DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 07/01/2026.
2. Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 9 and 11 – 12 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The remarks submitted by the applicant/applicant’s representative were thoroughly reviewed. The applicant set forth the following remarks (page 7 of the arguments submitted on 07/01/2026):
“Although Hong discloses UE performing CSI-RS measurements during RRC IDLE mode and reporting the results to base station based on IDLE mode measurement configuration from base station, Hong does not disclose modification of UE configuration by modifying receiver bandwidth along with modification of number of receiver branches.
Moreover, the cited prior art Hong (KR-102084004) discloses that UE deletes/releases the received IDLE mode measurement configuration only when UE performs cell selection or handover or RAT changes. Hong does not discloses modification of receiver bandwidth for receiving non-SSB reference signal in idle mode.
The combination of Sun, Clevorn and Hong does not disclose, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the feature of "wherein the modified at least one wireless device configuration includes modifying a receiver bandwidth and modifying a number of receiver branches" as recited in independent Claim 1. Accordingly, the allowance of independent Claim 1 is respectfully requested.”
The examiner disagrees for the following reason:
At the bottom of page 7 in the reference of Hong (KR-102084004, submitted with the last non-final on 04/01/2025), the definition of a cell is provided as encompassing a radio path, a radio link, a carrier and the like for transmission of data. Page 30 of Hong states:
“As another example, the base station may indicate IDLE mode measurement configuration information for reducing the SCell setup time of the RRC IDLE state terminal in the system information (eg, SIB5) to the terminal. The terminal applies or stores the received IDLE mode measurement configuration information. Meanwhile, the idle state terminal may perform a cell reselection operation to a new cell as the terminal moves.”
This means, if the terminal applies the measurement configuration (the interpretation of measurement configuration is seen on page 10 of Hong: “IDLE mode measurement configuration information for measuring a channel state in an RRC IDLE mode from a base station (S110)”) then the UE in idle mode is able to perform cell reselection (“… the idle state terminal may perform a cell reselection operation to a new cell as the terminal moves.). Performing a cell reselection involves reselecting a radio path, a radio link, a carrier and the like for transmission of data (bottom of page 7 of Hong), which directly implies a modification to the bandwidth in idle mode, opposed to the applicant’s remarks which states: “Hong does not discloses modification of receiver bandwidth for receiving non-SSB reference signal in idle mode.
[In addition, a further search was conducted where by the following two references: Breuer et al. (US 2016/0183155A1) ¶ 0002 and Gulati et al. (US 2015/0195755A1), ¶ 0048 discloses the modification of receiver bandwidth in idle mode.]
The applicant’s representative added independent claim 13, and presents on page 8 that the limitation “...modify at least one wireless device configuration for receiving at least a non- synchronization signal block (SSB) reference signal while in idle mode…”, is not being taught, emphasis being placed on the modification being done when receiving at least a non- synchronization signal block (SSB) reference signal. This limitation is being implied, since the UE has to modify its configuration when receiving non-SSB (receiving of non-SSB is being done in idle mode in the references used in claim 1 rejection). In other words, let say the UE is receiving data only, if the UE is then placed into idle mode whereby non-SSB reference signal is/are being receive, then the UE itself will have to modify its configuration in order to decode/demodulate and perform measurement of the non-SSB reference signal.
In conclusion the rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 is maintained and newly added claim 13 is also rejected for similar reasons as that of claims 1 and 7.
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 was included in the last rejection).
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 it is being implied the UE has to modify its configuration when receiving non-SSB. In other words, let say the UE is receiving data only, if the UE is then placed into idle mode whereby non-SSB reference signal is being receive, then the UE itself will have to modify its configuration in order to decode/demodulate and perform measurement of the non-SSB reference signal. ¶ 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:
Referring to page 30 of Hong which states: “As another example, the base station may indicate IDLE mode measurement configuration information for reducing the SCell setup time of the RRC IDLE state terminal in the system information (eg, SIB5) to the terminal. The terminal applies or stores the received IDLE mode measurement configuration information. Meanwhile, the idle state terminal may perform a cell reselection operation to a new cell as the terminal moves.” This means, if the terminal applies the measurement configuration (the interpretation of measurement configuration is seen on page 10 of Hong: “IDLE mode measurement configuration information for measuring a channel state in an RRC IDLE mode from a base station (S110)”) then the UE in idle mode is able to perform cell reselection (“… the idle state terminal may perform a cell reselection operation to a new cell as the terminal moves.). Performing a cell reselection involves reselecting a radio path, a radio link, a carrier and the like for transmission of data (bottom of page 7 of Hong), which directly implies a modification to the bandwidth in idle mode,
[In addition, a further search was conducted where by the following two references: Breuer et al. (US 2016/0183155A1) ¶ 0002 and Gulati et al. (US 2015/0195755A1), ¶ 0048 discloses the modification of receiver bandwidth in idle mode.]
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].
Claims 7 and 13 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.
3. 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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