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 .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of the present application is a 371 national stage of PCT Application No. PCT/US2023/064322 filed on March 14, 2023, entitled "MULTIPLE SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK PERIODICITIES IN A TIME CYCLE," which claims priority to Israeli Patent Application No. 292936, filed on May 10, 2022, entitled "MULTIPLE SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL BLOCK PERIODICITIES IN A TIME CYCLE."
Examiner's Notes
3. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Application Status
4. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of the present application on September 16, 2024. Claims 1-30 are pending. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s submission of information disclosure statement (IDS), dated on September 16, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
7. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
Regarding claim 1, it recites, “A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle, the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle; and
receive multiple SSBs during the time cycle, the multiple SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle.”
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045 recites, “An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
receive configuration information that indicates at least one of a duration of a time cycle, a duration of a first portion of the time cycle, or a duration of a second portion of the time cycle;
receive, based at least in part on receiving the configuration information and during the first portion of the time cycle, one or more first synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) according to a first periodicity;
receive, based at least in part on receiving the configuration information and during the second portion of the time cycle, one or more second SSBs according to a second periodicity,
wherein the second periodicity is higher than the first periodicity, and wherein the first portion of the time cycle is associated with initiating a connection between the UE and a network node and the second portion of the time cycle is associated with maintaining the connection between the UE and the network node; transmit an indication of one or more first cell measurements, wherein the one or more first measurements are during the first portion of the time cycle and based at least in part on the one or more first SSBs; and transmit an indication of one or more second cell measurements, wherein the one or more second cell measurements are during the second portion of the time cycle and based at least in part on the one or more second SSBs and another reference signal.”
Both claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045 are apparatus claim, here are the limitation mappings:
for the preamble, i.e., “A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication,”
the preamble of claim 1 of the patent, i.e., “An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE),” teaches this preamble;
for the limitation “comprising:
a memory; and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to,”
the limitation of “comprising:
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to” in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045 reads on this limitation;
for the limitation “receive an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle, the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle,”
the limitation of “at least one of a duration of a time cycle” as indicated in italics in the first receive step in claim 1 of the patent teaches the limitation of “a time cycle;”
in fact, the first receive step in claim 1 of the patent, i.e., “receive configuration information that indicates at least one of a duration of a time cycle, a duration of a first portion of the time cycle, or a duration of a second portion of the time cycle,” teaches this limitation;
for the last limitation “receive multiple SSBs during the time cycle, the multiple SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle,”
“one or more first synchronization signal blocks (SSBs)” indicated in the second receive step and “one or more second SSBs” as indicated in the third receive step in claim 1 of the patent teach the limitation of “multiple SSBs;”
in fact, the second and third receive steps in claim 1 of the patent, i.e., “receive, based at least in part on receiving the configuration information and during the first portion of the time cycle, one or more first synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) according to a first periodicity;
receive, based at least in part on receiving the configuration information and during the second portion of the time cycle, one or more second SSBs according to a second periodicity,” reads on this limitation;
Based on the information presented, claim 1 is merely a broader version of the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045, such as by eliminating the last wherein-clause limitations “wherein the second periodicity is higher than the first periodicity, and wherein the first portion of the time cycle is associated with initiating a connection between the UE and a network node and the second portion of the time cycle is associated with maintaining the connection between the UE and the network node; transmit an indication of one or more first cell measurements, wherein the one or more first measurements are during the first portion of the time cycle and based at least in part on the one or more first SSBs; and transmit an indication of one or more second cell measurements, wherein the one or more second cell measurements are during the second portion of the time cycle and based at least in part on the one or more second SSBs and another reference signal,” as indicated in italics above.
It has been held that the omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA).
Same rationale applies to claims 2, 11-13, 25, 26, and 29 as follows:
8. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
9. Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
10. Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
11. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
12. Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
13. Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
14. Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of U.S. Patent No. 12,557,045.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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 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.
16. 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 of this title, 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.
17. Claims 1-3, 11, 13-16, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune et al. (US 2022/0174512) in view of Xiong et al. (US 12,363,665).
Regarding claim 1, Rune et al. teach the user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-18 & [0263] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: both UE depicted in FIG. 5 and wireless device 900 depicted in FIG. 9 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “user equipment (UE)” in the instant application), comprising:
a memory (paragraph [0263] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: memory 904 in UE/wireless device 900 depicted in FIG. 9 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a memory” in the instant application); and
one or more processors (paragraph [0263] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: processor 902 in UE/wireless device 900 depicted in FIG. 9 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more processors” in the instant application), coupled to the memory, configured to:
receive an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0240] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity in the prior art teaches the limitation of “synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle;”
in fact, receiving the indication/configuration regards to the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity, as illustrated in step 500 in FIG. 5, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle” in the instant application).
Rune teaches the UE without explicitly teaching implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle.
Xiong et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle;”
another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle;”
in fact, the configuration indicating the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application); and
receive multiple SSBs during the time cycle (column [20] lines 44-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs in the time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive multiple SSBs during the time cycle” in the instant application),
the multiple SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs according to the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the multiple SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Xiong et al. in the system of Rune.
The motivation for implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle, is to further enhance the mechanism for the method of determining timing information, wherein the method converges a 5G communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 4G system with a technology for Internet of Things (IoT).
Regarding claim 2, Rune et al. further teach the UE, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
transmit an indication of a downlink signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), wherein the indication of the downlink SNR indicates that the first SSB periodicity is insufficient for maintaining a connection to a cell, or
transmit uplink signals that support estimation of the downlink SNR (paragraph [0090] lines 1-12; Examiner’s Notes: the Signal to Interference Plus Noise Ratio (SINR) on the DL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the downlink SNR;”
in fact, transmitting UL signals indicating the Signal to Interference Plus Noise Ratio (SINR) on the DL transmission in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit uplink signals that support estimation of the downlink SNR” in the instant application;
consequently, the cited paragraph teaches the limitation of “transmit an indication of a downlink signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), wherein the indication of the downlink SNR indicates that the first SSB periodicity is insufficient for maintaining a connection to a cell, or
transmit uplink signals that support estimation of the downlink SNR” as well).
Regarding claim 3, Rune et al. further teach the UE, wherein the one or more processors, to maintain the connection to the cell, are configured to:
synchronize timing with the cell,
synchronize frequencies with the cell, or
perform beam management (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0238] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: increasing/reducing the number of SSB beams in the cell in the prior art teaches the limitation of “perform beam management” in the instant application;
in fact, the cited art teaches the limitation of “wherein the one or more processors, to maintain the connection to the cell, are configured to:
synchronize timing with the cell,
synchronize frequencies with the cell, or
perform beam management” in the instant application as well).
Regarding claim 11, Xiong et al. further teach the UE, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive multiple additional SSBs during a subsequent time cycle (column [20] lines 44-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs in the next time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receive multiple SSBs during a subsequent time cycle” in the instant application),
the multiple additional SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during a first portion of the subsequent time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during a second portion of the subsequent time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving additional SSBs according to the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the multiple additional SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during a first portion of the subsequent time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during a second portion of the subsequent time cycle” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 13, Rune et al. teach the network node for wireless communication (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-18 & [0257] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: both network node 1 depicted in FIG. 5 and radio access node 600 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “network node” in the instant application), comprising:
a memory (paragraph [0257] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: memory 606 in radio access node 600 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a memory” in the instant application); and
one or more processors (paragraph [0257] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: processor 604 in radio access node 600 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more processors” in the instant application), coupled to the memory, configured to:
transmit an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0240] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity in the prior art teaches the limitation of “synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle;”
in fact, transmitting the indication/configuration regards to the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity, as illustrated in step 500 in FIG. 5, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle” in the instant application).
Rune teaches the network node without explicitly teaching implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle.
Xiong et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle;”
another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle;”
in fact, the configuration indicating the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application); and
transmit multiple SSBs during the time cycle (column [20] lines 44-61; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting SSBs in the time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmit multiple SSBs during the time cycle” in the instant application),
the multiple SSBs transmitted with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs according to the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the multiple SSBs transmitted with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Xiong et al. in the system of Rune.
The motivation for implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle, is to further enhance the mechanism for the method of determining timing information, wherein the method converges a 5G communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 4G system with a technology for Internet of Things (IoT).
Regarding claim 14, Rune et al. further teach the network node, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
identify one or more user equipments (UEs) for which the first SSB periodicity is insufficient for maintaining a connection to a cell associated with the network node (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0240] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: identifying the UE for which the SSB period/periodicity causes the coverage having interference to a cell/network in the prior art teaches the limitation of “identify one or more user equipments (UEs) for which the first SSB periodicity is insufficient for maintaining a connection to a cell associated with the network node” in the instant application).
Regarding claim 15, Rune et al. further teach the network node, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive one or more indications of downlink signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) from the one or more UEs, wherein identification of the one or more UEs for which the first SSB periodicity is insufficient is based at least in part on the one or more indications of the SNRs from the one or more UEs, or
estimate the SNRs based at least in part on one or more of uplink signals received from the one or more UEs or operational parameters for downlink communications (paragraph [0090] lines 1-12; Examiner’s Notes: the UL transmission received from the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more of uplink signals received from the one or more UEs or operational parameters for downlink communications;”
in fact, identifying the signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) based on the UL transmission received from the UE in the prior art teaches the limitation of “estimate the SNRs based at least in part on one or more of uplink signals received from the one or more UEs or operational parameters for downlink communications” in the instant application;
consequently, the cited paragraph teaches the limitation of “receive one or more indications of downlink signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) from the one or more UEs, wherein identification of the one or more UEs for which the first SSB periodicity is insufficient is based at least in part on the one or more indications of the SNRs from the one or more UEs, or
estimate the SNRs based at least in part on one or more of uplink signals received from the one or more UEs or operational parameters for downlink communications” in the instant application as well).
Regarding claim 16, Rune et al. further teach the network node, wherein the one or more processors, to maintain the connection to the cell, are configured to:
synchronize timing with the cell,
synchronize frequencies with the cell, or
perform beam management (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0238] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: increasing/reducing the number of SSB beams in the cell in the prior art teaches the limitation of “perform beam management” in the instant application;
in fact, the cited art teaches the limitation of “wherein the one or more processors, to maintain the connection to the cell, are configured to:
synchronize timing with the cell,
synchronize frequencies with the cell, or
perform beam management” in the instant application as well).
Regarding claim 26, Rune et al. teach the method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-18 & [0263] lines 1-7; Examiner’s Notes: both UE depicted in FIG. 5 and wireless device 900 depicted in FIG. 9 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “user equipment (UE)” in the instant application), comprising:
receiving an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0240] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity in the prior art teaches the limitation of “synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle;”
in fact, receiving the indication/configuration regards to the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity, as illustrated in step 500 in FIG. 5, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle” in the instant application).
Rune teaches the UE without explicitly teaching implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle.
Xiong et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle;”
another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle;”
in fact, the configuration indicating the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application); and
receiving multiple SSBs during the time cycle (column [20] lines 44-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs in the time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “receiving multiple SSBs during the time cycle” in the instant application),
the multiple SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs according to the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the multiple SSBs received with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Xiong et al. in the system of Rune.
The motivation for implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle, is to further enhance the mechanism for the method of determining timing information, wherein the method converges a 5G communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 4G system with a technology for Internet of Things (IoT).
Regarding claim 29, Rune et al. teach the method of wireless communication performed by a network node (paragraphs [0088] lines 1-18 & [0257] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: both network node 1 depicted in FIG. 5 and radio access node 600 depicted in FIG. 6 in the prior art teaches the limitation of “network node” in the instant application), comprising:
transmitting an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle (paragraphs [0237] line 1 - [0240] line 6; Examiner’s Notes: the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity in the prior art teaches the limitation of “synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle;”
in fact, transmitting the indication/configuration regards to the SSBs/beams for the period/periodicity, as illustrated in step 500 in FIG. 5, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting an indication of a configuration of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) for a time cycle” in the instant application).
Rune teaches the network node without explicitly teaching implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle.
Xiong et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle;”
another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle;”
in fact, the configuration indicating the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker, in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application); and
transmitting multiple SSBs during the time cycle (column [20] lines 44-61; Examiner’s Notes: transmitting SSBs in the time period in the prior art teaches the limitation of “transmitting multiple SSBs during the time cycle” in the instant application),
the multiple SSBs transmitted with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle (column [20] lines 39-61; Examiner’s Notes: receiving SSBs according to the periodic SSB with a time marker, e.g., T1, and another periodic SSB with another time marker, e.g., a specific time marker in the prior art teaches the limitation of “the multiple SSBs transmitted with the first SSB periodicity during the first portion of the time cycle and with the second SSB periodicity during the second portion of the time cycle” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Xiong et al. in the system of Rune.
The motivation for implementing the configuration indicating a first SSB periodicity for a first portion of the time cycle and a second SSB periodicity for a second portion of the time cycle, is to further enhance the mechanism for the method of determining timing information, wherein the method converges a 5G communication system for supporting higher data rates beyond a 4G system with a technology for Internet of Things (IoT).
18. Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rune (US 2022/0174512) in view of Xiong et al. (US 12,363,665) as applied to claim 1 or 13, and further in view of Svendsen et al. (US 2024/0049154).
Regarding claim 12, Rune et al. and Xiong et al. teach the UE without explicitly teaching supporting cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs.
Svendsen et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the second SSB periodicity is configured to support cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs (paragraphs [0069] lines 1-9 & [0093] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: the UE at cell edge, e.g., a small cell edge, associated with the SSBs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs;”
in fact, configuring the periodic SSB time/periodicity for the UE at cell edge, e.g., a small cell edge, associated with the SSBs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the second SSB periodicity is configured to support cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Svendsen et al. in the system of Rune et al. and Xiong et al.
The motivation for implementing supporting cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs, is to further enhance the mechanism for the network apparatus of an access network of a cellular communication system, wherein the network apparatus determines a usage for resources associated with the third SSBs, according to the configuration of the pre-allocated sequence of first SSBs, the second SSBs are to be utilized in a beam management procedure including an initial access procedure and the third SSBs are not necessarily to be utilized in the beam management procedure including the initial access procedure which enables UEs to gain initial access to the cellular communication system via the access network.
Regarding claim 25, Rune et al. and Xiong et al. teach the network node without explicitly teaching supporting cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs.
Svendsen et al. from the same or similar field of endeavor teach implementing fairness of the method, wherein the second SSB periodicity is configured to support cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs (paragraphs [0069] lines 1-9 & [0093] lines 1-10; Examiner’s Notes: the UE at cell edge, e.g., a small cell edge, associated with the SSBs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs;”
in fact, configuring the periodic SSB time/periodicity for the UE at cell edge, e.g., a small cell edge, associated with the SSBs in the prior art teaches the limitation of “wherein the second SSB periodicity is configured to support cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs” in the instant application).
Thus, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in art to implement the method of Svendsen et al. in the system of Rune et al. and Xiong et al.
The motivation for implementing supporting cell acquisition for one or more additional UEs at a cell edge of a cell associated with the SSBs, is to further enhance the mechanism for the network apparatus of an access network of a cellular communication system, wherein the network apparatus determines a usage for resources associated with the third SSBs, according to the configuration of the pre-allocated sequence of first SSBs, the second SSBs are to be utilized in a beam management procedure including an initial access procedure and the third SSBs are not necessarily to be utilized in the beam management procedure including the initial access procedure which enables UEs to gain initial access to the cellular communication system via the access network.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 4-10, 17-24, 27, 28, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, 13, 26, or 29, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim(s).
Regarding claims 4-10, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive tracking reference signals (TRSs) between transmissions of SSBs during the first portion of the time cycle, wherein the TRSs are configured for one or more of timing synchronization or frequency synchronization” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Claims 27 and 28 include similar limitations.
Regarding claims 17-24, the prior art in single or in combination fails to teach "wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit tracking reference signals (TRSs) to one or more user equipments (UEs) between transmissions of SSBs during the first portion of the time cycle, wherein the TRSs are configured for one or more of timing synchronization, frequency synchronization or beam management” in combination with other limitation of the claim(s).
Claim 30 includes similar limitations.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Etemad et al. (US 9,572,063) is cited to show the radio resource control (RRC) signaling for configuring the user equipment to obtain and report channel state information for the downlink channels so that a target user equipment experiences enhanced signal reception and reduced interference;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-5672. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00AM to 5:00PM Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor JAE Y. LEE can be reached on 571-270-3936. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEI ZHAO/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights