DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 10/28/2025.
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 to date.
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 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 27, Applicant has amended these independent claims to recite: “making a measurement of AP-CSI-RS, 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 AP-CS-RS.” Applicant asserts that Takada and Yokokawa do not teach/suggest the above, claim features. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 6. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For context, relating to the claimed “scaling factor” Applicant’s disclosure at para. [0104] of its corresponding PG Pub recites the following, in combination with Fig. 7A:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
314
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In terms of the claim subject matter at issue, an L1-RSRP CS-RS 730 can be measured at a third periodicity of the L3 RRM/SMTC 715, when the L3 RRM/SMTC measurement window overlaps with the L1 CSI-RS (repeating). Here the P = 3 scaling factor corresponds to an L1 measurement delay, where the L1 CSI-RS is not measured until a third periodicity associated with the L3 RRM/SMTC. Effectively, the L1 CSI-RS measurement can be delayed because it is known when it will arrive again under periodic and semi-periodic repetition (repetition = ON).
As depicted in Applicant’s Figures 8 and 9A, when the L1 CSI-RS is aperiodic, it is shown to only occur once, because it does not repeat periodically (Repetition = OFF). Thus, in an overlap scenario (to avoid collision), the L1 CSI-RS can be measured when the L3 RRM/SMTC is muted (Fig. 9A), or conversely, the L1 CSI-RS can be muted when the L3 RS is measured (Fig. 8), but this does not enable another known opportunity to measure the L1 CSI-RS. Notably, Applicant’s disclosure incorrectly describes the content of Fig. 9B in terms of an aperiodic AP-CSI-RS L1-RSRP measurement occasion, when what is actually depicted in Fig. 9B is only periodic or semi-periodic (as opposed to aperiodic) CSI-RS L1-RSRP measurement.
In its prior response, Applicant indicated support for the above claim subject matter to exists in para. [0118] of its specification (corresponding to para. [0112] of its PG Pub, reproduced below). Applicant’s Remarks of 05/21/2025 at p. 6.
PNG
media_image3.png
443
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, this portion of Applicant’s disclosure describes prioritizing the L1 AP-CSI-RS measurement over L3 RS measurement using a scaling factor P, that “according to some aspects… may comprise a multiple of a periodicity of the L3 RS or L1-RSRP measurement occasions.” However, for L1-RSRP measurement of an aperiodic AP-CSI-RS there is no periodicity. Therefore, the only periodicity to scale is that of the periodic L3 RS, when the AP-CSI-RS is in play. As such, the measurement of a single L1-RSRP AP-CSI-RS can only be delayed in time, and the periodic L3 RRM/SMTC can be scaled, to avoid overlap.
Accordingly, the claimed “making a measurement of AP-CSI-RS, according to a scaling factor… 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 AP-CS-RS,” is reasonably interpreted to mean delaying a single AP-CS-RS measurement in time to not overlap a scaled L3 RS measurement periodicity.
With respect to claims 1 and 27, Applicant argues that the scaling factor subject matter of “Yokokawa are limited to overlap of periodic signals, in contrast to the independent claims.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 7. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s claim subject matter at issue itself is reasonably interpreted to relate to the scaling of only periodic signals, i.e., L3 RS’. A single aperiodic signal can only be delayed. Therefore, the subject matter of Yokokawa relied upon to reject the independent claims does not conflict with the claim subject matter being addressed, as suggested.
Specifically, Yokokawa teaches calculating a delay time for detecting a RS reception, including L1-RSRP measurement M and scaling factor P taking into account an overlap with SMTC or MG, and a scaling factor Z, at paras. [0058]-[0062]. Yokokawa then describes determining a measurement delay in terms of L3 RS measurement, to avoid overlap, where a scaling factor of the delay time calculation can have a value Z that is required to be greater than or equal to 2, e.g., Z may be 8 for CSI-RS based L1 RSRP measurement, at paras. [0079]-[0080] and [0130].
The Examiner also notes that nowhere in Applicant’s detailed disclosure is there any mention of a scaling factor being required to be “greater than or equal to 2;” however, the Yokokawa reference includes this exact terminology.
As such, Yokokawa fairly teaches/suggest applying a scaling factor greater than or equal to two periods of a L3 RS measurement with which to delay L1-RSRP measurement, such as where a scaling factor of Z is 8. The purpose of the delay is to avoid overlap. Moreover, it would be obvious to modify Takada’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 AP-CSI-RS measurement, and avoid collision/overlap between RSs.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments for each of claims 1 and 27 are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based on the new grounds of rejection applied in the instant 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 pp. 8-9. 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 § 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 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:
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 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 AP-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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Yokokawa teaches the method of Claim 1.
However, Takada in view of 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 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 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 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 Yokokawa teach the method of Claim 1.
However, Takada in view of 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 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 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 US PG Pub. 2022/0295300 A1, Takada et al. (hereinafter “Takada”), in view of Yokokawa et al. (hereinafter Yokokawa), in further view of US PG Pub 2022/0353872 A1, Lin-872.
With respect to Claim 8, Takada in view of Yokokawa teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Takada 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 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 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 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 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 34, this claim recites similar features to Claim 8. As such, Claim 34 is also rejected under §103 based on Takada in view of 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 Yokokawa and Lin-872, for the same reasons explained above for Claim 9.
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 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