DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 07/10/2026. Claims 1-30 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
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.
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(s) 1, 3-5 and 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunardi (2024/0015549) in view of Levitsky (US 2018/0269947).
Referring to claim 1:
Lunardi discloses a network entity (FIG. 53 and Par. 151, “a communication device UE 5300 (also referred to as a mobile terminal, a mobile communication terminal, a wireless device, a wireless communication device, a wireless terminal, mobile device, a wireless communication terminal, user equipment, UE, a user equipment node/terminal/device, etc.) configured to provide wireless communication”) comprising:
a memory storing processor-readable code (FIG. 53 and Par. 151, “Communication device UE may also include processing circuitry 5303 (also referred to as a processor, e.g., corresponding to processing circuitry 4120 of FIG. 71) coupled to the transceiver circuitry, and memory circuitry 5305 (also referred to as memory, e.g., corresponding to device readable medium 4130 of FIG. 71) coupled to the processing circuitry”); and
at least one processor coupled to the memory (FIG. 53 and Par. 151, “processing circuitry 5303 (also referred to as a processor … coupled to the transceiver circuitry, and memory circuitry 5305 ”), the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations (FIG. 53-57, and 152, “modules may provide instructions so that when instructions of a module are executed by processing circuitry 5303, processing circuitry 5303 performs respective operations”) comprising:
receiving a first reference signal (Par. 6, 690, “a first reference signal received by the communication device”, note that a first reference signal is received by the wireless device. Further, the reference signals are communicated (received and transmitted) during their scheduled time which is the reference signal session); receiving a second reference signal (Par. 6, “a second reference signal received by the communication device”); and
transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof (Par. 689, “The measurement configuration defines a measurement report … based on a measurement of a first reference signal and a measurement of a second reference signal”. Par. 701, “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal”. Note that the claim language include alternative (optional claim format), “information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof”. Because of the alternative claim language, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the options. In this case, the prior art discloses the option “information that indicates a measurement value”. Here, the phrase: “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal” is equivalent to transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value).
Lunardi is not relied on for the claim language: reference signal session.
However, reference signals are well-known to be during a reference signal sessions, as disclosed by Levitsky below.
In an analogous art, Levitsky discloses reference signals of a reference signal session (Par. 89, “the UE 210-a may identify power measurements for each of the beam reference signals received as part of a BRS session”. Note that the reference signals (e.g., beam reference signals are received by the UE as part of the beam reference signal (BRS) session. Thus, the beam reference signal is the reference signal of the reference signal session. The additional word “beam” in front of the reference signal does not change characteristics of the reference signal).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Lunardi by incorporating the teachings of Levitsky so that the reference signals are transmitted during the reference signal session time, for the purpose of scheduling transmitting and reception of reference signals, and thus, using communication resources efficiently. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Lunardi/Levitsky discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: measuring a channel to generate a first measurement value that is associated with the first reference signal; measuring the channel to generate a second measurement value that is associated with the second reference signal and generating the measurement value based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value (Lunardi, Par. 6, “A measurement report triggering event is detected based on a measurement of a first reference signal received by the communication device and based on a measurement of a second reference signal received by the communication device,” “measurement report is transmitted to the wireless communication network”. Par. 115, “UE includes in the measurement report (e.g., received signal receive power (“RSRP”))”. Par. 333, “beam measurement quantity value”, note that the UE transmits to the network a measurement based on the first reference signal and a measurement based on the second reference signal, thus, the measurements are for both first and second reference signals. Further note that the UE transmits RSRP measurement, thus, the measurements include RSRP values).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Lunardi/Levitsky discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein: the information indicates the measurement value; the information indicates a technique used to generate the measurement value based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal; or a combination thereof (Lunardi, Par. 115, “UE includes in the measurement report (e.g., received signal receive power (“RSRP”))”. Par. 333, “beam measurement quantity value”, note that the UE transmits to the network a measurement that includes RSRP measurement, thus, the measurements include RSRP values. Also note that because of alterative claim language it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative limitation, “the information indicates the measurement value”).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Lunardi/Levitsky discloses the network entity of claim 1, wherein: the information indicates the measurement value; and the information indicates the measurement value is based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal (Lunardi, Par. 7, 6, “A measurement report based on a measurement of a first reference signal received by the communication device and based on a measurement of a second reference signal received by the communication device,” “measurement report is transmitted to the wireless communication network”. Par. 115, “UE includes in the measurement report (e.g., received signal receive power (“RSRP”))”. Par. 333, “beam measurement quantity value”, note that the UE transmits to the network a measurement based on the first reference signal and a measurement based on the second reference signal, thus, the measurements are for both first and second reference signals. Further note that the UE transmits RSRP measurement, thus, the measurements include RSRP values).
Referring to claim 11:
Lunardi discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a network entity (FIG. 53 and Par. 151, “a communication device UE 5300 (also referred to as a mobile terminal, a mobile communication terminal, a wireless device, a wireless communication device, a wireless terminal, mobile device, a wireless communication terminal, user equipment, UE, a user equipment node/terminal/device, etc.) configured to provide wireless communication”, FIG. 53-57, and 152, “modules may provide instructions so that when instructions of a module are executed by processing circuitry 5303, processing circuitry 5303 performs respective operations”), the method comprising: receiving a first reference signal (Par. 6, 690, “a first reference signal received by the communication device”, note that a first reference signal is received by the wireless device. Further, the reference signals are communicated (received and transmitted) during their scheduled time which is the reference signal session); receiving a second reference signal (Par. 6, “a second reference signal received by the communication device”); and
transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof (Par. 689, “The measurement configuration defines a measurement report … based on a measurement of a first reference signal and a measurement of a second reference signal”. Par. 701, “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal”. Note that the claim language include alternative (optional claim format), “information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof”. Because of the alternative claim language, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the options. In this case, the prior art discloses the option “information that indicates a measurement value”. Here, the phrase: “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal” is equivalent to transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value).
Lunardi is not relied on for the claim language: reference signal session.
However, reference signals are well-known to be during a reference signal sessions, as disclosed by Levitsky below.
In an analogous art, Levitsky discloses reference signals of a reference signal session (Par. 89, “the UE 210-a may identify power measurements for each of the beam reference signals received as part of a BRS session”. Note that the reference signals (e.g., beam reference signals are received by the UE as part of the beam reference signal (BRS) session. Thus, the beam reference signal is the reference signal of the reference signal session. The additional word “beam” in front of the reference signal does not change characteristics of the reference signal).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Lunardi by incorporating the teachings of Levitsky so that the reference signals are transmitted during the reference signal session time, for the purpose of scheduling transmitting and reception of reference signals, and thus, using communication resources efficiently. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Lunardi/Levitsky discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising: measuring a channel to generate a first measurement value that is associated with the first reference signal; measuring the channel to generate a second measurement value that is associated with the second reference signal; and generating the measurement value based on the first measurement value and the second measurement value (Lunardi, Par. 6, “A measurement report triggering event is detected based on a measurement of a first reference signal received by the communication device and based on a measurement of a second reference signal received by the communication device,” “measurement report is transmitted to the wireless communication network”. Par. 115, “UE includes in the measurement report (e.g., received signal receive power (“RSRP”))”. Par. 333, “beam measurement quantity value”, note that the UE transmits to the network a measurement based on the first reference signal and a measurement based on the second reference signal, thus, the measurements are for both first and second reference signals. Further note that the UE transmits RSRP measurement, thus, the measurements include RSRP values).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Lunardi/Levitsky discloses the method of claim 11, wherein: the information indicates the measurement value; the information indicates a technique used to generate the measurement value based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal; or a combination thereof ((Lunardi, Par. 115, “UE includes in the measurement report (e.g., received signal receive power (“RSRP”))”. Par. 333, “beam measurement quantity value”, note that the UE transmits to the network a measurement that includes RSRP measurement, thus, the measurements include RSRP values. Also note that because of alterative claim language it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the alternatives, in this case the alternative limitation, “the information indicates the measurement value”).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Lunardi/Levitsky discloses the method of claim 11, wherein: the information indicates the measurement value; and the information indicates the measurement value is based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal (Lunardi, Par. 7, 6, “A measurement report based on a measurement of a first reference signal received by the communication device and based on a measurement of a second reference signal received by the communication device,” “measurement report is transmitted to the wireless communication network”. Par. 115, “UE includes in the measurement report (e.g., received signal receive power (“RSRP”))”. Par. 333, “beam measurement quantity value”, note that the UE transmits to the network a measurement based on the first reference signal and a measurement based on the second reference signal, thus, the measurements are for both first and second reference signals. Further note that the UE transmits RSRP measurement, thus, the measurements include RSRP values).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 6-10, 12 and 16-20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claims 2 and 12:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein: the network entity includes a user equipment (UE) or a first transmission and reception point (TRP); the reference signal session includes a positioning session or a radio frequency (RF) sensing session; the first reference signal includes a first positioning reference signal from a first antenna element of another network entity, and the second reference signal includes a second positioning reference signal from a second antenna element of the other network entity; the first positioning reference signal is associated with a first positioning reference signal ID that indicates a first location, and the second positioning reference signal is associated with a second positioning reference signal ID that indicates a second location; the measurement value includes: when the reference signal session includes the positioning session, an angle of arrive, a reference signal time difference (RSTD), a reference signal received power (RSRP), or a reference signal received quality (RSRQ); or when the reference signal session includes the RF session, a range, an angle”, as recited in claims 2 and 12, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding Claims 6 and 16:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the operations further comprise: determining a first location of a first transmit antenna element of the antenna array, the first transmit antenna element associated with transmission of the first reference signal; determining a second location of a second transmit antenna element of the antenna array, the second transmit antenna element associated with transmission of the second reference signal; and determining the location based on the first location, the second location, or a combination thereof, wherein the location includes an effective location of a transmit antenna”, as recited in claims 6 and 16, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17:
Claims 7 and 17 depend on allowable subject matter of claims 6 and 16 respectively, thus, they are allowable for being dependent upon allowable claims.
Regarding Claims 8 and 18:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the operations further comprise: determining a first location of a first receive antenna element of the antenna array, the first receive antenna element associated with reception of the first reference signal; determining a second location of a second receive antenna element of the antenna array, the second antenna receive element associated with reception of the second reference signal; and determining the location based on the first location, the second location, or a combination thereof, wherein the location includes an effective location of a receive antenna”, as recited in claims 8 and 18, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein: the reference signal session includes a radio frequency (RF) sensing session; the first reference signal includes a first sensing reference signal received from another network entity, and the second reference signal includes a second sensing reference signal received from the other network entity; the network entity includes a first transmission and reception point, and the other network entity includes a second transmission and reception point; the information indicates the location; the information is transmitted to a network”, as recited in claims 9 and 19, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding Claims 10 and 20:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the operations further comprise: receiving index information that indicates multiple index values, each index value of the multiple index values is associated with an effective receive (Rx) location, an effective transmit (Tx) location, or a combination thereof, and wherein the information indicates a measurement value and the location, the information includes an index value of the multiple index values that indicates the location”, as recited in claims 10 and 20, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1 and 11 applicant argues the following:
Claim 1 recites:A network entity comprising: a memory storing processor-readable code; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first reference signal of a reference signal session; receiving a second reference signal of the reference signal session; and transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof.The Office Action rejects claim 1 based on Lunardi allegedly teaching "transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof." Office Action, p. 9. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection for the reasons set forth below. The Office Action Has Misapplied the Alternative Claim Language Reasoning. The Examiner states that "[b]ecause of the alternative claim language, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the options," referring to the list "a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof." Office Action, p. 9-10. Applicant respectfully notes that the alternative language interpretation is misapplied. The phrase "based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal" is a participial modifier governing the entire transmitting step. It is not one of the alternatives in the "measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof" list. That list specifies what the transmitted information indicates. The "based on" phrase specifies the condition under which the transmitting must occur. Lunardi's Disclosure Is Disjunctive, Not Conjunctive. Even setting aside the structural argument above, the mapping of Lunardi to the "based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal" limitation is substantively incorrect. The Office Action maps this limitation to Lunardi's paragraph [0701], which discloses "transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network," wherein the measurement report includes "at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal." Lunardi, T [0701] (emphasis added). The operative language in Lunardi is "at least one of and/or." This is an explicitly disjunctive construction. It means that Lunardi's measurement report may include the measurement of only the first reference signal, the measurement of only the second reference signal, or the measurements of both. A system whose report is satisfied by the measurement of either signal alone cannot disclose, and cannot render obvious, the claimed limitation requiring the transmitted information to be "based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal." A disjunctive "at least one of A and/or B" is simply not equivalent to a conjunctive "based on A and B." The assertion that these are equivalent, Office Action, pp. 9-10, is directly contradicted by Lunardi's own claim language. Lunardi's architecture - where a report may include the measurement of either signal and is directed to triggering mobility management reports - for example, to address a technical problem that is unrelated to overhead reduction.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectively disagrees with the above arguments and asserts that during patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis. A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, the Lunardi clearly teaches the claimed features of: receiving a first reference signal (Par. 6, 690, “a first reference signal received by the communication device”, note that a first reference signal is received by the wireless device. Further, the reference signals are communicated (received and transmitted) during their scheduled time which is the reference signal session); receiving a second reference signal (Par. 6, “a second reference signal received by the communication device”); and transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof (Par. 689, “The measurement configuration defines a measurement report … based on a measurement of a first reference signal and a measurement of a second reference signal”. Par. 701, “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal”. Note that the claim language include alternative (optional claim format), “information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof”. Because of the alternative claim language, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the options. In this case, the prior art discloses the option “information that indicates a measurement value”. Here, the phrase: “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal” is equivalent to transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value). Further, Levitsky discloses reference signals of a reference signal session (see Par. 89, “the UE 210-a may identify power measurements for each of the beam reference signals received as part of a BRS session”. Note that the reference signals (e.g., beam reference signals are received by the UE as part of the beam reference signal (BRS) session. Thus, the beam reference signal is the reference signal of the reference signal session. The additional word “beam” in front of the reference signal does not change characteristics of the reference signal).
Further, the applicant’s above argument are mere allegations that the applied prior art does not teach the claimed features. The applicant has not distinctly and specifically pointed out or explained any differences whatsoever between the limitations of claims and the teachings of prior art. Further, one skilled in the art would recognize that the teachings of prior art clearly teach the limitation of claimed limitations. Applicant’s complete arguments without explaining differences between prior art and the claim language is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. As the Court stated in re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981):
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary references; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further argues the following:
The Office Action allowed claims 6 and 16 because the prior art "fails to disclose or suggest the limitations" of "determining a first location of a first transmit antenna element of the antenna array, the first transmit antenna element associated with transmission of the first reference signal; determining a second location of a second transmit antenna element of the antenna array, the second transmit antenna element associated with transmission of the second reference signal; and determining the location based on the first location, the second location, or a combination thereof, wherein the location includes an effective location of a transmit antenna." Office Action, p. 12. The Office Action has made the same concession as to claims 8 and 18, which require an effective receive antenna location derived from the locations associated with both reference signals. Office Action, p. 13. In both instances, the Office Action has acknowledged that the prior art does not teach deriving a single unified output - whether a location or a measurement - that is based jointly on both reference signals' associated information. This is precisely the same concept recited by the base independent claim: the transmitted information must be based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal together. The Office Action cannot hold that the prior art fails to teach a combined antenna location output derived from both reference signals (claims 6/8/16/18), while simultaneously acknowledging that the prior art does teach a combined measurement output based on both reference signals (claims 1/11). The inventive concept is the same across all of these claims. Levitsky Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of Lunardi. Levitsky is relied upon for the "reference signal session" limitation and does not supply the missing "based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal" teaching. Levitsky discloses beam reference signals received "as part of a BRS session," Levitsky, 1 [0089], in the context of beam refinement and beam switching. Levitsky does not disclose transmitting information that is jointly derived from two reference signals to indicate a combined measurement value or a location associated with an antenna array. The combination of Lunardi and Levitsky therefore cannot supply what neither reference individually teaches. Lunardi and Levitsky, alone or in combination, fail to disclose or render obvious "transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof," as recited in claim 1. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claim 1. Independent claim 11 is likewise allowable for at least the same reasons.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectively disagrees with the above arguments and asserts that during patent examination, the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP § 2111 - § 2116.01 for case law pertinent to claim analysis. A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As mentioned above, based on broad interpretation, the cited prior art teaches all limitation of the claimed invention. Further, the applicant is attacking prior art references individually. MPEP section 2145 section IV under “ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY” states that “one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
It is clear from the rejection that Lunardi teaches the features of receiving a first reference signal (Par. 6, 690, “a first reference signal received by the communication device”, note that a first reference signal is received by the wireless device. Further, the reference signals are communicated (received and transmitted) during their scheduled time which is the reference signal session); receiving a second reference signal (Par. 6, “a second reference signal received by the communication device”); and
transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof (Par. 689, “The measurement configuration defines a measurement report … based on a measurement of a first reference signal and a measurement of a second reference signal”. Par. 701, “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal”. Note that the claim language include alternative (optional claim format), “information that indicates a measurement value, a location associated with an antenna array, or a combination thereof”. Because of the alternative claim language, it is sufficient for prior art to disclose only one of the options. In this case, the prior art discloses the option “information that indicates a measurement value”. Here, the phrase: “transmitting (5615) a measurement report to the wireless communication network”, “wherein the measurement report includes at least one of the measurement of the first reference signal and/or the measurement of the second reference signal” is equivalent to transmitting, based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal, information that indicates a measurement value). And Levitsky teaches the features of reference signals of a reference signal session (Par. 89, “the UE 210-a may identify power measurements for each of the beam reference signals received as part of a BRS session”. Note that the reference signals (e.g., beam reference signals are received by the UE as part of the beam reference signal (BRS) session. Thus, the beam reference signal is the reference signal of the reference signal session. The additional word “beam” in front of the reference signal does not change characteristics of the reference signal).
Further, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Further developments in the law of obviousness are to be expected in view of KSR. Court further stated that: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP 2141.
Thus, based on the above factual findings (evidenced in “named the references”), (1) all the claims elements were found in the prior art, although not necessarily in the same reference, (2) one of the ordinary skill in the art would have combined the findings in the format claimed, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and (3) one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Based on these rational, the cited references teach all the elements of the claims.
Examiner made an earnest attempt to reach the applicant’s representative by calling and leaving a voice message, but it did not result in a communication. Applicant is invited to call the examiner in order to discuss amendments and thereby expedite prosecution toward an allowance.
Applicant is invited to contact examiner and discus claim amendments during an interview in order to place claims in condition for allowance and thereby expedite prosecution.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/FRED A CASCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights