DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 11/13/2025.
Claims 1,2,4-12, and 14-20 are pending.
Claims 1,2,4-12 and 14-20 are rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 11/13/2025. Claims 1,2,5,11,12, and 15 were amended, claims 3 and 13 were canceled, and claims 1,2,4-12, and 14-20 remain pending.
Amendment to claims 2,5,12 and 15 in response to rejection under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph has been considered. The amendment to the claims obviates previously raised rejection, as such this rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (WO 2024/030764)(C1 hereafter) in view of Harada et al. (US Pub. 2021/0297884)(H1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, C1 teaches an apparatus implementable in a user equipment (UE) [refer Fig. 4; 402], comprising:
a transceiver [refer Fig. 4; 410] configured to communicate wirelessly [paragraph 0082]; and
a processor coupled to the transceiver [refer Fig. 4; 404] and configured to perform, via the transceiver, operations [paragraph 0082] comprising:
determining a quasi-co-location (QCL) assumption (i.e. QCL with type D) with respect to a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) responsive to not receiving a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) from a network (the UE is able to use the QCL type D of a latest PDSCH reception or latest control resource set (CORESET) for RSSI measurements if explicit TCI state is not configured)[paragraph 0016]; and
performing, via the transceiver, an RSSI measurement [paragraph 0053] based on the determined QCL assumption in an expanded Frequency Range 2 (FR2-2) band [paragraph 0055] according to a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specification [paragraph 0069].
However, C1 fails to disclose the RSSI is an intra-frequency RSSI, and the determining of the QCL assumption comprises referring to a respective TCl of another RSSI or a reference signal (RS) in the FR2-2 band.
H1 discloses that measurements of RSSI, RSRP, and RSRQ may be measured with respect to both intra-frequency and inter-frequency measurements [paragraph 0036], a TCI state may indicate/include QCL information, the information including information about QCL of a target channel (or reference signal (RS) for the channel) or another signal such as another downlink reference signal [paragraph 0132].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of C1 for a UE that can assume that measurement resources are QCL’d with a type D to downlink reference signal associated with a TCI state of an active BWP using a carrier in a serving cell in FR2-2 (i.e. FR2-2 band)[refer C1; paragraph 0056] to incorporate explicit intra-frequency RSSI measurements and QCL information from a TCI state that can indicate a reference signal for measurement as taught by H1. One would be motivated to do so to provide a means of controlling data reception and transmission with simultaneous measurement to be controlled [refer H1; paragraph 0013].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, C1 teaches the determining of the QCL assumption comprises responsive to no receiving the TCI, referring to a respective received TCl (i.e. TCI state) of each of one or more other component carriers (CCs) (i.e. carrier on which RMTC configuration is provided) in the FR2-2 band (i.e. RSSI measurement in FR2-2)[paragraph 0019].
Regarding claims 4 and 14, C1 teaches the RSSI comprises an inter-frequency RSSI [paragraph 0057], and the determining of the QCL assumption comprises assuming the inter-frequency RSSI as being type-D quasi-co-located (i.e. QCL with TypeD) to another TCl of another RSSI in the FR2-2 band [paragraph 0056].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, C1 teaches the performing of the RSSI measurement comprises applying a respective TCl of a reference signal (RS) or a channel of a serving cell in the FR2-2 band in performing the RSSI measurement [paragraph 0056].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, C1 teaches the performing of the RSSI measurement comprises performing an intra-frequency RSSI measurement (i.e. intra-band serving carrier) RSSI [paragraph 0057], and the determining comprises, further responsive to not receiving a TCl state in one or more RSSI Measurement Timing Configuration (RMTC) configurations [paragraph 0016] that configure one or more intra-frequency (i.e. intra-band serving carrier) RSSI measurements [paragraph 0056], determining that one or more resources used in the RSSI measurement as being quasi-co-located with TypeD [paragraph 0055] to either: a reference signal (RS) or a channel of a serving cell in the FR2-2 band, or another inter-frequency RSSI with a respective TCI provided by the network in the FR2-2 band [paragraph 0056].
Regarding claims 7 and 17, C1 teaches the performing of the RSSI measurement comprises performing an inter-frequency RSSI measurement [paragraph 0054], and the determining comprises determining the QCL assumption further responsive to not receiving a TCI state (i.e. TCI of QCLed type D is not provided)[paragraph 0052] in one or more RSSI Measurement Timing Configuration (RMTC) configurations that configure one or more inter-frequency RSSI measurements [paragraph 0054].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, C1 teaches the determining further comprises, further responsive to not receiving a TCI in any of one or more RMTC configurations [paragraph 0016] that configure one or more intra-frequency (i.e. intra-band serving carrier) RSSI measurements or the one or more inter-frequency RSSI measurements in the FR2-2 band [paragraph 0056], determining that the one or more inter-frequency RSSI measurements as being quasi-co-located with TypeD [paragraph 0055] to either: a reference signal (RS) of a respective TCI provided by the network in an RMTC associated with the one or more intra-frequency RSSI measurements, or another RS of another respective TCI provided by the network in another RMTC associated with the one or more inter-frequency RSSI measurements [paragraph 0056].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, C1 teaches the determining further comprises, further responsive to not receiving a TCI state in one or more RMTC configurations [paragraph 0016] that configure one or more intra-frequency (i.e. intra-band serving carrier) RSSI measurements in the FR2-2 band [paragraph 0056], determining that one or more resources used in the RSSI measurement as being quasi-co-located with TypeD to a reference signal (RS) or a channel of a serving cell in the FR2-2 band (the serving cell is in FR2-2 and if the downlink reference signal is not provided to the UE, the UE can use the QCL type-D of the latest PDSCH reception or latest CORESET monitoring resource)[paragraph 0056].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, C1 teaches wirelessly communicating, via the transceiver, in the FR2-2 band with beamforming [paragraph 0015] based on a result of the RSSI measurement [paragraph 0016].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Harada et al. (US Pub. 2021/0297884) as noted in the above rejection.
Regarding claims 1,2,4-12, and 14-20 applicant argues that the applied reference does not teach newly added claim limitation, namely, “the RSSI is an intra-frequency RSSI, and the determining of the QCL assumption comprises referring to a respective TCl of another RSSI or a reference signal (RS) in the FR2-2 band”, which was partially limitations present in previously pending claims 3 and 13.
In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively directs the applicant to the new grounds of rejection, as noted above, to address the change in scope of the previous limitations.
It is noted that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, the QCL assumption comprises referring to a respective TCl of another RSSI or a reference signal (RS) in the FR2-2 band can be interpreted as simply QCL assumption comprising of information for a reference signal.
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 RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412