DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 04/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 04/20/2026.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 27-30, and 33-35 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1 and 27 have been amended.
Claims 5-6, 10-26, and 31-32 have been cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 27, Applicant cites support for its claim amendments to exist in originally filed claims 10 and 11, which were each amended in its Amendment responses of: 05/10/2024, 08/30/2024, and 10/02/2024, and then cancelled in is Amendment response of: 02/18/2025. As filed, original claims 10 and 11 recite:
PNG
media_image1.png
515
817
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Original claims 10 and 11 relate to a UE detecting an overlap between a measurement gap (MG) occasion, i.e., SSB-based SMTC or L3 RRM measurement windows, and an aperiodic CSI-RS measurement of L1-RSRP, and then prioritizing the MG occasion over the AP-CSI-RS L1-RSRP measurement via muting, similar to what is depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 8. The corresponding claim amendments of Applicant’s independent claims, listing original claims 10 and 11 as cited support, instead recite:
“in response to determining, by the wireless device, that the AP-CSI-RS for L1-RSRP measurement occasion is overlapping with one or more measurement gap (MG) occasions; making a measurement in at least one of the one or more the MG occasions, without making a measurement of the AP-CSI-RS or an L3 RS.” This claim limitation recites a UE “making a measurement” (some unspecified RS measurement) in some MG occasion, which can be interpreted to mean measuring any RS during a time period associated with a MG occasion. The measurement made during the MG occasion is claimed to be made without making either:
i. a L1 AP-CSI-RS measurement (Applicant’s Fig. 8), or
ii. a L3 RS, i.e., a RRM RS, measurement (Applicant’s Fig. 9).
However, in the claimed alternative indicated as item ii, above, a UE can presumably make a measurement of a L1 AP-CSI-RS or any other CSI-RS during the MG occasion overlap “without making a measurement of a L3 RS,” i.e., a L3 RRM RS associated with the MG. In this alternative, a AP-CSI-RS or CSI-RS is not required to be muted. Instead, a L1 RSRP can be measured and the L3 RS, i.e., a RRM RS, associated with the MG occasion can be ignored, as depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 9. It is therefore unclear, which distinct embodiment Applicant is attempting to claim, i.e., which has a preferred utility, and why?, the first embodiment associated with item i. and Fig. 8, or the second embodiment associated with item ii. and Fig. 9?
With respect to the above amended claim subject matter Applicant argues against the teaching of Manolakos, which is a reference applied in a previous Office Action to reject a version of cancelled claims 10 and 11. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 6. However, Manolakos is not applied in the present Office Action to reject independent claims 1 and 27. As such, these arguments are moot.
Instead, in the instant Office Action, Matsumura is newly applied to substantively reject these contested claim features, and the addition of Matsumura under §103 is warranted by Applicant’s corresponding claim amendments to claims 1 and 27. The Examiner refers Applicant to the new rejection of claims 1 and 27, for further explanation and claim limitation mapping.
Applicant also asserts that “the newly amended claim language clarifies that, when an AP-CSI-RS for L1-RSRP measurement occasion is colliding with a measurement gap (MG) occasion, the MG shall be always prioritized,” and then argues that “in such a case [colliding/overlapping], the UE will not perform this AP-CSI-RS based L1-RSRP measurement.” Id. at p. 7. However, the Examiner again notes that the contested claim subject matter actually recites that the overlap condition results in making a measurement of some RS without making either one of an i. AP-CSI-RS (i.e., a L1 RSRP measurement) or ii. an L3 RS measurement (i.e., a L3 RRM measurement), which may be considered to be completely different reference signal measurement types. Thus, subject matter Applicant argues relating to the amended claims overcoming the prior art is not clearly evidenced by the claim language, which recites alternative language and warrants different interpretations.
In this regard, with respect to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., where the MG measurement is always prioritized over a AP-CSI-RS measurement) are not explicitly recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The Examiner recommends Applicant amend the contested claim feature at issue to instead recite: “making a measurement in at least one of the one or more the MG occasions, without making a measurement of the AP-CSI-RS if they intend their claimed invention to better track their above-noted arguments.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments posited with respect to each of independent claims 1 and 27 are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection applied in the present Office Action.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 8. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 27-30, and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement and the enablement requirement.
Regarding claims 1 and 27, the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, claims 1 and 27 were each amended to recite “in response to determining, by the wireless device, that the AP-CSI-RS for L1-RSRP measurement occasion is not overlapping with one or more MG occasions: making a L1-RSRP measurement, according to the scaling factor, without making a measurement of an L3 RS during the at least one overlapping L3 RS measurement occasion, wherein the scaling factor indicates a number of periods greater than or equal to two of the L3 RS measurement periods to wait to make the measurement of the L1-RSRP,” (Emphasis added) without any corresponding description supporting this subject matter in Applicant’s disclosure. This scenario does not appear to be adequately supported by Applicant’s originally filed claims 10 and 11, as indicated by Applicant. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 6.
The above-identified, amended claim subject matter, which was not described in the specification, also fails to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Notably, it is unclear why a device would apply a scaling factor to a L1-RSRP measurement upon determining, i.e., “in response to determining,” there is NO overlap condition present? In general, scaling is applied to avoid or mitigate determined collision/overlap conditions that are determined to be problematic.
For all of the above reasons independent claims 1 and 27 fail to comply with the written description and enablement requirements of §112(a). The Examiner notes that amended claim limitations, which are not supported by the original disclosure in a corresponding foreign priority document do not receive the priority benefit thereof.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-9, 28-30, and 33-35 are likewise rejected under §112(a) through dependency, as failing to comply with the written dependency and enablement requirements. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 7, 27, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2022/0295300 A1, Takada et al. (hereinafter “Takada”), in view of Canadian PG Pub. 3,108,847 A1, Matsumura et al. (hereinafter “Matsumura”), in further view of US PG Pub. 2022/0345199 A1, Yokokawa et al. (hereinafter Yokokawa).
With Respect to Claim 1, Takada teaches:
A method for reference signal (RS) measurement performed by a wireless device (paras. [0043]-[0059]; Terminal Device 200 of Figs. 1 and 5), the method comprising:
determining that an aperiodic channel state information reference signal (AP-CSI-RS) for Layer 1 reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) measurement occasion overlaps with at least one Layer 3 (L3) RS measurement occasion (paras. [0074], [0085], [0093]-[0095], and [0131]; aperiodic CSI of Table 1 —aperiodic CSI are measured by a UE as L1 RSRP, and this can overlap with a L3 SMTC window for measuring L3 RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, etc., paras. [0055] and [0093];
and making a measurement of an AP-CSI-RS, according to a scaling factor (paras. [0114], and [0131]-[0136], and Table2 —a scaling factor P can be applied to reduce overlap/collision, —the scaling factor P can be further incorporated as a repetition factor, as described in 3GPP TS38.188 (V15.8.0, 2019-12, Ch. 7) and TS38.214 —restriction of L3 measurement prioritizes L1 measurement).
However, Takada does not explicitly teach:
in response to determining, by the wireless device, that the AP-CSI-RS for L1 RSRP measurement occasion is overlapping with one or more measurement gap (MG) occasions: making a measurement in at least one of the one or more the MG occasions, without making a measurement of the AP-CSI-RS or an L3 RS.
Matsumura does teach:
in response to determining, by the wireless device, a CSI-RS for L1 RSRP measurement occasion is overlapping with one or more measurement gap (MG) occasions: making a measurement in at least one of the one or more the MG occasions, without making a measurement of an L3 RS (paras. [0040], [0042], [0048]-[0052], and [0116]; Figs. 2A-B and 3A-B —a UE can determine an overlap in a MG occasion of a CSI-RS, i.e., for L1 RSRP measurement, colliding with an SSB, i.e., for RLM L3 RS measurement, and can decide to make the L1 RS measurement, i.e., CSI-RS RSRP, and not to make the L3 measurement, i.e., SSB RLM, based on a priority rule relating to the respective purpose/importance of the measurement types, i.e., where L1 CSI-RS priority > L3 RRM priority —the Alternative term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada’s solution for L1/L3 measurement overlap and AP-CSI-RS measurement, to prioritize making a more important CSI-RS measurement without making a lower priority L3 RS measurement, as taught by Matsumura.
The motivation for doing so would have been to prioritize RS measurement based on reference signal’s use/purpose, in a MG overlap scenario, as recognized by Matsumura (paras. [0040], [0042], [0048]-[0052], and [0116]; Figs. 2A-B and 3A-B).
However, Takada and Matsumura do not explicitly teach:
in response to determining, by the wireless device, that the AP-CSI-RS for L1-RSRP measurement occasion is not overlapping with one or more MG occasions: making a L1-RSRP measurement, according to the scaling factor, without making a measurement of an L3 RS during the at least one overlapping L3 RS measurement occasion, wherein the scaling factor indicates a number of periods greater than or equal to two of the L3 RS measurement periods to wait to make the measurement of the L1-RSRP.
Yokokawa does teach:
making a L1-RSRP measurement, according to a scaling factor, without making a measurement of an L3 RS during the at least one overlapping L3 RS measurement occasion,
wherein the scaling factor indicates a number of periods greater than or equal to two of the L3 RS measurement periods to wait to make the measurement of the L1-RSRP. (paras: [0069]-[0073], [0079]-[0080], and [0130] —an applied scaling factor z can be designated to be greater than or equal to two, e.g., z= 8, L3/SMTC periods in an overlap scenario where a delay for L1-RSRP CSI-RS measurement is employed to avoid collision).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Matsumura’s solution for L1/L3 measurement overlap prioritizing L1 aperiodic CSI-RS measurement by using a scaling factor proportional to an L3 RS/SMTC periodicity to delay L1 CSI-RS measurement, as taught by Yokokawa.
The motivation for doing so would have been to delay L1-RSRP CSI-RS measurement using L3 RS measurement periodicity scaling, to avoid collision/overlap between RSs, as recognized by Yokokawa (paras: [0069]-[0073], [0079]-[0080], and [0130]).
With respect to Claim 2, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one L3 RS measurement occasion comprises: one or more Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) symbols or CSI-RS symbols for L3 RS measurement (Takada: paras. [0040], [0054]-[0055], and [0093]-[0095]; SSB Symbol structure of Fig. 4 —L3 RS measurement occasions may comprise one or more SSB symbols for L3 RS measurement).
With respect to Claim 7, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the scaling factor is set to a value of 2 or more multiples of the periodicity of L3 RS measurement occasions (Takada: paras. [0131]-[0137]; and Table 2; and Lin-950: col. 3, ln. 62 to col. 4, ln. 13, col. 4, lines 52-60, and col. 10, lines 4-11 —the scaling factor can be set to 3 for L3 SSB measurement occasions).
With respect to Claim 27, this claim recites similar features to independent Claim 1, except Claim 27 is directed to a baseband processor associated with a wireless device (Takada: paras. [0043]-[0059]; and Terminal Device 200 with antenna 205, radio RX/TX units 210/220, and control unit 250 of Figs. 5) . As such, Claim 27 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 1.
With respect to Claim 28, this claim recites similar features to Claim 2. As such, Claim 28 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 2.
With respect to Claim 33, this claim recites similar features to Claim 7. As such, Claim 33 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 7.
Claims 3 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa, in further view of US PG Pub. 2021/0298038 A1, Kang et al. (hereinafter “Kang”).
With Respect to Claim 3, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa teaches the method of Claim 1.
However, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa does not teach:
wherein the at least one of the L3 RS measurement occasion comprises one data symbol before an SSB or CSI-RS symbol and one data symbol after the SSB or CSI-RS symbol.
