DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 12 and 20 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.
The examiner is unclear of what the notation of '(N-R)' means. The examiner interprets this to mean N through R pieces, however, the claim refers to R as a subset of N.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeda, Daiki et al. (WO 2021044602 A1, hereinafter referred to as Takeda).
Regarding claim 1, Takeda teaches a communication method, comprising:
sending N pieces of first information on a same time domain resource and N frequency domain resources (Takeda discloses sending a plurality of pieces of information in the form of SSBs. It is arranged in one OFDM symbol in the time domain and across many frequency resource blocks. Takeda also discloses that the base station is sending transmits the SSBs to the terminal. See paragraphs [0022], [0030] and [0041]).
wherein the N frequency domain resources are in a one-to-one correspondence with the N pieces of the first information (Takeda discloses there being a frequency resource block for each piece of information. See Figure 3).
the N pieces of the first information include one or more of the following: a synchronization signal - OR - system information, - OR - N is a positive integer greater than 1 (Takeda discloses that the pieces of first information can be system information or a synchronization signal. See paragraphs [0018] and [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Takeda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sending the N pieces of the first information on a same time domain resource and N frequency domain resources includes:
sending the N pieces of the first information that are same on the same time domain resource and the N frequency domain resources (Takeda discloses that the pieces of first information are repeated in the arrangement of one time resource and multiple frequency resources. See paragraphs [0041-0048]).
Regarding claim 3, Takeda teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the sending the N pieces of the first information includes:
sending indexes of the N pieces of the first information that are the same (Takeda discloses SSBs with index numbers to distinguish between the pieces of information. See paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Takeda teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the system information includes:
a physical broadcast channel (PBCH) (Takeda discloses that the system information includes a PBCH. See paragraphs [0018] and [0022]).
and the sending the N pieces of the first information includes sending the N pieces of the first information that meet at least one of the following:
information carried on PBCHs included in all of the N pieces of the first information is the same;
demodulation reference signals (DMRSs) for PBCHs included in all of the N pieces of the first information are the same;
or beam directions of all of the N pieces of the first information are the same (Takeda discloses that the beam directions can be repeatedly arranged. See paragraph [0041-0042] and Figure 10).
Regarding claim 5, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1. Takeda also disclose that the terminal receives the SSB from the base station. See paragraph [0031].
Regarding claim 6, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, Takeda teaches wherein the receiving the one or more of the N pieces of the first information includes:
receiving N pieces of the first information having a time-frequency domain resource corresponding to second reference information that cannot be used for downlink data transmission, a time-frequency domain resource corresponding to one or more of the N pieces of the first information other than the second reference information are used for downlink data transmission, and the second reference information is one of the N pieces of the first information (Takeda discloses there reserved frequencies for control data and other data. See paragraphs [0025] and [0027]).
Regarding claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claims 2 and 6.
Regarding claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 9.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 10.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda in view of Ma, Liangping et al. (US 20210385773 A1, hereinafter referred to as Ma).
Regarding claim 9, Takeda teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except receiving two pieces of the first information having a spacing between center frequency domain locations of the two pieces of the first information that are adjacent in N pieces of the first information that is an integer multiple of a synchronization raster.
In the same field of endeavor, Ma discloses mapping the center position of the SSB that shifts in frequency by integer multiples of the synchronization raster step size. See paragraphs [0094] and [0143].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Takeda reference to incorporate using the synchronization raster as a step size for the frequency location. The motivation to combine is conserve power by reducing search time and increasing the speed of SSB detection.
Regarding claim 10, Takeda teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except receiving N pieces of the first information having a frequency domain location that is determined based on a frequency domain location of first reference information, and the first reference information belongs to the N pieces of the first information.
In the same field of endeavor, Ma discloses determining the frequency location based on the frequency location of the first SSB out of a plurality of SSBs. The examiner interprets the first SSB to be the first reference information and part of the N pieces of the first information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Takeda reference to incorporate using the first frequency location to determine the others. The motivation to combine is to predict and locate the other data efficiently and reduce overhead.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Geng, Tingting et al. (US 20190349887 A1, COMMUNICATION METHOD AND RELATED APPARATUS)
Lin, Yanan et al. (US 20200092872 A1, METHOD FOR TRANSMITTING DATA, TERMINAL DEVICE AND NETWORK DEVICE)
Lu, Zhenwei et al. (US 20200280915 A1, COMMUNICATION METHOD AND TERMINAL DEVICE)
Park, Changhwan et al. (WO 2019066575 A1, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TRANSMITTING OR RECEIVING WIRELESS SIGNAL IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM)
Zhang, Xingwei et al. (US 20200120647 A1, MESSAGE TRANSMISSION METHOD AND APPARATUS, TERMINAL, AND BASE STATION)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 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.
/C.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights