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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 9/1/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because drawings shall be executed in durable, black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined. Examiner notes, for example, the circles in FIG. 1, the squiggly lines of FIG. 2, etc.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied and the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-9, 12, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1-1908915 “S-SSB design and synchronization protocol for NR SL” (hereinafter Ericsson) in view of US 2024/0187911 (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Ericsson teaches a method of using a transmitting user equipment (UE), the method comprising: identifying whether data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists (pages 2 and 7 and figure 1: details identifying contents of PSBCH configured for transmission of S-SSB); determining a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) based on whether the data to be transmitted exists (pages 2 and 7 and figure 1: details S-SSB structure including PSBCH symbols); and transmitting the determined S-SSB through each of transmission beams of the transmitting UE based on a beam sweeping scheme (page 3: details beam-sweeping mechanism allows UE and gNB to establish a suitable beam pair… S-SSB transmission using different beams).
Ericsson does not explicitly teach wherein the determined S-SSB indicates, to at least one receiving UE, whether the data to be transmitted exists.
However, Liu teaches SSB indicates, to at least one receiving UE, whether the data to be transmitted exists ([0184]: details may transmit an ssb-PositionsInBurst data structure to indicate the first set of reference signals, as defined in 3GPP specifications and/or another standard… Although the description herein focuses on the ssb-PositionsInBurst-Aerial data structure, the description similarly applies to other data structures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of Liu and include indicates, to at least one receiving UE, whether the data to be transmitted exists of Liu with the S-SSB of Ericsson. Doing so would improve efficiency (Liu, at paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Ericsson teaches wherein the determined S-SSB includes information on a synchronization source of the transmitting UE and information indicating whether the synchronization source is in-coverage or out-of-coverage (page 7: details synchronization reference; in coverage; out of coverage).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Ericsson teaches identifying a number of times the determined S-SSB needs to be transmitted within a transmission period of the S-SSB and a number of the transmission beams; and in response to the number of the transmission beams being smaller than the number of times the determined S-SSB needs to be transmitted, transmitting the determined S-SSB by repeating at least one of the transmission beams (page 3: details number of S-SSB(s) transmitted during a period should be only one to avoid any conflict transmission and to avoid excessive overhead; repetition; S-SSB burst set).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, Ericsson teaches wherein a number of repeated transmissions and a repeated transmission scheme for the determined S-SSB are preconfigured using at least one of MAC CE, RRC signaling, system information block (SIB), or master information block (MIB) (page 7: details MasterInformationBlock-SL).
Claims 2-3, 7, 10-11, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of Liu, further in view of R1-2006948 “Feature lead summary #1 on AI 7.2.4.3 Sidelink synchronization mechanism” (hereinafter CATT).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Ericsson teaches the S-SSB is preconfigured through higher layer signaling (page 3: details contents of PSBCH are pre-configured) but does not explicitly teach wherein a relationship between whether the data to be transmitted exists.
However, CATT teaches wherein a relationship between whether the data to be transmitted exists (pages 11 and 25: details synchronization source is preconfigured; RRC parameter defining the offset between an S-SSB and an SL-BWP; and deriving an RRC configuration value from a transmitted PSBCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of CATT and include wherein a relationship between whether the data to be transmitted exists of CATT with Ericsson. Doing so would improve reliability (CATT, at page 10).
Regarding claims 3, 11 and 20, Ericsson does not explicitly teach wherein the higher layer signaling includes at least one of medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
However, CATT teaches wherein the higher layer signaling includes at least one of medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling (pages 11 and 25: details synchronization source is preconfigured; RRC parameter defining the offset between an S-SSB and an SL-BWP; and deriving an RRC configuration value from a transmitted PSBCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of CATT and include wherein the higher layer signaling includes at least one of medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) or radio resource control (RRC) signaling of CATT with Ericsson. Doing so would improve reliability (CATT, at page 10).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Ericsson does not explicitly teach wherein the number of times the determined S-SSB needs to be transmitted is preconfigured through higher layer signaling.
However, CATT teaches wherein the number of times the determined S-SSB needs to be transmitted is preconfigured through higher layer signaling (page 11: details UE preconfigured for inter-RAT case; RRC parameter defining the offset between an S-SSB and an SL-BWP; and deriving an RRC configuration value from a transmitted PSBCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of CATT and include wherein the number of times the determined S-SSB needs to be transmitted is preconfigured through higher layer signaling of CATT with Ericsson. Doing so would improve reliability (CATT, at page 10).
Regarding claim 17, Ericsson teaches a method of use for a receiving user equipment (UE), the method comprising: receiving, from a transmitting UE, an S-SSB including information on whether data to be transmitted exists, in a transmission period of the S-SSB (pages 2 and 7 and figure 1: details S-SSB structure including PSBCH symbols); and identifying whether the data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists based on the received S-SSB (pages 2 and 7 and figure 1: details identifying contents of PSBCH configured for transmission of S-SSB).
Ericsson does not explicitly teach receiving, through higher layer signaling, configuration information of a relationship between whether data to be transmitted exists and a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB), wherein the determined S-SSB indicates, to at least one receiving UE, whether the data to be transmitted exists.
However, CATT teaches receiving, through higher layer signaling, configuration information of a relationship between whether data to be transmitted exists and a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) (page 11 and 25: details synchronization source is preconfigured; RRC parameter defining the offset between an S-SSB and an SL-BWP; and deriving an RRC configuration value from a transmitted PSBCH).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of CATT and include receiving, through higher layer signaling, configuration information of a relationship between whether data to be transmitted exists and a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) of CATT with Ericsson. Doing so would improve reliability (CATT, at page 10).
Moreover, Liu teaches SSB indicates, to at least one receiving UE, whether the data to be transmitted exists ([0184]: details may transmit an ssb-PositionsInBurst data structure to indicate the first set of reference signals, as defined in 3GPP specifications and/or another standard… Although the description herein focuses on the ssb-PositionsInBurst-Aerial data structure, the description similarly applies to other data structures).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of Liu and include indicates, to at least one receiving UE, whether the data to be transmitted exists of Liu with the S-SSB of Ericsson. Doing so would improve efficiency (Liu, at paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Ericsson teaches in response to identifying that the data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists (pages 2 and 7 and figure 1: details identifying contents of PSBCH configured for transmission of S-SSB), starting an initial beam pairing procedure with the transmitting UE (page 3: details beam-sweeping mechanism allows UE and gNB to establish a suitable beam pair).
Claims 5, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericcson in view of Liu, further in view of R1-1901684 “NR sidelink synchronization mechanism” (hereinafter Vivo).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Ericsson does not explicitly teach wherein the determined S-SSB includes information on an identifier of a UE to receive the data to be transmitted.
However, Vivo teaches wherein the determined S-SSB includes information on an identifier of a UE to receive the data to be transmitted (Page 10: details UE ID is associated with an S-SSB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of Vivo and include wherein the determined S-SSB includes information on an identifier of a UE to receive the data to be transmitted of Vivo with Ericsson. Doing so would provide efficient transmission/reception (Vivo, at page 10).
Regarding claim 19, Ericsson does not explicitly teach in response to identifying that the data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists, comparing an identifier of a destination UE included in the received S-SSB and an identifier of the receiving UE; and in response to the identifier of the destination UE being equal to the identifier of the receiving UE, starting an initial beam pairing procedure with the transmitting UE.
However, Vivo teaches in response to identifying that the data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists, comparing an identifier of a destination UE included in the received S-SSB and an identifier of the receiving UE; and in response to the identifier of the destination UE being equal to the identifier of the receiving UE, starting an initial beam pairing procedure with the transmitting UE (Page 10: details UE acquires information related to a beam pair for efficient transmission and reception associates a UE ID with an S-SSB).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ericsson to incorporate the teachings of Vivo and include in response to identifying that the data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists, comparing an identifier of a destination UE included in the received S-SSB and an identifier of the receiving UE; and in response to the identifier of the destination UE being equal to the identifier of the receiving UE, starting an initial beam pairing procedure with the transmitting UE of Vivo with Ericsson. Doing so would provide efficient transmission/reception (Vivo, at page 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that Ericsson neither identified whether data to be transmitted exists nor uses the result of such identification to determine the S-SSB. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ericsson teaches identifying whether data to be transmitted by the transmitting UE exists because Ericsson details identifying contents of PSBCH configured for transmission of S-SSB. In other words, utilizing the S-SSB design of Ericsson requires identifying the content which may have certain data. Therefore, identifying the data is equivalent to identifying whether data exists. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting how the identification of the existence is functionally performed, and not merely identifying the existence of data, to distinguish from the prior art.
Also, the claims do not require that the result of the identification to be used to determine the S-SSB. For example, claim 1 merely recites “based on” which is a broad term. Examiner notes that “based on” can be interpreted broadly such that the S-SSB and data are merely associated with each other so Ericsson teaches this limitation. Thus, Ericsson teaches determining a sidelink synchronization signal block (S-SSB) based on whether the data to be transmitted exists because the S-SSB structure of Ericsson includes PSBCH symbols. Examiner suggests explicitly reciting how the identification of the existence of data is functionally related to how the S-SSB is determined such that it distinguishes from the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights