CTNF 18/723,997 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 25 th , 2025. Claim 11 has been canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-21 have been entered and are presented for examination. Application 18/723,997 is a 371 of PCT/SE2021/051322 12/31/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 16, 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 1-10 and 12-21 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 10 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, 10 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-4, 12 of copending Application No. 18/723,625 (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) 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18, 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, 10, 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 6, 13, 18, Pan et al. discloses all the subject matter in claims 1, 2, 3 and wherein PSS on different symbols is mapped to the same frequency range (see Figure 3) . Regarding claim 8, 15, 20, Pan et al. discloses all the subject matter in claim 1, 2,3 and wherein one or both: on one of the NP1 symbols, only PSS is carried (see Figure 3) ; and on one of the NP1 symbols, PSS is frequency domain multiplexed with broadcast signalling . 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) 5, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0357159) in view of Yeo et al. (US 2021/0243711) . Regarding claims 5, 12, 17, Pan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 2, 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the NP1 symbol time intervals carrying primary synchronisation signalling are non-neighbouring in time. However, Yeo et al. discloses wherein the NP1 symbol time intervals carrying primary synchronisation signalling are non-neighbouring in time (see Figure 10 [SS/PBCH Block comprises PSSs that are not neighboring]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize based on Figure 10 that multiple PSSs could be in non-neighboring time intervals. The motivation is a designer’s choice since Pan et al. discloses the PSSs could be adjacent in time . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0357159) in view of Ren et al. (WO 2018/188094) . Regarding claims 7, 14, 19, Pan et al. discloses all the recited subject matter in claims 1, 2, 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein PSS on one of the NP1 symbols is based on one or both of a first sequence and/or and a first sequence root, and PSS on a different one of the NP1 symbols is based on one or both of a second sequence and/or and a second sequence root. However, wherein PSS on one of the NP1 symbols is based on one or both of a first sequence and/or and a first sequence root, and PSS on a different one of the NP1 symbols is based on one or both of a second sequence and/or and a second sequence root in light of Ren et al. (page 19 [the PSS Root Index in Table 1 is the root sequence number of the first primary synchronization signal, the MF-PSS Root Index is the root sequence of the second primary synchronization signal]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the PSSs of Pan et al. could be sent using different root sequences in order to be identified . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9, 16, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0357159) in view of Davydov et al. (WO 2022/098767) . Regarding claims 9, 16, 21, Pan et al. discloses all the subject matter in claims 1, 2, 3, and wherein PSS on two of the NP1 symbols is one or both based on and represents, a pair of complementary Golay sequences. However, Davydov et al. discloses wherein PSS on two of the NP1 symbols is one or both based on and represents, a pair of complementary Golay sequences (paragraph 00108 [In case of two antenna port transmission of PSS, the first antenna port can use the PSS generation approach 2 with a Golay sequence (first sequence of the complementary pair sequences), and the second antenna port can perform a PSS generation approach 2 with a complementary Golay sequence (second sequence of the complementary pair sequences]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to recognize the two PSSs could be generated with complementary Golay Sequence pair in order to send the PSS across multiple antennas. 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: 18/723,997 Page 2 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,997 Page 3 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,997 Page 4 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,997 Page 5 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,997 Page 6 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,997 Page 7 Art Unit: 2465 Application/Control Number: 18/723,997 Page 8 Art Unit: 2465
Prosecution Insights