DETAILED ACTION
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 11/24/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered art.
Applicant’s amendment changes the scope of the claims, thus necessitating the change in the original rejection.
Applicant argues that the multiple measurement functions are not “directly applied” at the identical SSB occasion or at the SMTC window, though some indirect applications do occur (Pp. 4-5). The examiner stipulates to this amended element as not existing in Zhu but considers that there is motivation to combine with systems that do.
In response to applicant's argument that the system allows “the UE to perform the cell measurement to avoid unnecessary measurements (P. 4),” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant argues that Zhu separates the multiple measurement occasions and or schedules separately (P. 5). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (that the multiple measurement functions should be processed as a bundle in the same time and place) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely recite “multiple measurement functions” and one of ordinary skill in the art, giving the term its broadest reasonable interpretation, would recognize it as broader. The applicant is welcome to amend in this manner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (2020/0,413,276) in view of Harada et al. (12,250,649).
For claim 1, Zhu teaches a method (abstract) for performing a cell measurement (Paras 62-64), for a user equipment (UE) (Paras 24, 30) of a wireless communication network (Paras 21-24), comprising (background, summary and claims):
applying multiple measurement functions (Paras 39-40, 66) at an identical synchronization signal block (SSB) occasion or in a SSB-based Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window (Para 40).
Zhu does not expressly disclose directly applying multiple measurement functions at an identical synchronization signal block (SSB) occasion or in a SSB-based Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window. Harada teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes directly applying (col. 8, lines 55-67) multiple measurement functions (col. 7, lines 5-30) at an identical synchronization signal block (SSB) occasion (col. 7, lines 5-30) or in a SSB-based Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement timing configuration (SMTC) (col. 7, lines 5-30) window (col. 11, lines 35-67). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Harada in order to provide improvements to SSB transmission reliability (col. 2, lines 1-25).
For claims 2, 5, Zhu teaches that the multiple measurement functions are a synchronization function, a beam management (BM) function (Para 40), a radio link monitor (RLM) function (Para 60), and a radio resource management (RRM) function (Para 40, 61).
For claims 3, 6, Zhu teaches that at least two of multiple measurement functions are applied at the identical SSB occasion or in the SMTC window (Para 61).
For claim 4, Zhu teaches (abstract) a User Equipment (UE) (Paras 24, 30) of a wireless communication network (Paras 21-24), comprising (background, summary and claims):
a wireless transceiver (Para 36), configured to perform wireless transmission and reception (Paras 37-38) to and from a service network (Paras 25, 56); and
a controller, configured to receive a measurement configuration from the service network via the wireless transceiver (Paras 59-60), and perform a cell measurement via the wireless transceiver (Paras 62-64);
wherein the cell measurement is performed by applying multiple measurement functions (Paras 39-40, 66) at an identical synchronization signal block (SSB) occasion or in a SSB-based Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window (Para 40).
Zhu does not expressly disclose directly applying multiple measurement functions at an identical synchronization signal block (SSB) occasion or in a SSB-based Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window. Harada teaches a method and system (abstract) in the relevant art (background, summary and claims) that includes directly applying (col. 8, lines 55-67) multiple measurement functions (col. 7, lines 5-30) at an identical synchronization signal block (SSB) occasion (col. 7, lines 5-30) or in a SSB-based Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement timing configuration (SMTC) (col. 7, lines 5-30) window (col. 11, lines 35-67). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have added Harada in order to provide improvements to SSB transmission reliability (col. 2, lines 1-25).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELVIN H POLLACK whose telephone number is (571)272-3887. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at (571)270-1684. 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.
/MELVIN H POLLACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445