Kang does teach:
measurement gap (L3) RS occasions can comprise one data symbol before a CSI-RS symbol and one data symbol after a CSI-RS symbol (paras. [0287], [0295], and [0304]-[0305]; —the start and end symbols of preceding/subsequent CSI-RS symbols (L1 RS measurement) can be correspondingly followed/preceded by designated symbols of a measurement gap/SMTC, during which L3 RS can be measured).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa’s L3 RS measurement/SMTC with the measurement gap symbol designations taught by Kang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency for L3 RS measurement/SMTC to slots or half-slots before and after L1 CSI-RS measurement, as recognized by Kang (paras. [0287], [0295], and [0304]-[0305]).
With respect to Claim 29, this claim recites similar features to Claim 3. As such, Claim 29 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura, Yokokawa, and Kang, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa, in further view of US PG Pub. 2017/0094543 A1, Narasimha et al. (hereinafter “Narasimha”).
With respect to Claim 4, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa teach the method of Claim 1.
However, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa does not teach:
wherein at least one L3 RS measurement occasion comprises: one or more Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI) symbols and one data symbol before and after each RSSI symbol of the one or more RSSI symbols.
Narasimha does teach:
a L3 RS measurement occasions comprises one or more RSSI symbols and one data symbol before and after each RSSI symbol of the one or more RSSI symbols (paras. [0162]-[0163] —The L3 gap can include RSSI measurements and may occur immediately before and after corresponding RSSI data symbols).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa’s L3 RS measurement/SMTC with the RSSI measurement gap designations taught by Narasimha.
The motivation for doing so would have been to improve efficiency for L3 RS measurement/SMTC to slots or half-slots before and after RSSI measurement, as recognized by Narasimha (paras. [0162]-[0163]).
With respect to Claim 30, this claim recites similar features to Claim 4. As such, Claim 30 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura, Yokokawa and Narasimha, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 4.
Claims 8-9 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa, in further view of US PG Pub 2022/0353872 A1, Lin-872.
With respect to Claim 8, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa do not teach:
wherein making the measurement of the AP-CSI-RS without making the measurement of an L3 RS during the one or more overlapping L3 RS measurement occasions further comprises: muting at least one L3 RS measurement occasion.
Lin-872 does teach:
muting at least one L3 RS measurement occasion to avoid overlap.
(paras. [0011], [0036]-[0040], and [0062]; and Figs. 7 and 9A —a scheduling restriction can be applied to an overlapping L3 RS of an AP-CSI-RS under various conditions, such that an aperiodic L1 RSRP can be measured, while at the same time an overlapping L3 RS can be muted to prevent collision/interference).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada in view of Matsumura and Yokokawa’s L1/L3 RS measurement overlap solution with muting at least one L3 RS measurement occasion, as taught by Lin-872.
The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid overlap by muting at least one overlapping RS, as recognized by Lin-872 (paras. [0011], [0036]-[0040], and [0062]; and Figs. 7 and 9A).
With respect to Claim 9, Takada in view of Matsumura, Yokokawa and Lin-872 teaches the method of claim 8.
However, Takada does not teach:
guaranteeing the receiving of the AP-CSI-RS for L1-RSRP in a first overlapping measurement occasion.
Lin-872 does teach:
guaranteeing the receiving of the AP-CSI-RS for L1-RSRP in a first overlapping measurement occasion (paras. [0011], [0036]-[0040], and [0062]; and Figs. 7 and 9A —the aperiodic L1 RSRP measurement can be effectively guaranteed, by muting overlapping L3 RS measurement to prevent any collision therewith).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takada’s L1/L3 RS measurement overlap solution with muting at least one L3 RS measurement occasion, as taught by Lin-872.
The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid overlap by muting at least one overlapping RS, as recognized by Lin-872 (paras. [0011], [0036]-[0040], and [0062]; and Figs. 7 and 9A).
With respect to Claim 34, this claim recites similar features to Claim 8. As such, Claim 34 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura, Yokokawa and Lin-872, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 8.
With respect to Claim 35, this claim recites similar features to Claim 9. As such, Claim 35 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of Matsumura, Yokokawa and Lin-872, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights