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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang (US 2021/0243710) in view of Liu (US 2021/0243710).
RE claims 1, 8 and 14, Tang discloses a user equipment (UE), method and apparatus comprising a memory; and a processor, coupled to the memory, a transceiver configured to wirelessly communicate with a base station; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver (Figures 13-14) and configured to: receive, using the transceiver and from the base station, information associated with a plurality of groups of candidate Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) positions (Paragraph 54: candidate SSB transmission positions are used in a DRS transmission window in frequency bands below 7 GHz); receive, using the transceiver and from the base station, one or more SSBs on one or more candidate SSB positions of a first group of the plurality of groups; and determine that the first group is used for receiving SSBs (Paragraph 56: Herein the first transmission window includes Y candidate SSB transmission positions, and at most X SSBs are capable of being transmitted within the first transmission window).
Tang does not explicitly disclose receiving SSB group information using at least one of a Master Information Block (MIB) or a payload of a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH)
However, Liu teaches receiving SSB group information using at least one of a Master Information Block (MIB) or a payload of a Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH) (Paragraph 89 teaches “Due to the limited capacity of the PBCH, the system information included in the SSB is a part of all the system information required by the terminal to randomly access the access network device, and this part of all the system information includes a master information block (MIB)”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE, method and apparatus of Tang according to the teachings Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 2, 9 and 15, Tang in view of Liu discloses the UE of claim 1, method of claim 8, and apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Tang further discloses wherein the processor is configured to receive, using the transceiver, the one or more SSBs on the one or more candidate SSB positions of the first group during a Discovery Reference Signal (DRS) window (Paragraph 54: candidate SSB transmission positions are used in a DRS transmission window in frequency bands below 7 GHz)
RE claims 3, 10 and 16, Tang in view of Liu discloses the UE of claim 1, method of claim 8, and apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Tang further discloses wherein the information associated with the plurality of groups of candidate SSB positions comprises a parameter and a number of a plurality of candidate SSB positions that are divided into the plurality of groups (Paragraph 54:L SSB positions. Paragraph 63: Y candidate SSB transmission positions may be divided into N1 SSB groups, and each SSB group includes N2 candidate SSB transmission positions, N1 and N2 being positive integers.).
RE claims 4, 11 and 17, Tang in view of Liu discloses the UE of claim 3, method of claim 10, and apparatus of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches wherein the number of the plurality of candidate SSB positions is 20 (Paragraph 126 teaches “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 2, taking the SCS being 30 KHz as an example, there are 20 SSB candidate positions within 5 ms. These 20 SSB candidate positions having serial numbers in ascending order starting from 0.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE, method and apparatus of Tang according to the teachings Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 5, and 18, Tang in view of Liu discloses the UE of claim 1, method of claim 8, and apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches wherein a plurality of candidate SSB positions in a time window is divided into the plurality of groups based on a parameter (Paragraphs 40-43, the number of SSB candidate positions is 20 based on the number of beams in use by the access network device and the value of a QCL parameter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE, method and apparatus of Tang according to the teachings Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 6 and 19, Tang in view of Liu discloses the UE of claim 1, method of claim 8, and apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches wherein to receive the information associated with the plurality of groups, the processor is configured to receive a value of the parameter from the base station using at least one of the MIB or the PBCH (Paragraph 144: “Due to the limited capacity of the PBCH, the system information included in the SSB is only a part of all the system information required by the terminal to randomly access the access network device. This part can include the master information block (MIB).”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE, method and apparatus of Tang according to the teachings Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 7, 13 and 20, Tang in view of Liu discloses the UE of claim 1, method of claim 8, and apparatus of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches wherein the one or more candidate SSB positions in a time window are indexed in an ascending order in time (Paragraphs 41-43: “The number of the SSB candidate positions is 20. These 20 SSB candidate positions have serial numbers in ascending order starting from 0, and the indexes of these 20 SSB candidate positions are SSB candidate positions 0-19 respectively.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE, method and apparatus of Tang according to the teachings Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 12, Tang in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 8 as set forth above. Note that Liu further teaches wherein a plurality of candidate SSB positions in a time window is divided into the plurality of groups based on a parameter and receiving the information associated with the plurality of groups comprises receive a value of the parameter from the base station using at least one of the MIB or the PBCH (Paragraphs 40-43, the number of SSB candidate positions is 20 based on the number of beams in use by the access network device and the value of a QCL parameter. Paragraph 144: “Due to the limited capacity of the PBCH, the system information included in the SSB is only a part of all the system information required by the terminal to randomly access the access network device. This part can include the master information block (MIB).”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the UE, method and apparatus of Tang according to the teachings Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm 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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights