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 filed 2-3-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits: “It is not clear that all of the subject matter in Liao that the Office Action cites is found in Liao's provisional application. For example, with respect to the "determining whether a tracking reference signal" step of claim 34, the Office Action cites Liao's element 730, which is found in Liao's Figure 7, and paragraph 0046, which describes that figure. Liao's Figure 7 and accompanying description are not found in Liao' s provisional application.”; the examiner’s position is that support for Liao’s step 730, can be found starting page 3, for example. Discloses SIB indicating availability information with a single signal or two-stage signaling; thereby, the determination is going to be base on the received information.
Regarding the argument: “Liao refers to an "indication active window," but uses this term to refer to a window in which TRS is present and valid, not a window in which availability information is present. (See Liao's Figure 4, 0009, 0016, 0032, 0039, 0040.) So, Liao's UE receives system information, and uses it to determine whether an indication active window is present, and then measures the TRS in the indication active window.”. As indicated in the previous paragraph, Liao discloses indicating availability information with one or two-stage signaling, in two-stage signaling, SIBx is a window in which availability information is present; thereby, reading in the argued limitation.
The rest of the arguments they fall for the same reasons as shown above. The rejection on record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 34-44, 46-56 and 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liao 20220303089.
As to claim 34, Liao discloses a method, performed by a user equipment (UE) [110], for receiving tracking reference signals (TRS) transmitted by a network node [121] in a wireless network [120], the method comprising (see fig. 1):
receiving, from the network node, system information including a configuration for tracking reference signals, the configuration specifying a plurality of occasions at which the network node may transmit tracking reference signals, wherein the system information further specifies at least a first window in which availability information for a tracking reference signal according to the configuration will be signaled; receiving availability information during the at least a first window [720] (see par. 0041-0044, 0046); and
determining whether a tracking reference signal is available, based on the received availability information [730] (see par.0046).
As to claim 35, Liao discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the method further comprises receiving the tracking reference signal in response to determining that the tracking reference signal is available [740] (see fig. 4-6; par. 0046).
As to claim 36, Liao discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the availability information received during the first window indicates availability of a tracking reference signal during a second window, differing from the first window [info valid until updated or changed] (see par. 0040-0042, 0046).
As to claim 37, Liao discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the availability information received during the first window indicates availability of a tracking reference signal for each of a plurality of windows or occasions [info valid until updated or changed] (see par. 0040-0042, 0046).
As to claim 38, Liao discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the availability information is received via a field in downlink control information (DCI) or via a paging early indicator (PEI) (see fig. 4-6; par. 0008).
As to claim 39, Liao discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the first window defines a validity time for the availability information, the validity time representing a time for which the availability information is applicable (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032).
As to claim 40, Liao discloses the method of claim 39, wherein the availability information received during the first window includes a parameter indicating the validity time for the availability information, the validity time representing a time for which the availability information is applicable (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032).
As to claim 41, Liao discloses the method of claim 39, wherein the validity time is referenced to a time at which the availability information is received (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032).
As to claim 42, Liao discloses the method of claim 41, wherein the validity time is referenced to the start or end of the first window (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032, 0039).
As to claim 43, Liao discloses the method of claim 39, wherein the validity time is based on a configured length of time (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032, 0039).
As to claim 44, Liao discloses the method of claim 43, wherein the configured length is indicated by the configuration for tracking reference signals (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032, 0039).
As to claim 46, Liao discloses the method of claim 39, where the validity time is a default value (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032, 0039).
Regarding claims 47-56, they are the corresponding network node’s method claims of UE’s method claims 34, 36-44. Therefore, claims 47-56 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims, 58-59 they are the corresponding user equipment claims and network node claims of method claims 34 and 47. Therefore, claims 58-59 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above and fig 2.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 45 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Ingale 20190223094.
As to claims 45 and 57, Liao discloses the method wherein the validity time is defined as default paging cycle (see fig. 4-6; par. 0009, 0032, 0039). Liao fails to disclose an integer multiple of a paging cycle. In an analogous art, Ingale discloses an integer multiple of a paging cycle (see par. 0256). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use an integer multiple of a paging cycle for the simple purpose of an easy alignment of the cycle.
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 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights