DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 11/11/2025.
Claims 15-34 are pending.
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 page 7, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to Claim Objections of claims 15-17, 22-24, 28, 29, 31, 33, and 34 have been fully considered and some are persuasive. The objection of claims 15-17, 22-24, 29, 31, 33, and 34 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to rejection of 35 U.S.C § 112 of claims 15 and 28 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 35 U.S.C § 112 of claims 15 and 28 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to rejection of 35 U.S.C § 103 of claims 15-18, 21-23, 28-31, and 33 has been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 15 and 28, applicant argues that “Nowhere, however does Chen suggest either that (a) there is a detection result for a part of a reference signal, or (b) that further detection of the reference signal is adapted, based on this measurement result. Indeed, Chen does not disclose that a further detection is adapted, based on a detection result. Instead, Chen says that if the presence of a reference signal is detected, then the UE performs a measurement on the reference signal, followed by a reporting of the resulting measurements. Measurement and detection are not the same thing- Chen makes that clear by differentiating between detecting the
presence of the reference signal and making the measurement, contingent on the presence of the reference signal.
For at least this reason, the rejections of claims 15 and 28 should be withdrawn.” on pages 8-9.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
Firstly, the claims recited two broad steps: determining “whether a part of the reference signal is present” and adapting “further detection of the reference signal based on the detection result on the part of the reference signal”. The claim does not suggest as applicant pointed that (a) there is a detection result for a part of a reference signal and (b) that further detection of the reference signal is adapted, based on this measurement result. Examiner believe that applicant amended the claims to indicate that this measurement result is not the same detection result in the claim.
Secondly, refer to Chen Fig. 8 and Paragraphs [0100]-[0101] below:
PNG
media_image1.png
461
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0100] At block 802, the UE determines whether a reference signal available for channel state information measurement is present in a subframe based on the detected transmission signal. The determination of the presence of a CSI-RS, such as an IMR, ZP CSI-RS, or NZP CSI-RS (or any other non-zero power reference signals for channel measurement, e.g., CUBS) can be based on blind detection by the UE or on some explicit indication. If the UE detects the CUBS, at block 801, blind detection by the UE can be linked to the CUBs detection. Thus, if CUBS is transmitted and detected by the UE at block 801, the reference signal is determined to be present in the subframe. Otherwise, the UE will determine that the reference signal is not present. If present, the UE will perform measurements on the reference signal.
[0101] At block 803, the UE transmits a measurement report based at least in part on the determination that the reference signal is present. When the UE detects the CUBS, at block 801, it will determine the reference signal (e.g., IMR, ZP CSI-RS, NZP CSI-RS, etc.) is present and perform measurements using the reference signal. The measurement report will include the resulting measurements.
(Emphasis added).
When Chen teaches determining whether a part of the reference signal is present, first, Chen detecting transmission signal indicative of CCA result information for the identified carrier at step (801). Then, Chen adapting further detection of the reference signal by determining whether a reference signal available for channel state information measurement is present in a subframe based on the detected transmission signal in step (802). That is, the performing of step (802) is being adapted by the performing of step (801). Thus, a detection result on the part on the reference signal as claimed is not the same as of the determined result of whether a part of the reference signal is present. Furthermore, Applicant insisted that Chen “perform a measurement on the reference signal, followed by a reporting of the resulting measurements. Measurement and detection are not the same thing.” However, the claim suggested the same, wherein the adapting detection result for a part of a reference signal is not based on the previous step of determined whether a part of reference signal is present.
Further, Applicant argues that “The Applicant further notes that the conclusion of obviousness is not properly supported by "articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning," as required by law. The Office Action states that it would have been obvious to modify Won, based on the cited parts of Chen's disclosure, "so that it would advance the UMTS technologies not only to meet the growing demand for mobile broadband access, but to advance and enhance the user experience with mobile communications." (Office Action p. 6.) The Office Action does not, and could not possibly, explain how this makes sense.
The cited portions of Won involve a UE determining channel occupancy by a base
station, to determine whether or not an SCell is transmitting in a given subframe. (Won 0457). The cited portions of Chen, on the other hand, describe a technique whereby a UE seeking to perform interference measurements determines whether a reference signal is present or not, before making those measurements. The Office Action does not and cannot explain why it would have been obvious to modify Won's technique for determining whether a subframe is occupied by an SCell would be improved by Chen's teaching that if a reference signal is present, performing an interference measurement on it. The Office Action certainly does not explain how this modification would "meet the growing demand for mobile broadband" or "advance and enhance the user experience."
For all of the above reasons, the rejections of claims 15 and 28 should be withdrawn. The rejections of their dependent claims should each be withdrawn for at least the same reasons.” on page 9.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 is to considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
In response to applicant's argument that the conclusion of obviousness is not properly supported by "articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning," as required by law, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Won's technique for determining whether a subframe is occupied by an SCell would be improved by Chen's teaching that if a reference signal is present would advance the UMTS technologies not only to meet the growing demand for mobile broadband access, but to advance and enhance the user experience with mobile communications.
The Office Action certainly does not have to explain how this modification would "meet the growing demand for mobile broadband" or "advance and enhance the user experience.", the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
For all of the above reasons, the rejections of claims 15 and 28 and rejections of their dependent claims are sustained.
Regarding claims 16 and 29, Applicant argues that “…Won does not disclose that determining whether to perform blind detection is based on reception signal intensity. The rejections of claims 16 and 29 should be withdrawn for these additional reasons.” on page 10.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
Refer to Won Paragraph [0457] below:
[0457] If the PCell does not transmit the status information for the SCell subframe, the UE may monitor the available control information area from the SCell, and may identify the SCell subframe status information. In addition, the UE may identify the SCell subframe status information through the blind detection of the reference signal of the SCell. For example, the UE may perform the blind detecting operation for the Cell reference signal (CRS) in the SCell subframe in order to thereby determine whether or not the CRS exists, and may identify the channel occupancy of the BS with respect to the subframe. At this time, the channel occupancy of the subframe may be identified by using other references, such as DMRS, channel state information-RS (hereinafter, CSI-RS), or PRS as well as the CRS. That is, the UE may measure the reception signal intensity for the corresponding reference signal area in order to thereby determine whether or not the reference signal exists. In addition, the UE may descramble/detect the received signal and then determine whether the reference signal exists or not. In addition, the UE may determine whether or not physical control format indicator channel (PCFICH) information can be obtained from the SCell that provides the service in order to thereby identify the channel occupancy of the subframe. That is, if the PCFICH information is obtained from the SCell, the UE may determine that the corresponding subframe is occupied. The channel occupancy by the BS may be determined in various ways including the method above.
(Emphasis added).
Won teaches that the UE measures the reception signal intensity (as power) for the corresponding reference signal area in order to thereby determine whether or not the reference signal exists. That is, UE determine whether or not the reference signal exists based on the power consumption of the blind detection.
Regarding claims 17 and 30, Applicant argues that “Claims 17 and 30 specify that the UE obtains information on the probability of the reference signal being present from a network node or based on a pre-configuration or history. For this, the Office Action again points to Won's paragraph [0457], noting that it discloses that "indicator channel (PCFICH) information can be obtained from the SCell." Again, this is one way Won's UE can determine channel occupancy. But, this has nothing at all do with obtaining information of the probability of a reference signal from a network node, or based on a pre- configuration or history. The rejections of claims 17 and claim 30 should be withdrawn for this additional reason. The rejections of claims 18 and 31 should be withdrawn for essentially the same reasons.” on page 10.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
In according to the Paragraph [0457] above, Won teaches when the indicator channel (PCFICH) information is obtained from the SCell/network, the UE is determined that the corresponding subframe is occupied. Wherein the indicator channel (PCFICH) information indicates the service in order to identify the channel occupancy of the subframe. That is, the indicator channel (PCFICH) information provides a probability of whether or not the CRS exists.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant argues that “Claim 24 is rejected over Won and Chen, further in view of Tie (CN 111885682). The Office Action relies on Tie for the features of claim 24, pointing to page 31, lines 5-13. (Presumably the Office Action is referring to the translation of Tie found in PAIR.) The Office Action does not, however, quote any specific language from Tie that corresponds to the features of claim 24, and the Applicant cannot find any similarities between the cited portion of Tie, which relate to a "search space" for a "wake-up signal." As best as can be ascertained, this portion of Tie is cited because it uses the words "time-frequency resource," but the similarities to claim 24 end there. The rejection of claim 24 should be withdrawn for these additional reasons, as should the rejection of corresponding claim 34. Similarly, claim 25 is rejected over Won, Chen, and Tie, with the Office Action relying on Tie for the features of claim 25, which include "detection of a scrambling code of the reference signal." The Office Action again points to Tie's page 31, lines 5-13, but, again, this portion of Tie does not appear to suggest anything remotely resembling the features of claim 25.” on page 11.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
Applicant argues whether the recited reference, Tie’s, is being related to or similarity to the any of claim language. The reference does not need to show the exactly features of the claim, but to recites the functionality to the claim invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 recited, “A user equipment (UE), comprising a processor and a receiving module connected to the processor,…” in lines 1-2.
For clarity, it is suggested to rewrite the limitation with a colon “:” after comprising -- “A user equipment (UE), comprising: a processor and a receiving module connected to the processor,…”--.
All other dependent claims 29-34 are also objected since they are depended on objected claim 28.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 15-18, 21-23, 28-31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WON et al. (US 2016/0135143) in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0172950).
Regarding claim 15, WON discloses a method performed in a wireless device for detection of a reference signal in idle mode in a wireless communication system [See Figs. 44, ¶¶ 457-458; a method of a UE that identify the SCell subframe status information through the blind detection of the reference signal of the SCell], the method comprising:
determining whether a part of the reference signal is present, wherein the part of the reference signal comprise any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal [See Fig. 44, 48, ¶¶ 457, 465, 470; determine whether the reference signal exists or not, wherein the reference signal is determined from the channel occupancy of the subframe, reception signal intensity for the corresponding reference signal area, the channel from the OFDM symbol (the fifth symbol) where the reference signal which can be occupied]; and
adapting further detection of the reference signal [See ¶ 471; identify the channel occupancy of the corresponding subframe and the channel occupancy start symbol by using other reference signals, such as DMRS, CSI-RS].
WON disclose all aspects of claim invention set forth above including “determining whether a part of the reference signal is present…”, but does not explicitly disclose adapting further detection of the reference signal “based on a detection result on the part of the reference signal”.
However, Chen discloses
determining whether a part of the reference signal is present [See Fig. 8, ¶ 100; at block 801, determining by detecting a transmission signal indicative of CCA result information for the identified carrier];
adapting further detection of the reference signal based on a detection result on the part of the reference signal [See Fig. 8, ¶ 100; at block 802, adapting further detection of the reference signal (CSI-RS, such as an IMR, ZP CSI-RS, or NZP CSI-RS (or any other non-zero power reference signals for channel measurement, e.g., CUBS)) based on the detection result/measurement report (wherein the measurement report include the resulting measurements), using enhanced interference mitigation and traffic adaptation (eIMTA)), separate determination for each CSI-RS process (See ¶ 102)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “adapting further detection of the reference signal based on the detection result on the part of the reference signal” as taught by Chen in the system of WON, so that it would to advance the UMTS technologies not only to meet the growing demand for mobile broadband access, but to advance and enhance the user experience with mobile communications [See Chen; ¶ 8].
Regarding claim 16, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15.
WON further discloses further comprising:
determining whether to perform a blind detection of a reference signal based on any one or a combination of: the associated power consumption of the blind detection, channel conditions, a probability of a reference signal being present, and presence of a reference signal as a paging early indicator [See ¶ 457; determining whether to perform a blind detection of a reference signal by measuring the reception signal intensity for the corresponding reference signal area in order to thereby determine whether or not the reference signal exists].
Regarding claim 17, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15.
WON further discloses comprising obtaining information on the probability of the reference signal being present from a network node or based on a pre-configuration or history [See ¶ 457; indicator channel (PCFICH) information can be obtained from the SCell].
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 17.
WON further discloses wherein the obtaining of the probability of the reference signal from the network node comprises receiving information on the probability from the network node [See ¶ 469; BS may transmit the SCell subframe status information such as, an idle subframe, as well as the subframe that requires the channel sensing operation].
Regarding claim 21, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15.
WON further discloses wherein the reference signal comprises a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS) [See ¶¶ 471, 493; wherein the reference signal comprises a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS)].
Regarding claim 22, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15.
WON further discloses comprising adapting an amount of resource elements to use for detection of the reference signal based on an estimated channel condition [See ¶¶ 564-565; comprising adapting an amount of resource elements to use for detection of the reference signal based on an estimated channel condition].
Regarding claim 23, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15.
WON further discloses wherein the determination of whether the part of the reference signal is present comprises detecting energy of the any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal [See ¶¶ 517, 519; measures the intensity of the signal energy, the noise, and the interference, respectively, in the CSI-RS and the IMR].
Regarding claims 28, 29, 30, 31, and 33, the claims recite a user equipment (UE), comprising a processor and a receiving module connected to the processor, (See ¶¶ 99, 101; UE comprising one or more processors) the processor being configured to cause the UE to perform the method performed in a wireless device recited as in claims 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23 respectively; therefore, claims 28, 29, 30, 31, and 33 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 15, 16, 17, 18, and 23 respectively.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WON et al. (US 2016/0135143) in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0172950), and further in view of HOOLI et al. (WO 2019/215670).
Regarding claim 20, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference signal comprises a periodic Tracking Reference Signal (TRS).
However, HOOLI discloses wherein the reference signal comprises a periodic Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) [See ¶ 36; wherein the reference signal comprises a periodic Tracking Reference Signal (TRS)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the reference signal comprises a periodic Tracking Reference Signal (TRS)” as taught by HOOLI in the combined system of WON and Chen, so that it would to provide increased transmit (Tx) power under conditions where transmission power is limited by the maximum PSD and also increased processing gain when longer sequence is used) [See HOOLI; ¶ 33].
Claim 24-25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WON et al. (US 2016/0135143) in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0172950), and further in view of TIE et al. (CN 111885682).
Regarding claim 24, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the determination whether the part of the reference signal is present comprises detecting features of the any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal.
However, TIE discloses wherein the determination whether the part of the reference signal is present comprises detecting features of the any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal [See page 31 lines 5-13; wherein the determination whether the part of the reference signal is present comprises detecting features of the any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the determination whether the part of the reference signal is present comprises detecting features of the any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal” as taught by TIE in the combined system of WON and Chen, so that it would to ensure that the terminal device can be awakened when necessary, reducing or avoiding the data receiving and sending time delay problem caused by the terminal device needs to be awakened but not awakened [See TIE; page 2 lines 24-26].
Regarding claim 25, the combined system of WON, Chen, and TIE discloses the method of claim 24.
The combined system of WON and Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the feature detection comprises detection of a scrambling code of the reference signal.
However, TIE discloses wherein the feature detection comprises detection of a scrambling code of the reference signal [See page 31 lines 5-13; wherein the feature detection comprises detection of a scrambling code of the reference signal].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the feature detection comprises detection of a scrambling code of the reference signal” as taught by TIE in the combined system of WON and Chen, so that it would to ensure that the terminal device can be awakened when necessary, reducing or avoiding the data receiving and sending time delay problem caused by the terminal device needs to be awakened but not awakened [see TIE; page 2 lines 24-26].
Regarding claim 34, the claims recite UE of claim 28 to perform the method recited as in claim 24; therefore, claim 34 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 24.
Claim 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WON et al. (US 2016/0135143) in view of Chen et al. (US 2015/0172950), and further in view of KOSKELA et al. (US 2024/0039669) (having earlier priority date of US-Provisional App# 63/135,190).
Regarding claim 26, the combined system of WON and Chen discloses the method of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the reference signal functions as a Paging Early Indicator (PEI) and the method comprises monitoring a paging occasion (PO) upon determining that the PEI is present.
However, KOSKELA discloses wherein the reference signal functions as a Paging Early Indicator (PEI) and the method comprises monitoring a paging occasion (PO) upon determining that the PEI is present [See ¶ 71; wherein the reference signal functions as a Paging Early Indicator (PEI) and the method comprises monitoring a paging occasion (PO) upon determining that the PEI is present; (Provisional, page 16 lines 26-35)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the reference signal functions as a Paging Early Indicator (PEI) and the method comprises monitoring a paging occasion (PO) upon determining that the PEI is present” as taught by KOSKELA in the combined system of WON and Chen, so that it would to allow multiple virtual networks to be created on top of a common shared physical infrastructure [See KOSKELA; ¶ 13].
Regarding claim 27, the combined system of WON, Chen, and TIE discloses the method of claim 26.
The combined system of WON and Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein upon monitoring the PO, the method comprises blindly detecting whether a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) or a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS) is present.
However, KOSKELA discloses wherein upon monitoring the PO, the method comprises blindly detecting whether a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) or a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS) is present [See ¶¶ 43, 71; wherein upon monitoring the PO, the method comprises blindly detecting whether a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) or a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS) is present; (Provisional, page 16 lines 26-35)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein upon monitoring the PO, the method comprises blindly detecting whether a Tracking Reference Signal (TRS) or a Channel State Information-Reference Signal (CSI-RS) is present” as taught by KOSKELA in the combined system of WON and Chen, so that it would to allow multiple virtual networks to be created on top of a common shared physical infrastructure [See KOSKELA; ¶ 13].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
In additional to references cited that are used for rejection as set forth above, Frenne et al. (US 2015/0365152) is also considered as relevant prior arts for rejection of in claims 1, 13, 23, and 27 for limitation “determining whether a part of the reference signal is present, wherein the part of the reference signal comprise any one of a first symbol or a subset of the first symbol resources of the reference signal, a subcarrier of the reference signal, a subset frequency allocations of the reference signal, a part of reference signal with a smaller bandwidth than the total bandwidth of the reference signal, a subset of time or/and frequency resource elements of the reference signal; and adapting further detection of the reference signal based on the detection result on the part of the reference signal” (¶¶ 63, 73).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights