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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 02-17-2026 has been entered and considered.
Claims 1-7, and 9-31 are pending in the current application
Claim 8 is canceled.
Claims 1-12, 19-24, 26, 28-30 are rejected as discussed below.
Claims 13-18, 25, 27 and 31 are objected to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries 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 claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3, 10-11, 19-21, 24, 26 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (WO 2022/085975) in view of Damnjanovic et al (US 2013/0308520, hereinafter referred to as Damnjanovic).
Regarding claims 1, 20, and 29-30. Kim discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: receive a message associated with cross-link interference (CLI) measurements by the UE during an inactivity period of a network entity, the inactivity period being one or more of a transmit or receive inactivity state of the network entity (see at least paragraphs [13] and [17]); and pause or continue CLI measurement activity during the inactivity period based at least in part on the message (see at least paragraphs [13], [17], [417], and [554]-[555]).
Kim discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of a battery power level of the UE compared against a battery power level threshold. However, Damnjanovic discloses a battery power level of the UE compared against a battery power level threshold (see at least claim 3, figure 8 and paragraph [0061]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Damnjanovic, as indicated, into the communication method of Kim for the purpose managing UE resources and performance based on battery level.
Regarding claims 2 and 21. Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses a UE wherein the inactivity period of the network entity is a transmit inactivity period, wherein the message is a pause message, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to pause measuring of CLI (see at least paragraphs [13] and [17]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11. Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses a UE wherein the one or more processors, to pause measuring of CLI, are configured to pause measuring of CLI based at least in part on one or more CLI measurements not satisfying a signal strength threshold (see at least paragraph [0310]).
Regarding claims 10 and 24. Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses a UE wherein the inactivity period of the network entity is a transmit inactivity period, wherein the message is a continue message, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to continue measuring of CLI (see at least paragraphs [13] and [17]).
Regarding claim 26, Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses a network, wherein the inactivity period of the network entity is a receive inactivity period, and wherein the message is a continue message to continue transmitting of CLI measurements (see at least paragraphs [13] and [17]).
Regarding claim 19. Kim in view of Damnjanovic a UE wherein the message is a radio resource control message or downlink control information triggering a transmit inactivity state or a receive inactivity state at the network entity (see at least paragraph [0134]).
Claims 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Damnjanovic and further in view of Wu (US 2022/0070788).
Regarding claims 4 and 12. Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception to pause measuring of CLI, are configured to pause measuring of CLI based at least in part on a power level of the UE not satisfying a power level threshold. However, Wu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches pausing measuring of CLI, are configured to pause measuring of CLI based at least in part on a power level of the UE not satisfying a power level threshold (see at least paragraphs [0007], and [0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Wu, as indicated, into the communication method of Kim in view of Damnjanovic for the purpose of saving power in the UE.
Regarding claim 5. Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Wu discloses a UE wherein the one or more processors are configured to enter a sleep state based at least in part on pausing the measuring of CLI (Wu: see at least paragraph [0090]).
Claims 6-7, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Damnjanovic and further in view of Dai et al (US 2025/0212039). Hereinafter referred to as Dai.
Regarding claims 6 and 22, Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception that the inactivity period of the network entity is a receive inactivity period, wherein the message is a pause message, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to pause transmitting of CLI measurements. However, Dai, from a similar field of endeavor, teaches inactivity period of the network entity is a receive inactivity period, wherein the message is a pause message, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to pause transmitting of CLI measurements (see at least paragraph [0083] and [0085]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Wu, as indicated, into the communication method of Kim in view of Damnjanovic for the purpose of improving measurement collection.
Regarding claim 7. Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view if Dai discloses a UE wherein the one or more processors, to pause transmitting of the CLI measurements, are configured to pause transmitting of the CLI measurements based at least in part on one or more CLI measurements not satisfying a signal strength threshold (Kim: see at least paragraph [0310]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Dai and further in view of Wu.
Regarding claim 8. Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Dai discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of pausing transmitting of the CLI measurements, are configured to pause transmitting of the CLI measurements based at least in part on a power level of the UE not satisfying a power level threshold. However, Wu, from the same field of endeavor, teaches pausing transmitting of the CLI measurements, are configured to pause transmitting of the CLI measurements based at least in part on a power level of the UE not satisfying a power level threshold (Wu: see at least paragraphs [0007], and [0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Wu, as indicated, into the communication method of Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Dai for the purpose of saving power in the UE.
Claims 9 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Dai and further in view of Edge et al (US 2019/0357011). Hereinafter referred to as Edge.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Dai discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of transmitting the CLI measurements to the network entity after an end of the receive inactivity period. However, Edge, from the same field of endeavor, teaches transmitting the CLI measurements to the network entity after an end of the receive inactivity period (see at least paragraphs [0069]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Edge, as indicated, into the communication method of Kim in view of Dai for the purpose of only sending measurement reports during connected state and saving battery life.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Damnjanovic in view of Mach (US 2022/0217568).
Regarding claim 28, Kim in view of Damnjanovic discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention with the exception of transmitting information about the message to a neighboring network entity or to other UEs. However, Mach, from a similar field of endeavor, transmitting information about the message to a neighboring network entity or to other UEs (see at least paragraph [0225]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the invention to employ the teaching of Mach, as indicated, into the communication method of Kim in view of Damnjanovic for the purpose of managing loads on networks and network operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-18, 25, 27 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12, 19-24, 26, 28-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO_892.
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.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Applicants must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37C.F.R 1.111(c). In addition, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and pages numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist examiner in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL whose telephone number is (571)270-1416. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-4PM 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/MOUNIR MOUTAOUAKIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights