DETAILED ACTION
Brief Summary
On March 4, 2025 a Non-Final Office Action (NFOA) was mailed in which, among other findings, claims 15-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 251 for “Recapture” rejections; claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 were rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting; and claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-20 were rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being obvious over Zhu in view of Ng.
On June 4, 2025, the Applicant filed their response to the NFOA, which included amendments to the claims and arguments toward the outstanding rejections.
On August 25, 2025 a second Non-Final Office action was mailed in which, among other findings, the “Recapture”, double patenting, and prior art rejections were maintained.
On November 25, 2025, the Applicant filed their response to the August 25, 2025 Office action which included the canceling of the prior claim set and the addition of new claims 21-37, which appear to be the same claims presented in the Applicant’s prior response but renumbered.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are addressed below in the order presented in the Applicant’s Remarks.
Recapture
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the recapture rejections are not persuasive. New claim 33 recites the same limitations as now canceled claim 15. The limitation in claim 33 the applicant argues materially narrows the claim is not related to the surrendered subject matter. That is to say, the reissue claims are broader by entirely omitting the surrender generating limitation and are narrower in unrelated aspects. (See MPEP 1412.02(II)(C) and 1412.02(III)(B)(1). For example, the surrendered subject matter is toward the base station receiving capability information and the new limitation is toward the sub-frame in which the multiple signals are received in.
Double Patenting Rejections
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant's statement that they will file a terminal disclaimer at a later date, however the outstanding double patenting rejections will be maintained until then.
Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Regarding the prior art rejections, the Applicant argues the combination of Zhu and Ng fails to teach or suggest the claim limitation of “wherein the received multiple signals comprise one or more of: cell=specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.” The Applicant argues the teachings of Zhu relied on in the rejection are not equivalent to the claimed discovery burst and Ng does not cure Zhu’s deficiencies. The Applicant also argues that the combination of Zhu and Ng is based on improper hindsight reasoning. (See Remarks, at pages 8-10).
Examiner’s response
The Examiner disagrees. Zhu discloses a multi-signal discovery burst that is received by a UE transmitted from a network node every 20 subframes (i.e. greater than 10 subframes as required). (See Zhu, lines 56-67 of column 16 and figure 3). Zhu does not specifically disclose the multiple signals including one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information symbol, however Zhu does suggest different signals can be used as a discovery burst. (See Zhu, lines 43-50 of column 7). Ng teaches a discovery burst including one or more of cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information symbol. (See Ng, ¶ 107 and figure 7). Combining Zhu and Ng by substituting the discovery burst of Zhu with the discovery burst of Ng arrives at the claimed limitation.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Prior Arguments
The Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not look to combine Zhu and Ng because doing so would destroy Ng’s primary function. The Applicant argues, “Ng explicitly defines the discovery signal to include PSS and SSS to assist with cell detection. In LTE standards (which Ng relies upon), PSS and SSS are rigidly located in subframes 0 and 5 to allow User Equipment (UE) to synchronize. Ng confirms this in paragraph 0108, stating: "In the examples shown in FIGS. 5 through 8, sub-frame n (SFn) can be sub- frame 0 or sub-frame 5 As a result, when the PBCH is transmitted in sub-frame 0, a collision between the PBCH and CSI-RS is avoided…” (See Remarks, pages 10-11, emphasis and footnote removed).
Examiner’s response
The Examiner disagrees. Ng discloses that there are advantages to sending DRS occasions in sub-frame 0 and sub-frame 5 such as LTE compatibility and uses that example “for the sake of simplicity” however Ng discloses DRS transmissions may occur in other sub-frame indices. For example, Ng teaches, “For the rest of the embodiment, the UE 116 is configured to assume that the DRS is transmitted in sub-frame #5 for the sake of simplicity. However, in certain embodiments, the UE 116 is configured to assume that the DRS transmission occurs in other sub-frame indices. In certain embodiments, the DRS of a cell are transmitted in both DRS symbols (emphasis added).”
Reissue Applications
The reissue declaration is objected to because the applicant has not explained in remarks accompanying the continuation reissue application why a copy of the declaration for the parent reissue application is sufficient. See MPEP 1451(II)(B)(1).
Recapture
Claims 33-37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. See Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Per MPEP 1412.02 (II),
“In Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-70, 45 USPQ2d at 1164-65, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set forth a three step test for recapture analysis. In North American Container, 415 F.3d at 1349, 75 USPQ2d at 1556, the court restated this test as follows:
We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process:
(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) Finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
As per step 1, the Examiner finds the reissue claims are broader that the original claims. Specifically, independent claims 21 and 27 in the reissue application no longer require the wireless device to send a recommendation to the network node and independent claim 33 no longer requires the network node to receive capability information from the wireless device and perform radio operations based on the received capability data.
As per step 2, the Examiner finds the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution. The limitation that are omitted from the independent claims of the reissue application were added to the claim in an amendment filed 4/30/18 in order to overcome prior art rejections based on Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0337952) in a Final Office action mailed 3/2/18. The Applicant at the time also argued the limitations in question were incorporated into the independent claims to overcome prior art rejections. For example, at page 2 of the corresponding Remarks the applicant argues,
“Independent Claim 1 has been amended to include recitations adapted from canceled Claim 12, which was rejected under 35 USC § 103 as obvious over Li. Office action at page 16. Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 12 will be addressed as applied to the amended independent Claim 1.”
and further at page 4 the Applicant argues,
“Additionally, Claim 24 include similar recitations as discussed above regarding Claim 12 and is rejected using the same bases as Claim 12. The recitations of Claim 24 have been adapted in independent Claim 13. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 13 is patentable over Li for at least the same reasons discussed above regarding Claim 1, the allowance of which is respectfully requested.
Claim 25 has been amended to include the recitation of canceled Claims 35 and 36. Accordingly, Claim 25 is patentable over Li for at least the same reasons discussed above regarding Claim 1, the allowance of which is respectfully requested.”
Claims 13 and 25 were renumbered as claims 8 and 15 upon issue of the’774 Patent. With that, the identified limitation are considered surrendered subject matter.
As per step 3,
With respect to claims 21 and 27, The Examiner finds that the claims as amended avoid recapture rejections because the claims have been materially narrowed in aspects related to the surrendered subject matter. For example, the broadened aspects of the claim relate to a recommendation recommending multiple signal or signal repetitions to send in a discovery burst, and the newly added limitation identify specific signals sent in addition to specifying the subframes in which they are sent.
With respect to claim 33, the Examiner finds that the claim, as amended, were narrowed in unrelated aspects, thus recapture rejections is applicable. For example, the omitted limitations are toward capability information, whereas the added subject matter is toward the composition of the discovery signal burst.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,397.
The tables below are provided to show the similarity in claim language. Markings to show amendments have been omitted. Claims 6, 13, and 20 of RE49,397 are shown in independent form. The differences between the claims are in bold.
Claim 6 – RE49,397
Claim 21 – instant application
6. A method in a wireless device, comprising:
communicating capability information to a network node, the capability information indicating to the network node whether the wireless device is capable of using a discovery burst for performing at least one radio measurement;
receiving the discovery burst from the network node, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and received within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes, where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10;
performing the at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst
wherein the received multiple signals comprises of one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.
21. A method in a wireless device, comprising:
receiving a discovery burst from a network node, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and received within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes, where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10; and
performing at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst;
wherein the received multiple signals comprise one or more of: a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.
Claim 13 – RE49,397
Claim 27 – instant application
13. A wireless device, comprising:
one or more processors configured to communicate capability information to a network node, the capability information indicating to the network node whether the wireless device is capable of using a discovery burst for performing at least one radio measurement;
an interface configured to receive the discovery burst from the network node, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and received within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes, where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10; and
the one or more processors further configured to perform the at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst
wherein the received multiple signals comprises of one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.
27. A wireless device, comprising:
an interface configured to receive a discovery burst from a network node, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and received within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes, where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10; and
one or more processors configured to perform at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst;
wherein the received multiple signals comprises of one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.
Claim 20 – RE49,397
Claim 33 – instant application
20. A method in a network node, comprising:
creating a discovery burst based on one or more criteria, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and included within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, the multiple signals of the discovery burst for performing, by a wireless device, at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst, and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes, where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10; and
transmitting the discovery burst for use by the wireless device performing the at least one radio measurement; and
receiving, from the wireless device, capability information, the capability information indicating to the network node whether the wireless device is capable of using the discovery burst to perform at least one radio measurement
wherein the received multiple signals comprises of one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the one or more signals are transmitted in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.
33. A method in a network node, comprising:
creating a discovery burst based on one or more criteria, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and included within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, the multiple signals of the discovery burst for performing, by a wireless device, at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst, and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes, where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10; and
transmitting the discovery burst for use by the wireless device performing the at least one radio measurement;
wherein the received multiple signals comprises of one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol, and the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the limitations in claims 21, 27, and 33 of the instant application are recited in claims 6, 13, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. RE49,397 and thus anticipate the claims. (See MPEP 804, “Nonstatutory double patenting includes rejections based on anticipation, a one-way determination of "obviousness," or a two-way determination of "obviousness."). Dependent claims 22-26, 28-32, and 34-37 recite the same limitations in the corresponding dependent claims in the reference patent.
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.
Claims 21-24, 26-30, and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,391,759 hereinafter “Zhu”) in view of Ng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0092768 hereinafter “Ng”).
Referring to claim 21, Zhu teaches a method in a wireless device (see item 110 in figure 1), comprising:
receiving a discovery burst from a network node (see item 108-1 in figure 1), the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and received within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions (see lines 27-35 of column 7, “In the FIG. 3 example, it is assumed that the PSS or SSS, or both, is (or are) used as a discovery signal transmitted by the small cell eNB in the off state.”), and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes (see item 304 in figure 3), where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10 (see lines 36-42 of column 7, “In the example of FIG. 3, the active small cell eNB transmits a PSS/SSS every five subframes, while the sleeping small cell eNB transmits a PSS/SSS every 20 subframes.”); and
performing at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Zhu further teaches the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5 (see figure 7) and further teaches a discovery signal may comprise one or more of a cell-specific reference signal (CS-RS) and a channel state information reference symbol (see lines 43-50 of column 7), however Zhu fails to specifically disclose the discovery burst comprising one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference signal. That is to say, the only difference between Zhu and the claim is that Zhu does not explicitly disclose the CS-RS being included in the discovery burst, rather the signal is used by itself as a discovery signal.
Ng teaches, in an analogous system, a discovery burst comprising multiple signals, wherein the multiple signals comprise one of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol (see figure 7 and ¶ 104, “UE 116 uses discovery signals 505 for cell or transmission point detection that includes one or more of: PSS, SSS, CRS and, if configured, CSI-RS”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhu with the above teachings of Ng such that the discovery burst comprises at least one of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol. Such a modification would merely require substituting the discovery burst taught by Zhu with the discovery burst taught Ng and the result of said substitution would have been predictable.
Referring to claim 22, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of claim 21 (as shown above), and Ng further teaches at least one of multiple signals is received with multiple repetitions within the same discovery burst and two or more repetitions of the same type of signal is combined by the wireless device (see figures 5-7 and paragraph 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to further modify the teachings of Zhu with the above teachings of Ng, because Ng suggests such repetition and combining of signals is advantageous for improving signal accuracy (see paragraph 107).
Referring to claim 23, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of claim 22 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches the received multiple signals of the same discovery burst comprising one or more of a primary synchronization signal, a secondary synchronization signal, a cell-specific reference signal, and a channel state information reference symbol (see lines 27-35 of column 7, Zhu teaches at least the use of the PSS and SSS).
Referring to claim 24, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of claim 21 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches reporting, to network node, a set of radio resource measurements, the radio resource measurements based at least in part on the multiple signals of the discovery burst and comprising one or more of a reference signal received quality and a reference signal received power (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Referring to claim 26, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of Claim 21 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches the radio measurement is based only on the signals occurring within the discovery burst (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Referring to claim 27, Zhu teaches a wireless device, comprising:
an interface (see item 110 in figure 1, the UE has a wireless communications interface) configured to receive a discovery burst from a network node, the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and received within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions (see lines 27-35 of column 7, “In the FIG. 3 example, it is assumed that the PSS or SSS, or both, is (or are) used as a discovery signal transmitted by the small cell eNB in the off state.”), and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes (see item 304 in figure 3), where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10 (see lines 36-42 of column 7, “In the example of FIG. 3, the active small cell eNB transmits a PSS/SSS every five subframes, while the sleeping small cell eNB transmits a PSS/SSS every 20 subframes.”); and
one or more processors (see item 110, the UE inherently comprises a processor) configured to perform at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst, the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Zhu further teaches the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5 (see figure 7) and further teaches a discovery signal may comprise one or more of a cell-specific reference signal (CS-RS) and a channel state information reference symbol (see lines 43-50 of column 7), however Zhu fails to specifically disclose the discovery burst comprising one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference signal. That is to say, the only difference between Zhu and the claim is that Zhu does not explicitly disclose the CS-RS being included in the discovery burst, rather the signal is used by itself as a discovery signal.
Ng teaches, in an analogous system, a discovery burst comprising multiple signals, wherein the multiple signals comprise one of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol (see figure 7 and ¶ 104, “UE 116 uses discovery signals 505 for cell or transmission point detection that includes one or more of: PSS, SSS, CRS and, if configured, CSI-RS”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhu with the above teachings of Ng such that the discovery burst comprises at least one of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol. Such a modification would merely require substituting the discovery burst taught by Zhu with the discovery burst taught Ng and the result of said substitution would have been predictable.
Referring to claim 28, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the wireless device of Claim 27 (as shown above), and Ng further teaches receiving and processing discovery signals that at least one of multiple signals is received with multiple repetitions within the same discovery burst and two or more repetitions of the same type of signal is combined by the wireless device (see figures 5-7 and paragraph 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to further modify the teachings of Zhu with the above teachings of Ng, because Ng suggests such repetition and combining of signals is advantageous for improving signal accuracy (see paragraph 107).
Referring to claim 29, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the wireless device of Claim 28 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches the received multiple signals of the same discovery burst comprising one or more of a primary synchronization signal, a secondary synchronization signal, a cell-specific reference signal, and a channel state information reference symbol (see lines 27-35 of column 7, Zhu teaches at least the use of the PSS and SSS).
Referring to claim 30, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the wireless device of Claim 27 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to report, to a network node, a set of radio resource measurements, the radio resource measurements based at least in part on the multiple signals of the discovery burst and comprising one or more of a reference signal received quality and a reference signal received power (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Referring to claim 32, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the wireless device of Claim 27 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches the radio measurement is based only on the signals occurring within the discovery burst (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Referring to claim 33, Zhu teaches a method in a network node, comprising:
creating a discovery burst based on one or more criteria (see figure 2, note the burst is based on the configuration information which is construed as the “criteria”), the discovery burst comprising multiple signals associated with the network node and included within at least one subframe, each of the multiple signals having one or more associated measurement functions, the multiple signals of the discovery burst for performing, by a wireless device, at least one radio measurement based at least in part on a particular one of the signals of the discovery burst (see lines 27-35 of column 7, “In the FIG. 3 example, it is assumed that the PSS or SSS, or both, is (or are) used as a discovery signal transmitted by the small cell eNB in the off state.”), the performed at least one radio measurement corresponding to a measurement function associated with the particular signal of the discovery burst (see lines 58-67 of column 7), and wherein the discovery burst comprises N subframes occurring with a periodicity of once every M subframes (see item 304 in figure 3), where N is greater than or equal to 1 and where M is greater than or equal to 10 (see lines 36-42 of column 7, “In the example of FIG. 3, the active small cell eNB transmits a PSS/SSS every five subframes, while the sleeping small cell eNB transmits a PSS/SSS every 20 subframes.”); and
transmitting the discovery burst for use by the wireless device performing the at least one radio measurement (see item 204 in figure 2).
Zhu further teaches the multiple signals are received in subframes other than subframes 0 and 5 (see figure 7) and further teaches a discovery signal may comprise one or more of a cell-specific reference signal (CS-RS) and a channel state information reference symbol (see lines 43-50 of column 7), however Zhu fails to specifically disclose the discovery burst comprising one or more of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference signal. That is to say, the only difference between Zhu and the claim is that Zhu does not explicitly disclose the CS-RS being included in the discovery burst, rather the signal is used by itself as a discovery signal.
Ng teaches, in an analogous system, a discovery burst comprising multiple signals, wherein the multiple signals comprise one of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol (see figure 7 and ¶ 104, “UE 116 uses discovery signals 505 for cell or transmission point detection that includes one or more of: PSS, SSS, CRS and, if configured, CSI-RS”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to modify the teachings of Zhu with the above teachings of Ng such that the discovery burst comprises at least one of a cell-specific reference signal and a channel state information reference symbol. Such a modification would merely require substituting the discovery burst taught by Zhu with the discovery burst taught Ng and the result of said substitution would have been predictable.
Referring to claim 34, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of Claim 33, and Zhu further teaches wherein the one or more criteria include one or more of a signal quality at one or more wireless devices, a speed of one or more wireless devices, a location of one or more wireless devices, and a recommendation received from one or more wireless devices, the recommendation recommending multiple repetitions or processes of one or more signals for transmission within the discovery burst by the network node (see lines 33-46 of column 8, note the load on a eNB is related to the location of one of one or more wireless devices as the wireless devices need to be in range of the eNB to affect its load.).
Referring to claim 35, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of Claim 33 (as shown above), and Ng further teaches that at least one of multiple signals is transmitted with multiple repetitions within the same discovery burst (see figures 5-7 and paragraph 107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention to further modify the teachings of Zhu with the above teachings of Ng, because Ng suggests such repetition of signals is advantageous for improving signal accuracy (see paragraph 107).
Referring to claim 36, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of Claim 35 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches the received multiple signals of the same discovery burst comprising one or more of a primary synchronization signal, a secondary synchronization signal, a cell-specific reference signal, and a channel state information reference symbol (see lines 27-35 of column 7, Zhu teaches at least the use of the PSS and SSS).
Referring to claim 37, the combination of Zhu and Ng teaches the method of Claim 33 (as shown above), and Zhu further teaches receiving, from the wireless device, a set of radio resource measurements, the radio resource measurements based at least in part on the multiple signals of the discovery burst and comprising one or more of a reference signal received quality and a reference signal received power (see lines 58-67 of column 7, “In some implementations, the UE can report information pertaining to the detected discovery signal to another network node (referred to as a “coordinating network node”), such as the macro eNB 104 (FIG. 1), or another (active) small cell eNB, or a network node in the core network 118 (FIG. 1). The reported information can include any one or more of the following: an identifier of the received discovery signal, a cell identifier (to identify a cell), a received signal strength of the small cell eNB that is in the off state, and other cell-specific information.” (emphasis added)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ERON J SORRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at 571-270-1367. 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.
Signed:
/ERON J SORRELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees: /JOSEPH R POKRZYWA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992