DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on November 25, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 2/2/2026 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shen et al. (US 2025/0056613).
Regarding Claim 1, Shen teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (“The communication apparatus 900 may be configured to implement a function of any network element in the communication system described in the foregoing embodiments. The communication apparatus 900 may include at least one processor 910. The processor 910 is coupled to a memory. Optionally, the memory may be located inside the communication apparatus, the memory may be integrated with the processor, or the memory may be located outside the communication apparatus. For example, the communication apparatus 900 may further include at least one memory 920. The memory 920 stores a necessary computer program, a computer program, or instructions and/or data for implementing any one of the foregoing embodiments. The processor 910 may execute the computer program stored in the memory 920, to complete the method in any one of the foregoing embodiments” – See [0230]), cause the apparatus at least to:
identify a clear channel assessment operation status for at least one neighbouring cell (“the access network device may send information by using the serving cell of the terminal device, to directly or indirectly indicate whether the LBT mode is used in a part or all of neighbor cells to be measured by the terminal device” – See [0116]; “S502: An access network device sends first information to the terminal device. The first information indicates an information sending mode of a cell in at least one frequency range” – See [0135]; “Specifically, the access network device may determine, based on neighbor cell information (or referred to as a neighbor cell relationship) obtained before the first information is sent, content indicated by the first information. For example, the access network device finds, based on the obtained neighbor cell information, that information sending modes of all known neighbor cells on a frequency are an LBT mode. In this case, the access network device may determine to indicate, in the first information, that the information sending mode corresponding to the frequency is the LBT mode” – See [0136]; The base station (apparatus) identifies an LBT mode (clear channel assessment operation status) for a neighbor cell);
transmit an indication of said clear channel assessment operation status for said at least one neighbouring cell to a served user equipment, wherein said indication identifies whether said at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment or not (“S502: An access network device sends first information to the terminal device. The first information indicates an information sending mode of a cell in at least one frequency range” – See [0135]; The base station transmits an indication of the LBT mode for the neighbor cell to a terminal (user equipment)), and
wherein said indication identifies whether a serving cell supported by said serving base station operates with clear channel assessment or not (“The following provides examples of some message/signaling formats by using an example in which the value corresponding to the information sending mode at each level is represented as LBT or no-LBT” – See [0140]; “An access network device sends first information to the terminal device. The first information indicates information sending modes of N3 serving cells of the terminal device” – See [0190]; “the access network device to which the serving cell of the terminal device belongs” – See [0111]; The indication further identifies whether the serving cell operates with the LBT (clear channel assessment) mode);
instruct said served user equipment to report whether neighbouring cells are configured to operate with clear channel assessment (“the information sending mode includes a listen before talk LBT mode or a no-LBT mode” – See [0006]; “For a manner of obtaining the neighbor cell information by the access network device, refer to the following descriptions for understanding: The access network device may indicate the terminal device to measure and report an information sending mode of a historically measured neighbor cell, and the terminal device reports the information sending mode of the historically measured neighbor cell to the access network device” – See [0137]; The base station instructs the terminal to report the LBT mode for neighbor cells (i.e., whether the cells are configured to operate with clear channel assessment)).
Regarding Claim 2, Shen teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shen further teaches that said indication is encoded in at least one of: a VarMeasConfig variable of a message; a field associated with that neighbouring cell; a MeasObjectNR field associated with that neighbouring cell; or a SIB1 (“If the terminal device is in connected state, the access network device may add, to a measurement object (MeasObject) in RRC measurement configuration (MeasConfig), a field indicating an information sending mode at the cell level. The cell level may correspond to one or more cells, and the one or more cells form a cell list. The measurement object specifically includes an indication of an information sending mode of each cell in the cell list” – See [0146]; The indication is encoded in a field associated with the neighbor cell (e.g., channelaccessmode-CellsToAddMod-r17)).
Regarding Claim 3, Shen teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shen further teaches that said indication is encoded in one of: a list identifying neighbouring cells operating with clear channel assessment, wherein said list comprises a MeasObjectListCCA; or another list identifying neighbouring cells not operating with clear channel assessment, wherein said another list comprises a MeasObjectList (“If the terminal device is in connected state, the access network device may add, to a measurement object (MeasObject) in RRC measurement configuration (MeasConfig), a field indicating an information sending mode at the cell level. The cell level may correspond to one or more cells, and the one or more cells form a cell list. The measurement object specifically includes an indication of an information sending mode of each cell in the cell list” – See [0146]; The indication is encoded in a MeasObject list).
Regarding Claim 4, Shen in view of Wang teaches the apparatus of Claim 1. Shen further teaches that said indication further identifies: whether a network containing said at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment or not (“Specifically, the access network device may determine, based on neighbor cell information (or referred to as a neighbor cell relationship) obtained before the first information is sent, content indicated by the first information. For example, the access network device finds, based on the obtained neighbor cell information, that information sending modes of all known neighbor cells on a frequency are an LBT mode. In this case, the access network device may determine to indicate, in the first information, that the information sending mode corresponding to the frequency is the LBT mode” – See [0136]; The indication identifies whether a network/neighbor cell operates with the LBT mode (clear channel assessment)).
Regarding Claim 5, Shen in view of Wang teaches the apparatus of Claim 4. Shen further teaches that said indication identifies that said network operates with clear channel assessment when at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment (“the access network device finds, based on the obtained neighbor cell information, that information sending modes of all known neighbor cells on a frequency are an LBT mode. In this case, the access network device may determine to indicate, in the first information, that the information sending mode corresponding to the frequency is the LBT mode” – See [0136]; The indication identifies the LBT mode of the network/all neighboring cells when at least one of the neighboring cells operates with the LBT mode).
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.
Claims 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 2025/0056613) in view of Niu et al. (US 2023/0337277).
Regarding Claim 6, Shen teaches an apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (“The technical solutions provided in embodiments of this application may be fully or partially implemented through software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof. When the software is used to implement embodiments, all or a part of embodiments may be implemented in a form of a computer program product. The computer program product includes one or more computer instructions. When the computer program instructions are loaded and executed on a computer, the procedure or functions according to embodiments of this application are all or partially generated” – See [0240]), cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, at a user equipment from a serving base station, an indication of a clear channel assessment operation status for at least one neighbouring cell, wherein said indication identifies whether said at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment or not (“the access network device may send information by using the serving cell of the terminal device, to directly or indirectly indicate whether the LBT mode is used in a part or all of neighbor cells to be measured by the terminal device” – See [0116]; “S502: An access network device sends first information to the terminal device. The first information indicates an information sending mode of a cell in at least one frequency range” – See [0135]; “Specifically, the access network device may determine, based on neighbor cell information (or referred to as a neighbor cell relationship) obtained before the first information is sent, content indicated by the first information. For example, the access network device finds, based on the obtained neighbor cell information, that information sending modes of all known neighbor cells on a frequency are an LBT mode. In this case, the access network device may determine to indicate, in the first information, that the information sending mode corresponding to the frequency is the LBT mode” – See [0136]; The terminal (user equipment) receives an indication of an LBT mode (clear channel assessment operation status) for a neighbor cell), and
wherein said indication identifies whether a serving cell supported by said serving base station operates with clear channel assessment or not (“The following provides examples of some message/signaling formats by using an example in which the value corresponding to the information sending mode at each level is represented as LBT or no-LBT” – See [0140]; “An access network device sends first information to the terminal device. The first information indicates information sending modes of N3 serving cells of the terminal device” – See [0190]; “the access network device to which the serving cell of the terminal device belongs” – See [0111]; The indication further identifies whether the serving cell operates with the LBT (clear channel assessment) mode).
Shen does not explicitly teach adjusting a neighbouring cell measurement period based on the indication.
However, Niu teaches adjusting a neighbouring cell measurement period based on the indication (“if short control signaling is not enabled for RRM/mobility measurements and LBT is enabled, the wireless device may determine to extend the time over which RRM/mobility measurements are performed to account for any missed opportunities to perform RRM/mobility measurements because of missed reference signal transmissions due to LBT” – See [0100]; The measurement time period is extended/adjusted based on whether LBT (clear channel assessment) is enabled in the cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shen to adjust a neighbouring cell measurement period based on the indication. Motivation for doing so would be to account for missed opportunities to perform RRM/mobility measurements because of missed reference signal transmissions (See Niu, [0100]).
Regarding Claim 7, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 6. Shen further teaches that said indication is encoded in at least one of: a VarMeasConfig variable of a message; a field associated with that neighbouring cell; a MeasObjectNR field associated with that neighbouring cell; or a SIB1 (“If the terminal device is in connected state, the access network device may add, to a measurement object (MeasObject) in RRC measurement configuration (MeasConfig), a field indicating an information sending mode at the cell level. The cell level may correspond to one or more cells, and the one or more cells form a cell list. The measurement object specifically includes an indication of an information sending mode of each cell in the cell list” – See [0146]; The indication is encoded in a field associated with the neighbor cell (e.g., channelaccessmode-CellsToAddMod-r17)).
Regarding Claim 8, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 6. Shen further teaches that a list identifying neighbouring cells operating with clear channel assessment, wherein said list comprises a MeasObjectListCCA; or another list identifying neighbouring cells not operating with clear channel assessment, wherein said another list comprises a MeasObjectList (“If the terminal device is in connected state, the access network device may add, to a measurement object (MeasObject) in RRC measurement configuration (MeasConfig), a field indicating an information sending mode at the cell level. The cell level may correspond to one or more cells, and the one or more cells form a cell list. The measurement object specifically includes an indication of an information sending mode of each cell in the cell list” – See [0146]; The indication is encoded in a MeasObject list).
Regarding Claim 9, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 6. Shen further teaches that said indication further identifies: whether a network containing said at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment (“Specifically, the access network device may determine, based on neighbor cell information (or referred to as a neighbor cell relationship) obtained before the first information is sent, content indicated by the first information. For example, the access network device finds, based on the obtained neighbor cell information, that information sending modes of all known neighbor cells on a frequency are an LBT mode. In this case, the access network device may determine to indicate, in the first information, that the information sending mode corresponding to the frequency is the LBT mode” – See [0136]; The indication identifies whether a network/neighbor cell operates with the LBT mode (clear channel assessment)).
Regarding Claim 10, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 9. Shen further teaches that said indication identifies that said network operates with clear channel assessment when at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment (“the access network device finds, based on the obtained neighbor cell information, that information sending modes of all known neighbor cells on a frequency are an LBT mode. In this case, the access network device may determine to indicate, in the first information, that the information sending mode corresponding to the frequency is the LBT mode” – See [0136]; The indication identifies the LBT mode of the network/all neighboring cells when at least one of the neighboring cells operates with the LBT mode).
Regarding Claim 11, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 6. Niu further teaches that the apparatus further caused at least to: adopt a fixed neighbouring cell measurement period when said indication identifies that said at least one neighbouring cell does not operate with clear channel assessment (“if short control signaling is enabled for RRM/mobility measurements or LBT is not enabled, the wireless device may determine to not extend the time over which RRM/mobility measurements are performed. e.g., as in such a scenario it may be the case that no reference signal transmissions are missed due to LBT” – See [0100]; The measurement time period is fixed (i.e., not extended) when LBT (clear channel assessment) is not enabled in the cell).
Regarding Claim 12, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 6. Niu further teaches that the apparatus further caused at least to: extend said neighbouring cell measurement period when said indication identifies that said at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment (“if short control signaling is not enabled for RRM/mobility measurements and LBT is enabled, the wireless device may determine to extend the time over which RRM/mobility measurements are performed to account for any missed opportunities to perform RRM/mobility measurements because of missed reference signal transmissions due to LBT” – See [0100]; The measurement time period is extended when LBT (clear channel assessment) is enabled in the cell).
Regarding Claim 13, Shen in view of Niu teaches the apparatus of Claim 6. Niu further teaches that the apparatus further caused at least to: extend said neighbouring cell measurement period when said indication identifies that said at least one neighbouring cell operates with clear channel assessment and when said at least one neighbouring cell is subject to at least one clear channel assessment failure (“if short control signaling is not enabled for RRM/mobility measurements and LBT is enabled, the wireless device may determine to extend the time over which RRM/mobility measurements are performed to account for any missed opportunities to perform RRM/mobility measurements because of missed reference signal transmissions due to LBT” – See [0100]; “reference signal instance missed due to LBT” – See [0101]; The measurement time period is extended when LBT (clear channel assessment) is enabled in the cell, wherein the missed opportunities for reference signal transmission/measurement are due to the cell being subject to LBT failure).
Claim 14 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 7.
Claim 16 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 8.
Claim 17 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 9.
Claim 18 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 10.
Claim 19 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 11 and 12.
Claim 20 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues in substance that Shen does not teach that “said indication identifiers whether a serving cell supported by said serving base station operates with clear channel assessment or not,” as recited in independent claims 1, 6, and 14.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to the amended limitations, the Examiner has cited additional passages from Shen. In particular, Shen discloses “The following provides examples of some message/signaling formats by using an example in which the value corresponding to the information sending mode at each level is represented as LBT or no-LBT” (See [0140]). Shen further discloses “An access network device sends first information to the terminal device. The first information indicates information sending modes of N3 serving cells of the terminal device” (See [0190]). Thus, Shen teaches that the apparatus transmits information regarding the LBT or no-LBT sending mode of the serving cell (i.e., whether a serving cell supported by said serving base station operates with clear channel assessment or not) to the terminal device.
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 Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571) 272-3905. 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478