DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks filed on September 15, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Claims 3, 9, 15 and 21 were cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-20 and 22- 24 are pending for examination, of which claims 1, 7, 13, and 19-20 were amended.
In light of remarks, the rejection to claims 1-24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was withdrawn.
The double patenting is still to be maintained because the instant application and the parent application are on obvious variations of the same invention.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argued that the obvious combination of Xu and Chen fails to teach or suggest “the at least one second reference signal (RS} has a quasi co-location {QCL} relationship with at one synchronization signal block {SSB}”, as recited in amended claims 1, 7, 13, and 19.
To be specific, the Applicant states that Chen does not describe or contemplate applying QCL relationships to “borrowed” reference signals such as those discussed in Xu.
Reply, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Xu, in his disclosure, mentions receiving a first message comprising configuration information of a first reference signal [0050], a second message indicating an availability one second reference signal [0142], and an available reference signal that is available in the second reference signal[0114]). Also, Xu indicates SSB and SSB are used to achieve the time-frequency synchronization [0039], wherein SSB includes SS and PBCH [0003].
Chen continues to teach the first (or second) reference signal, e.g., CSI-RS for tracking, has a QCL relationship with at least one {SSB}, which is used to determine Automatic Gain Control (AGC) tracking, Radio Resource Management {RRM} measurements, paging reception, time and/or frequency tracking [0278, 0234, 0022]. Also, Chen specifies first (or second) reference signal and SSB are used for cell selection/re-selection [0222].
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). As it known in the art, acquiring time/frequency synchronization of a cell is performed during a cell search or cell selection/reselection.
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive, from the network device, and based on RS configuration information indicated in first and second messages, an available reference signal that is available in the second reference signal, which is quasi co-located with SSB; thus enabling UE to perform operations in a quick manner – which results from the determination of various channel parameters/ properties being dependent on associated QCL type between two RSs.
Consequently, the combination of Xu and Chen does teach or suggest one second reference signal has QCL relationship with SSB, as recited in amended claims 1, 7, 13, and 19.
In view of the above reasoning, the examiner believes that the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-20 and 22-24 should be maintained.
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 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 20220376861 A1), hereinafter referred to as Xu, in view of Chen et al. (US 20230032593 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen .
Regarding claim 1:
Xu discloses a communication method applied to a terminal device (method of receiving configuration information of reference signals {RS} at terminal device [0034], the communication method comprising:
receiving a first message from a network device, wherein the first message comprises configuration information of at least one first reference signal (being notified of, from network device, system information, e.g., first message, including configuration information of RSs [0050]);
receiving a second message from the network device, wherein the second message indicates an availability of at least one second reference signal (receiving paging message, e.g., second message, from network device, wherein paging message carries configuration information of one or more {second} reference signal, e.g., availability of second RS [0142] ]), and the at least one first reference signal is a set of one or more reference signals (SSB includes SS and PBCH [0003]} comprising the at least one second reference signal (and CSI-RS sent to terminal device [0038]); and
receiving, from the network device and based on the configuration information and the second message, an available reference signal that is available in the at least one second reference signal (receiving, from network, and based on configuration information of RS via combination of system information and paging messages [0127], an indication of available CSI-RS in paging messages, and wherein such CSI-RS are sent by network to terminal device in connected state [0114]).
Also, Xu indicates SSB and SSB are used to achieve the time-frequency synchronization [0039], wherein SSB includes SS and PBCH [0003].
Xu does not disclose the second reference signal has a quasi co-location (QCL) relationship with at least one synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel block (SSB); which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Chen’s disclosure as below.
Chen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches the second reference signal has a quasi co-location (QCL) relationship with at least one synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel block (SSB) ({second} reference signal has a quasi-colocation (QCL) assumption with SSB [0278]).
Also, Chen mentions SSB is used to determine Automatic Gain Control (AGC) tracking, Radio Resource Management {RRM} measurements, paging reception, time and/or frequency tracking [0278, 0234, 0022]. In addition, Chen specifies SSB and first (or second) reference signal are both used for cell selection/re-selection [0222]. As it known in the art, acquiring time/frequency synchronization of a cell is performed during a cell search or cell selection/reselection.
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive, from the network device, and based on RS configuration information indicated in first and second messages, an available reference signal that is available in the second reference signal, which is quasi co-located with SSB; thus enabling UE to perform operations in a quick manner – which results from the determination of various channel parameters/ properties being dependent on associated QCL type between two RSs.
Regarding claim 2:
Xu in view of Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Xu further discloses receiving a correspondence information from the network device (receiving first indication information from network device [0162]), wherein the correspondence information is used to configure a correspondence between at least one information bit in the second message and the at least one second reference signal (and wherein every bit in bitmap configured to indicate whether reference signal is available reference signal or unavailable reference signal [0163]).
Regarding claim 4:
Xu in view of Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Xu further discloses the terminal device is in a radio resource control (RRC) idle mode or a RRC inactive mode (terminal device in RRC idle state or RRC inactive state [0038]), and a type of the at least one second reference signal comprises at least one of:
a tracking reference signal (TRS), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) (CSI-RS [0038]), a SSB (SSB [0039]), or a secondary synchronization signal (SSS).
Regarding claim 5:
Xu in view of Chen discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Xu further discloses the second message indicates that the availability of the at least one second reference signal is valid within a first duration (indication information includes the duration of use of available RS [00158 and 0161]).
Regarding claim 6:
Xu in view of Chen discloses all limitations of claim 5.
Xu does not, but Chen further teaches the first duration is at least one paging discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle (predefined period is a multiple of the DRX cycle [0184]), or one or more windows in a cycle window configured by the network device.
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first duration is at least one paging discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle; thus enabling UE to reduce power consumption by not continuing detecting reference signals [0099].
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 1 is recited from a network device perspective [0048].
Regarding claims 8 and 10-12:
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2 and 4-6 above, respectively, except that claims 8 and 10-12 are recited from the network device perspective.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 13 is in a device claim format, and wherein Xu [in claim 13] also discloses an apparatus/ terminal device (communication device, element 700 in Fig.7) comprising: at least one processor (processor, element 710 in Fig.7); and at least one memory storing instructions (memory, element 720 in Fig.7) – to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 14 and 16-18:
Claims 14 and 16-18 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 2 and 4-6 above, except that claims 14 and 16-18 are in a device claim format.
Regarding claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 7 above, except that claim 19 is in a device claim format, and wherein Xu [in claim 19] also discloses an apparatus/ terminal device (communication device, element 700 in Fig.7) comprising: at least one processor (processor, element 710 in Fig.7); and at least one memory storing instructions (memory, element 720 in Fig.7) – to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 20 and 22-24:
Claims 20 and 22-24 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 8 and 10-12 above, respectively, except that claims 20 and 22-24 are in a device claim format.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights