DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 12/23/2025.
2. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 9 and 11 - 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended.
4. Claims 4 and 10 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The arguments/remarks presented by the applicant/applicant’s representative on 12/23/2025 along with the amendments made to the independent claims were thoroughly reviewed resulting in the scope of the independent claims being changed. A further search and reconsideration were conducted, see the new claim rejection presented below.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 -7 and 11 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0006539 A1) in view of Clevorn et al. (US 2013/0244665 A1) and KR-102084004 (the translated version of this document is included for the applicant consideration. The translated document is used in the rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses: A wireless device (WD) [see figures 6 – 7: “UE”] configured to communicate with a network node [see figures 6 and 7 label “base station”], the WD comprising a radio interface [the UE of figure 8 in view of the UE in figures 6 -7 must possess an interface in order to communicate with the base station] and a processing circuitry [¶ 0013; ¶ 0205] configured to:
modify [see figure 8, label 802, adjusting and transmitting module interpreted as the modifying module] at least one wireless device configuration for at least one of receiving or processing at least a non- synchronization signal block (SSB) reference signal while in idle mode [¶ 0051 in view of ¶ 0053: measurements are being done in view of reference signal (non-SSB) and in doing so adjusting the antenna this is interpret as modifying the wireless device configuration. ¶ 0080 further states in an idle state the channel conditions are relative good and SNIR is high some of the antennae are turned off since the measurement is more accurate. ¶ 0111 and ¶ 0053 states that the reference signal can be CSI-RS or SSB, hence selecting CSI-RS will equate to non-SSB reference signal measurement].
Sun does not disclose: wherein the modified at least one wireless device configuration includes modifying a receiver bandwidth and modifying a number of receiver branches, wherein the non-SSB reference signal is a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) or a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS).
However, in the same field of devour, Clevorn discloses: wherein the modified at least one wireless device configuration includes modifying or a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS).
First, in ¶ 0022 the UE performs quality measurement (SNR/SIR) by monitoring signal pattern such as pilot symbols, measurement is done in idle mode see ¶ 0026 in order to make certain correction to the device. It is well known in the art that pilot signals involving pilot symbols can be interpreted as CSIRS (CSIRS is used to measure channel quality which is a non-SSB reference signal and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art) that is used to perform channel quality measurement. ¶ 0030, 0034, ¶ 0039 (see figure 1 label: 108, 114a, 114b and106b,106a) states that in idle mode the controller of the UE based on the measured channel quality is able to modify the receiver chains of the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s system in view of Clevorn. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to establishing a receive diversity (RxDiv) condition [¶ 0030 of Clevorn].
Sun in view of Clevorn does not disclose: wherein the modified at least one wireless device configuration includes modifying a receiver bandwidthor a Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS).
The above difference is seen in the reference of KR-102084004, the 4th page set forth the idea in the second paragraph a variety of technology is applicable. The 20th (second paragraph) and 27th page (last paragraph), set forth the idea that measurement is being done at the UE in idle mode and on pages 24 – 25, CSIRS is being used for such quality measurement. In one embodiment on page 30 (first paragraph), the UE is capable of selecting a different PLMN or radio access technology after performing measurement in idle mode. Changing a PLMN or Radio access technology directly modifies the UE RX and or TX bandwidth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s system in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004. The motivation for making the above modification would have been for allowing a terminal to perform a cell measurement operation in RRC idle mode [see the technical field on the 2nd page or KR-102084004].
Claim 7 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 1.
Claim 5, Sun further discloses: The WD of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine to modify the at least one wireless device configuration based at least in part on a signal characteristic. [¶ 0080, in idle state the configuration depends on SINR].
Claim 11 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 5.
Claim 6, Sun further discloses: The WD of claim 5, wherein the signal characteristic comprises signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR). [¶ 0080, in idle state the configuration depends on SINR].
Claim 12 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 6.
2. Claim(s) 2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0006539 A1) in view of Clevorn et al. (US 2013/0244665 A1), KR-102084004 and Si et al. (US 20200136739A1).
Claim 2, Sun in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004 discloses: The WD of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1),
Sun in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004 does not disclose: wherein the non-SSB reference signal is configured with wider bandwidth than a SSB reference signal bandwidth. However, in the same field of endeavor, Si discloses the above missing feature, [see ¶ 305, see also ¶ 306 for idle state]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s system in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004 and Si. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to implement RS multiplexing pattern and procedures to demodulate NR broadcast signals. [0002 of Si].
Claim 8 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2022/0006539 A1) in view of Clevorn et al. (US 2013/0244665 A1), KR-102084004 and Hao et al. (WO 2020/168824 A1, a translated copy of this document was included in the last rejection).
Claim 3, Sun in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004 discloses: The WD of claim 1 (see rejected claim 1),
Sun in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004 does not disclose: wherein the modified at least one wireless device configuration is configured to reduce a number of non-SSB reference signal symbols that are at least one of received and processed non-SSB reference signal symbols. However, in the same field of endeavor, Hao discloses the above missing feature, see the last paragraph on page 7 – the first 6 lines on the 8th page of the translated document provided, that is, a number of symbols pertaining to TRS/CSIRS (non-SSB reference signal) can be adjusted/turnoff. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sun’s system in view of Clevorn and KR-102084004 Hao. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to improve the configuration efficiency, and is beneficial to the energy saving of the base station [5th page 4th paragraph of Hao].
Claim 9 recites similar features using respective language and are also rejected by the applied references for similar reasons as claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights