions and wherein the first S-SS/PSBCH transmission is made in a first set of the beam directions of a first sweep through the plurality of beam directions and wherein the second S-SS/PSBCH transmission is made in a second set of beam directions of the first sweep through the plurality of beam directions (see at least figure 12, abstract and Embodiment of Multibeam S-SSB Enhancement) (Akkarakaran: see at least paragraphs [0054], [0056]).
Regarding claims 11 and 20. Sun in view of Akkarakaran discloses a method, wherein the WTRU performs beam sweeping comprising a plurality of beam directions and wherein the first S-SS/PSBCH transmission is made at each of the beam directions of a first set of sweeps through the plurality of beam directions and wherein the second S-SS/PSBCH transmission is made at each of the beam directions of a second set of sweeps through the plurality of beam directions (see at least figure 12, abstract and Embodiment of Multibeam S-SSB Enhancement) (Akkarakaran: see at least paragraphs [0054], [0056] and [0061]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 5, 6, 9-12, and 18-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights