CTNF 18/723,625 CTNF 84737 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED OFFICE ACTION This action is responsive to the communication received June 24 th , 2025. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-21 have been entered and are presented for examination. Application 18/723,997 is a 371 of PCT/SE2021/051321 12/31/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 15, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-12 and 14-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: synchronisation should be changed to ---synchronization ---. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed computer storage medium is directed to signal per se. Double Patenting 08-30 AIA A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co. , 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert , 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957). A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101. 08-32 Claim s 1-4, 12 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-4, 10 of copending Application No. 18/723,997 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (US 2019/0357159) . Regarding claim 1-4, 12, Pan et al. discloses a method of operating a wireless device in a wireless communication network (see Figure 1A [UE communicating within a wireless network]) , the method comprising; communicating based on received synchronisation signalling (see Figure 3 and SS/PBCH Blocks) , the synchronisation signalling covering a signalling time interval having a number N1 of symbol time intervals or symbols, N1 being larger than 1 (see Figure 3 [symbol time interval is 4]) , the synchronisation signalling, comprising: on NP1 symbol time interval or symbols, primary synchronisation signalling, PSS (see Figure 3 [PSS on at least one symbol]) ; and on NS1 symbol time intervals or symbols, secondary synchronisation signalling, SSS (see Figure 3 [SSS on at least one symbol]) , one or both NP1 being 2 or larger and/or wherein and NS1 being 2 or larger (See Figure 3 [depending on the option, PSS can span 2 symbol time intervals or SSS can span 2 symbol time intervals]) . Regarding claims 5, 14, Pan et al. discloses all the subject matter in claims 1, 3, and wherein the synchronisation signalling comprising broadcast signalling, the broadcast signalling being PBCH signalling (see Figures 2-3 [PBCH]) . Regarding claims 6, 15, Pan et al. discloses all the subject matter in claims 1, 3, and wherein the NS1 symbol time intervals carrying secondary synchronisation signalling are non-neighboring in time (see Figure 3) . Regarding claims 8, 17, Pan et al. discloses all the subject matter in claims 1, 3, and wherein NB1 symbol time intervals of the N1 symbol time intervals carry broadcast signalling on a broadcast channel, wherein NB1 is 2 or larger (see Figure 2 [PBCH is in 2 symbol times]) . Regarding claims 11, 20, Pan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claim 1, 3 and wherein one or both N1 is 4 or larger (see Figure 2 [symbol time is 4]) ; and the SSS is carried on one or both of a 2 nd and a 4 th of the N1 symbol time intervals (see Figure 2 [SSS is on the 2 nd symbol time]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 9-10, 16, 18-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0357159) in view of Sakhnini et al. (US 2021/0352601) . Regarding claims 7, 16, Pan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the SSS is mapped in frequency domain in a comb structure on one or more, or each of the NS1 symbol time intervals covered by SSS. However, Sakhnini et al. discloses wherein the SSS is mapped in frequency domain in a comb structure on one or more, or each of the NS1 symbol time intervals covered by SSS (see Figure 2 [SSS is mapped in the frequency domain in a comb structure]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the SSS could be set in a comb structure in the frequency domain. The motivation for this is maximize signalling. Regarding claims 9, 18, 21, Pan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmission power distribution is different for PSS than for SSS. However, Sakhnini et al. discloses wherein the transmission power distribution is different for PSS than for SSS (paragraph 0103 [In conventional wireless communications systems, a UE 115 may assume an EPRE ratio of PSS 205 and SSS 215 or PSS 205 and PBCH 210 is equal to one of a small set of possible values. For instance, an NR system may support a power boost for a PSS 305 of either 0 dB or 3 dB with respect to an SSS 215. A UE 115 may assume that the ratio of PSS EPRE to SSS EPRE in an SSB is either 0 dB or 3 dB.]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the PSS and the SSS could have different powers since in conventional wireless systems this is the case. Regarding claims 10, 19, Pan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more of the NS1 symbol time intervals carrying SSS also carries broadcast signalling on a broadcast channel. However, Sakhnini et al. discloses wherein the one or more of the NS1 symbol time intervals carrying SSS also carries broadcast signalling on a broadcast channel (see Figure 2 [PBCH and SSS are on the same symbol time]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize to recognize the SSS could be set in a comb structure in the frequency domain with the PBCH. The motivation for this is maximize signalling. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3937. The examiner can normally be reached 4pm-11:30pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571)270-0422. 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. /CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,625 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,625 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,625 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,625 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,625 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,625 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights