DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
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.
Claim Status
Claims 2 and 11 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-10, 12-14, and 19-20 have been amended.
New claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-22 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks (on page 14), filed 01/20/2026, regarding Claim Objections have been fully considered and claim 10 has been amended. The objection to claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed 01/20/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The amendments to the claims necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection discussed below.
This Office action is made Final.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “stopping the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to a BFD timer running” in line 13 and claim 1 recites “wherein determining whether to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD according to the determination result of whether the predetermined condition is satisfied comprises: determining to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to the determination result indicating that the predetermined condition is satisfied; or, refraining from triggering the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to the determination result indicating that the predetermined condition is satisfied” in line 7-12. In light of the claimed limitation, the relaxed measurement of BFD has never started and a BFD timer is also never started. Thus, the step of “stopping the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to a BFD timer running” in claim 1 will never be performed. It is suggested to clarify when the relaxed measurement of BFD and a BBD timer have started in said claim.
Claims 10 and 14 are also objected to the same reasoning as set forth in claim 1 above.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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 1, 3-8, 10, 12-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LASELVA et al. (US 2024/0080772 A1) hereinafter “Laselva” in view of Kuang et al. (US 2023/0239712 A1) hereinafter “Kuang”.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 14, Laselva discloses Claim 1 of a method for relaxed measurement, executed by a terminal (see FIG. 5b; see ¶ [0102], UE), Claim 10 of a terminal comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor (see FIG. 5b; see ¶ [0102-03], UE may include one or more processor and memory), and Claim 14 of a terminal comprising: an antenna, a memory; and a processor (see FIG. 5b; see ¶ [0102-03], UE may include one or more processor, memory and transceiver), comprising:
determining whether to trigger relaxed measurement of beam failure detection (BFD) according to a determination result of whether a predetermined condition is satisfied (see FIG. 1 and 4; see ¶ [0047] [0053] [0083], the UE may determine whether the radio link quality-based condition for relaxation of a measurement (RLM, RFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements) is satisfied, then the UE may relax its RLM, BFD, RRM);
wherein, the predetermined condition at least indicates: transmission quality of a wireless link that triggers relaxed measurement (see ¶ [0047] [0053], one or more radio link quality-based relaxation conditions are satisfied),
wherein determining whether to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD according to the determination result of whether the predetermined condition is satisfied comprises:
determining to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to the determination result indicating that the predetermined condition is satisfied (see ¶ [0047] [0053], the UE may relax its BFD measurements if one or more radio link quality-based relaxation conditions are satisfied); and
stopping the relaxed measurement of BFD (see ¶ [0053] [0058], to stop BFD and/or RRM measurement relaxation).
Laselva does not explicitly disclose in response to a BFD timer running.
However, Kaung discloses stopping the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to a BFD timer running (see ¶ [0236], the terminal device skips performing the RLM (BFD) measurement relaxation in response to starting (running) of a T310 timer, where the T310 is started).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide in response to a BFD timer running as taught by Kuang, in the system of Laselva, so that it would provide to ensure accuracy and flexibility of whether to perform RLM (BFD) measurement relaxation (see ¶ [0267]).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses wherein determining whether to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD according to the determination result indicating that the predetermined condition is satisfied comprises:
determining to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to a block bit error rate (BLER) being less than to a BLER threshold and the BFD timer not being started (Laselva: see ¶ [0036] [0047], when the signal quality (based on the current estimated block error ratio (BLER) level is below a threshold and if an activity timer is not running).
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 22, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses wherein determining to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to the BLER being less than to the BLER threshold and the BFD timer not being started comprises:
determining to trigger the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to the MAC layer of the terminal receiving the power saving indication of the physical layer, the BLER indicated by the power saving indication being less than or equal to the BLER threshold and the BFD timer not having been started (Laselva: see ¶ [0036] [0046-47], when the signal quality (based on the current estimated block error ratio (BLER) level is below a threshold, measurement activities such as layer 1 reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) for UE power saving and if an activity timer is not running).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses further comprising:
obtaining, by the physical layer, the BLER threshold from the MAC layer through an inter-layer interface (Laselva: see ¶ [0036] [0072], transmit, to the UE, a measurement configuration including radio link quality-based relaxation information, a scaling factor, and/or L1-RSRP-dependent relaxation information and/or DRX On-Duration-dependent information).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses wherein a relaxed measurement parameter of the relaxed measurement comprises one or more of:
a fixed relaxed measurement parameter indicating an evaluation period, wherein the evaluation period is N1 times of a reference evaluation period, wherein N1 is a positive number greater than 1 (Laselva: see Tables 1-4; see ¶ [0036], the evaluation period).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses wherein,
a relaxation degree for performing relaxed measurement using the first relaxed measurement parameter is greater than a relaxation degree threshold in response to the evaluation period indicated by the first relaxed measurement parameter being greater than an evaluation period threshold (Laselva: see Tables 1-4; see ¶ [0036], the evaluation period).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses further comprising at least one of following acts:
stopping the relaxed measurement of BFD in response to the BLER being greater than or equal to the BLER threshold (Laselva: see ¶ [0050] [0057], UE can skip/stop BFD measurement in response to link quality-based/BLER not satisfied).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of Laselva and Kaung discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium, having stored thereon computer-executable instructions, the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor (Laselva: see FIG. 5b; see ¶ [0106], the instructions stored in memory when executed by processor), causing the processor to implement acts according to claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 set forth in above).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva in view of Kaung further in view of KIM (US 2022/0116802 A1) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Laselva does not explicitly disclose switching from the relaxation mode to the normal mode.
However, Kim discloses switching from the relaxation mode to the normal mode in response to a need to switch from the relaxation mode to the normal mode (see ¶ [0204-05], switching the relaxed measurement operation to the normal measurement operation based on the measurement result of the signal quality of the radio link),
wherein, the normal is a mode that does not use the relaxed measurement method to perform BFD measurement; and the relaxation mode is a mode that uses the relaxed measurement method to perform the BFD measurement (see ¶ [0204-05] [0249], two measurement modes (e.g., normal measurement operation and relaxed measurement operation)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide switching from the relaxation mode to the normal mode as taught by Kim, in the combined system of Laselva and Kaung, so that it would provide the power consumption of the terminal performing the measurement can be reduced and the performance of the communication system can be improve by switching measurement operations (see ¶ [0029]).
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 PETER CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571) 272-3927. 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.
/PETER CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462