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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, and 30 are amended.
Claims 2-4, 10, 11, 13, 25, and 36 are canceled.
Claims 39-44 are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 1/30/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 4/20/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 30-34, and 37-44 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 10 renders the objection to claim 10 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/20/2026 moot and the objection to claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 16 and 30 (pages 9-11) in a reply filed 4/20/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 17, 21, 30, 41, and 42 are objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, it is suggested to add “and” between line 10 and line 11 to read “… two sets of configuration information overlap, and wherein the measurement window …” for correction of grammatical error and for clarity.
In claim 17, it is suggested to amend to read “The method according to claim [[16]]43, …” for clarity and for consistency with its parallel claim 41 on its parent claim limitation(s).
In claim 30, it is suggested to add “and” between line 6 and line 7 to read “… receive configuration information set by a network device[[,]]; and perform a measurement using …” for correction of grammatical error and for clarity.
In claim 41, it is suggested to amend in line 5 to read “a cell list[[;]], or” for correction of grammatical error and for clarity.
In claims 17, 21, and 42, it is suggested to add colon (:) to read “at least one of:” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 40 and 43:
Claims 40 and 43 recites, “the configuration information comprises a priority of the configuration information.” Para. [0085-0099] of the Specification describes configuration of measurement window with priority. However, the Specification does not disclose wherein the configuration information comprises a priority of the configuration information.
Claims 41 and 42 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claims, as set forth above.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 16, 17, 20, 21, 30-34, 37-39, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng et al. (WO 2021/031921 A1, hereinafter Zheng).
Regarding claim 1:
Zheng teaches a cell measurement method (see, Zheng: Abstract; Fig. 1 and Fig. 4), performed by a terminal (see, Zheng: Fig. 1, UE), comprising:
receiving configuration information sent by a network device (see, Zheng: Fig. 1, RAN) (see, Zheng: Page 10 of English Translation, “The method includes: a network device sends configuration information of multiple measurement intervals to a terminal device, where the multiple measurement intervals have overlapping parts; The configuration information of a measurement interval is measured.”); and
performing a measurement using a measurement window with a highest priority from measurement windows determined from at least two sets of configuration information when the measurement windows determined from the at least two sets of configuration information overlap (see, Zheng: Page 10 of English Translation, “when multiple sets of measurement intervals overlap, one set of measurement intervals is used for measurement at the same time. For example, a set of measurement intervals with a higher priority is preferred for measurement, which can reduce the measurement interval and interrupt the terminal equipment and network equipment.”, wherein the measurement intervals are equivalent to the measurement windows of the instant application.),
wherein the measurement window with the highest priority comprises a measurement window determined according to configuration information with a highest priority (see, Zheng: Page 10 of English Translation, “the method further includes: the network device sends indication information to the terminal device for indicating the priority of multiple measurement intervals. The terminal device performs measurement according to the configuration information of a measurement interval with a higher priority among multiple measurement intervals.”).
Regarding claim 16:
Zheng teaches a cell measurement method (see, Zheng: Abstract; Fig. 1 and Fig. 4), performed by a network device (see, Zheng: Fig. 1, RAN), comprising: similar features to claim 1 from the perspective of the network device. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 30:
Claim 30 is directed towards a terminal (see, Zheng: Fig. 1, UE; Fig. 8, Communication Device 800; Also, see page 33 of English Translation.), comprising: a processor (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Processor 810); a transceiver (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Transceiver 830) connected to the processor; and a memory (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Memory 820) having stored therein executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor is configured to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim A above.
Regarding claim 34:
As discussed above, Zheng teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Zheng further teaches wherein the configuration information further comprises a priority of the measurement window (see, Zheng: Page 30 of English Translation, “the network device sends indication information to the terminal device for indicating the priority of multiple measurement intervals.”).
Regarding claim 37:
Claim 37 is directed towards the terminal according to claim 30 that is further limited to similar features to claim 34. Therefore, claim 37 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 34 above.
Regarding claim 38:
Claim 38 is directed towards the method according to claim 16 that is further limited to perform the similar feature of claim 34. Therefore, claim 38 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 34 above.
Regarding claim 39:
As discussed above, Zheng teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Zheng further teaches wherein the measurement window comprises a measurement gap (see, Zheng: Page 15 of English Translation, “the measurement interval configuration (measGapConfig) may include the following information (1) to (5). … (2) gap offset (gapOffset) … (3) gap length (MGL)”. Page 25 of English Translation, “As an example. Assume that a measurement interval includes 6 gap windows,”).
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is directed towards the method according to claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 39. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 39 above.
Regarding claim 31:
Claim 31 is directed towards a network device (see, Zheng: Fig. 1, RAN; Fig. 8, Communication Device 800; Also, see page 34 of English Translation.), comprising: a processor (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Processor 810); a transceiver (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Transceiver 830) connected to the processor; and a memory (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Memory 820) having stored therein executable instructions of the processor; wherein the processor is configured to implement the cell measurement method according to claim 16. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 32:
Claim 32 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Memory 820) having stored therein executable instructions that, when loaded and executed by a processor (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Processor 810), cause the cell measurement method according to claim 1 to be implemented (also see, Zheng: page 33 of English Translation). Therefore, claim 32 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 33:
Claim 33 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Memory 820) having stored therein executable instructions that, when loaded and executed by a processor (see, Zheng: Fig. 8, Processor 810), cause the cell measurement method according to claim 16 to be implemented (also see, Zheng: page 34 of English Translation). Therefore, claim 33 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 16 above.
Regarding claim 17:
As discussed above, Zheng teaches all limitations in claim 16.
Zheng further teaches wherein the configuration information comprises at least one of: a time parameter change rate, a time parameter configuration function (see, Zheng: page 4 of English translation, “the network device configures the terminal device with an SMTC with a measurement interval function, so that the terminal device can determine the measurement interval according to the SMTC,”; page. 23 of English translation, “the first indication information indicates that some or all of the SMTCs in the measurement configuration have a measurement interval function.”), a cell list, or a satellite list (see, Zheng: page 14 of English translation, “the measurement configuration information may include the configuration information shown in 1) to 5) below. 1) Measurement object (MO); In a long term evolution (LTE) system, one measurement object corresponds to one frequency point. In the measurement object configuration of a frequency point, the network equipment informs the UE of the information that it needs to know for measuring the frequency point, for example, the configuration of measurement resources on the frequency point and the cell list on the frequency point. … 5) Measurement gap configuration; If the measurement of the same frequency/different frequency/different system involves switching the center frequency, the measurement and data transmission cannot be performed at the same time. In this case, the network needs to configure the measurement interval for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 21:
As discussed above, Zheng teaches all limitations in claim 17.
Zheng further teaches wherein a time parameter comprises at least one of an offset, a period or a duration (see, Zheng: pages 15-16 of English translation, “in the NR system, the measurement interval configuration (measGapConfig) may include the following information (1) to (5). … (2) gap offset (gapOffset); gapOffset represents the offset of the measurement interval. (3) gap length (MGL); MGL represents the length of the measurement interval, in milliseconds (ms).”).
Regarding claim 44:
As discussed above, Zheng teaches all limitations in claim 17.
Zheng further teaches wherein the time parameter configuration function comprises at least one of: a first-order function or a second-order function (see, Zheng: page 23 of English translation, “the first indication information indicates that some or all of the SMTCs in the measurement configuration have a measurement interval function.”; page 24 of English translation, “the network device sends second indication information to the terminal device, where the second indication information is used to indicate that the M measurement intervals are respectively occupied in the M SMTCs. proportion. Correspondingly, in step S420, the terminal device determines M measurement intervals according to the second indication information and the M SMTCs. For example, the second indication information may have multiple values, and the protocol stipulates what proportion each value of the second indication information represents. As an example, the second indication information is a 2-bit identification information, and the second indication information has 4 values "00", "01", "10", and "11". The protocol stipulates that the value of the second indication information is "00" means the ratio is 25%, "01" means the ratio is 50%, "10" means the ratio is 75%, and "11" means the ratio is 100%. For example, the network device sends the first indication information and the second indication information to the terminal device, and the terminal device determines M measurement intervals according to the first indication information, the second indication information, and the M SMTCs among the N SMTCs.”, wherein the M measurement intervals are determined by the terminal according to a measurement interval function, which is a first-order function in this example.).
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.
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.
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 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Wang et al. (US 2023/0319613 A1, hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 40:
As discussed above, Zheng teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Zheng does not explicitly teach wherein the configuration information comprises a priority of the configuration information.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein the configuration information comprises a priority of the configuration information (see, Wang: para. [0078], “each measurement gap configuration is configured with a priority”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Zheng in combination of the teachings of Wang in order determine whether the measurement gap configuration is activated or enabled preferentially (see, Wang: para. [0078]).
Regarding claim 41:
As discussed above, Zheng in view of Wang teaches all limitations in claim 40.
Zheng further teaches wherein the configuration information further comprises at least one of: a time parameter change rate, a time parameter configuration function (see, Zheng: page 4 of English translation, “the network device configures the terminal device with an SMTC with a measurement interval function, so that the terminal device can determine the measurement interval according to the SMTC,”; page. 23 of English translation, “the first indication information indicates that some or all of the SMTCs in the measurement configuration have a measurement interval function.”), a cell list, or a satellite list (see, Zheng: page 14 of English translation, “the measurement configuration information may include the configuration information shown in 1) to 5) below. 1) Measurement object (MO); In a long term evolution (LTE) system, one measurement object corresponds to one frequency point. In the measurement object configuration of a frequency point, the network equipment informs the UE of the information that it needs to know for measuring the frequency point, for example, the configuration of measurement resources on the frequency point and the cell list on the frequency point. … 5) Measurement gap configuration; If the measurement of the same frequency/different frequency/different system involves switching the center frequency, the measurement and data transmission cannot be performed at the same time. In this case, the network needs to configure the measurement interval for the UE.”).
Regarding claim 42:
As discussed above, Zheng in view of Wang teaches all limitations in claim 41.
Zheng further teaches wherein a time parameter comprises at least one of an offset, a period or a duration (see, Zheng: pages 15-16 of English translation, “in the NR system, the measurement interval configuration (measGapConfig) may include the following information (1) to (5). … (2) gap offset (gapOffset); gapOffset represents the offset of the measurement interval. (3) gap length (MGL); MGL represents the length of the measurement interval, in milliseconds (ms).”).
Regarding claim 43:
Claim 43 is directed towards the method according to claim 16 that is further limited to similar features to claim 40. Therefore, claim 43 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 40 above.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights