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
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 04 November 2025.
Regarding Previous Claim Objections
Previous objection to claims 19, 25, 28 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment to the objected claims.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 5-6] with respect to rejection of claims 19, 25, 28 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 found prior art reference(s).
Regarding claim 19, on pages 5-6, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “transmitting capability information related to a concurrent measurement gap (MG) to a base station”.
Newly found reference Nagaraja discloses a system where UE transmits capability info related to MG to BS, where the MG is also related to IDs. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that in Yang’s disclosure, corresponding UE and BS exchange the capability info related to the MG [Paragraphs 8-9, 63-64, 82, 110, 121, 130].
Regarding claims 25 and 28, these claims have been amended to incorporate similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 19, and are rejected based on similar reasoning.
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 19-20, 22-26, 28-29 have been amended. Claims 21, 27, 30 have been canceled. Claims 1-18 were previously canceled. Thus, claims 19-20, 22-26, 28-29 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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 19-20, 22-26, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0084448) in view of Nagaraja et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0021017).
Regarding claim 19, Yang teaches a method comprising:
[
receiving measurement configuration information from the base station (UE 100 receives measurement configuration info from serving cell 200a),
wherein the measurement configuration information includes MG information (MG information), and
wherein the MG information includes one or more MG Identifiers (IDs) ([Paragraphs 10, 15, 191]); and
performing measurement based on MGs, which are configured based on the MG information (measurement performed by the UE based on the MG info).
However, Yang does not explicitly mention: transmitting capability information related to a concurrent measurement gap (MG) to a base station.
Nagaraja teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of communication systems, the following:
transmitting capability information related to a concurrent measurement gap (MG) to a base station (Nagaraja discloses a system where UE transmits capability info related to MG to BS, where the MG is also related to IDs. Hence, a person having ordinary skills in the art would recognize that in Yang’s disclosure, corresponding UE and BS exchange the capability info related to the MG [Paragraphs 8-9, 63-64, 82, 110, 121, 130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication system (as taught by Yang) by transmitting capability info (as taught by Nagaraja) for the purpose of improving measurement gaps that have different durations and different periodicities (Nagaraja – Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 20, Yang further teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the one or more MG IDs are received, based on that a UE supports the concurrent MG ([Paragraphs 189, 203, 225]).
Regarding claim 22, Yang further teaches the method of claim 19, wherein the MGs include a primary MG and at least one secondary MG (Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 23, Yang further teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the secondary MG corresponds to a different MG ID with the primary MG ([Paragraphs 191-194, 197, 201, 231-233]).
Regarding claim 24, Yang further teaches the method of claim 22,
wherein the MG information further includes information related to gap offset, which is applied to the MGs ([Paragraphs 10, 15 | Table 6]), and
wherein the secondary MG corresponds to a same MG ID with the primary MG and the secondary MG has different gap with the primary MG pattern ([Paragraphs 8, 10-12, 197-198, 201]).
Regarding claims 25-26, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 19-20.
Regarding claims 28-29, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 19-20.
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 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 FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
February 7, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633