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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 03/24/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11, 14-16, 23-25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022078650) in view of Palenius et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150024753).
Regarding claim 1 Lee disclose, a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors read as: “at least one processor”, coupled to the one or more memories read as: “memory” see Fig. 2, configured to:
receive configuration information that indicates at least one or more criterion for refraining from performing a measurement in a measurement gap para. 5, “receiving configuration information regarding a measurement gap (MG); transmitting a MG skip indication associated with the MG”; and
communicate data with a network node during the measurement gap in at least one scheduled measurement gap occasion for the measurement gap based at least in part on the at least one criterion para. 206, “the UE may perform the followings (S803) during the measurement gap associated with the transmitted MG skip signaling…, transmitting UL data on UL-SCH”,
determine that at least one criterion of the one or more criterion is satisfied para. 272, Fig. 13, “In some implementations of the present disclosure, a UE checks whether channel quality of the serving cell is above a certain threshold when the UE determines to skip the measurement gap (S1302)”.
Lee does not specifically disclose, wherein the one or more criterion comprise: a first criterion associated with a priority or a type of a neighbor cell measurement to be performed in the measurement gap. However, Palenius teach, “a UE acquires neighboring cell information relating to a plurality of neighboring cells, assigns a priority indicator to each neighboring cell based on the neighboring cell information, and performs measurements on the basis of the assigned priority indicators such that measurements are performed more frequently for a neighboring cell having a first priority indicator compared with another neighboring cell having a second priority indicator”, see para. 39.
a second criterion associated with at least one of a reference signal received power (RSRP) measurement or a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurement on a current serving cell and based at least in part on a low- mobility criterion for the UE, or
a third criterion associated with a priority of a logical channel associated with data that overlaps with the measurement gap. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Lee and Palenius are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration of measurement gap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Palenius in the system of Lee so the system can perform the measurements according to the relevant parameters associated with the neighboring cell priorities. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform the measurement in the network according to the priority indicators established.
Regarding claim 4 Lee disclose, wherein the at least one criterion includes at least one criterion for measurement gap relaxation para. 6, “receiving configuration information regarding a measurement gap (MG); transmitting a MG skip indication associated with the MG”, and wherein the one or more processors, to communicate the data with the network node during the measurement gap in the at least one scheduled measurement gap occasion for the measurement gap, are configured to: communicate the data with the network node during the at least one scheduled measurement gap in the at least one scheduled measurement gap occasion in accordance with a relaxation factor that indicates a fraction of scheduled measurement gap occasions for the measurement gap in which measurements are to be performed para. 206-209, “he UE may perform the followings (S803) during the measurement gap associated with the transmitted MG skip signaling: transmitting HARQ feedback, scheduling request (SR), and/or channel state information (CSI); reporting sounding reference signal (SRS); transmitting UL data on UL-SCH”, in connection with a determination that the data overlaps with the measurement gap and a determination that the at least one criterion for measurement gap relaxation is satisfied para. 233, “the UE may transmit a UL data on the configured grant (CG) resource that overlaps with the measurement gap) during the measurement gap associated with the transmitted MG skip signaling”.
Regarding claim 5 Lee disclose, wherein the configuration information indicates the relaxation factor para. 243, “the configuration information for the MG skip may be transmitted via the RRC connection reconfiguration message including the measurement gap configuration”.
Regarding claim 6 Lee disclose, wherein the at least one criterion for measurement gap relaxation includes at least one of:
a first relaxation criterion, corresponding to the first criterion, based at least in part on a priority or a type of a neighbor cell measurement to be performed in the measurement gap para. 204, “The UE may configure UL resources for the MG skip based on the configuration information”,
a second relaxation criterion, corresponding to the second criterion, based at least in part on at least one of a RSRP measurement or
a RSRQ measurement on a current serving cell and based at least in part on a low-mobility criterion for the UE, or
a third relaxation criterion, corresponding to the third criterion, based at least in part on a priority of a logical channel associated with the data that overlaps with the measurement gap.
Claim 11 recites an apparatus corresponding to the device of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 23-25 the limitations of claims 14-16 and 23-25, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 4-6, respectively.
Claim 20 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2, 7, 12-13, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022078650) in view of Palenius et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150024753), further in view of Tumula et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2020088744).
Regarding claim 2 Lee and Palenius does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one criterion includes at least one criterion for measurement gap deprioritization. However, Tumula teach, “wherein the first control message includes information to instruct the client device to skip at least one measurement gap”, see page 1, lines 34-35.
Tumula further teach, wherein the one or more processors, to communicate the data with the network node during the measurement gap in the at least one scheduled measurement gap occasion for the measurement gap, are configured to: communicate the data with the network node during the measurement gap in connection with a determination that the data overlaps with the measurement gap see page 2, lines 8-9, “the client device to receive or transmit a data packet during the skipped measurement gap” and a determination that the at least one criterion for measurement gap deprioritization is satisfied page 4, lines 10-11, “skip at least one measurement gap according to the information in the first control message”.
Lee, Tumula and Palenius are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration of measurement gap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tumula in the system of Lee and Palenius so the system can configure the best opportunity and resources for the measurement gap. The motivation for doing so would have been for the network node be able to transmit data and received by the UE during measuring gaps according to the predefined configuration.
Regarding claim 7 Lee disclose, wherein the at least one criterion includes at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation, and the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the network node, an indication that the at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation is satisfied, para. 205. “A UE transmits a measurement gap (MG) skip signaling”,
receive, from the network node, a deactivation indication for the measurement gap based at least in part on the indication that the at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation is satisfied para. 214, “The UE may receive a RRC message including the configuration information for the MG skip”.
Lee and Palenius does not specifically disclose, wherein the deactivation indication indicates deactivation of all scheduled measurement gap occasions for the measurement gap. However, Tumula teach, “The first control message 510 includes information to instruct the client device 300 to skip at least one measurement gap”, see page lines 214.
Tumula further disclose, wherein the one or more processors, to communicate the data with the network node during the measurement gap in the at least one scheduled measurement gap occasion for the measurement gap, are configured to communicate the data with the network node during the measurement gap in the at least one scheduled measurement gap occasion for the measurement gap based at least in part on receiving the deactivation indication para. 214, “the client device 300 may transmit the data packet to the network access node 100 during the measurement gap according to the information in the first control message 510”.
Lee, Palenius and Tumula are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration of measurement gap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Tumula in the system of Lee and Palenius so the system can establish parameter that dynamically adjust to the levels of priority configured. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to verify parameters to improve the use of the available resources.
Regarding claims 12-13 the limitations of claims 12-13 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claims 17 and 26 the limitations of claims 17 and 26are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 7.
Claim(s) 3, 8-10, 13, 18-19, 22 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022078650) in view of Palenius et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150024753), further in view of Tumula et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2020088744); further in view of Siomina et al. (EPO. Pub. EP3486677).
Regarding claim 3 Lee, Palenius and Tumula does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one criterion for measurement gap deprioritization includes at least one of: a first deprioritization criterion, corresponding to the first criterion, based at least in part on the priority. However, Siomina teach, “the priority may be zero, which corresponds to a decision to not configure measurement gaps for the received request 232 indicating the need for measurement gaps for positioning” see para. 64 or a type of a neighbor cell measurement to be performed in the measurement gap.
Lee further disclose, a second deprioritization criterion, corresponding to the second criterion, based at least in part on at least one of the RSRP measurement para. 166, “The reporting format is the quantities per cell and per beam that the UE includes in the measurement report (e.g. RSRP)” or a RSRQ measurement on a current serving cell and based at least in part on a low-mobility criterion for the UE, or a third deprioritization criterion, corresponding to the third criterion, based at least in part on a priority of a logical channel associated with the data that overlaps with the measurement gap.
Lee, Tumula, Palenius and Siomina are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration of measurement gap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Siomina in the system of Lee, Palenius and Tumula so the system can establish parameter that dynamically adjust to the levels of priority configured. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to verify parameters to improve the use of the available resources.
Regarding claim 8 Lee, Palenius and Tumula does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation includes at least one of:
a first deactivation criterion, corresponding to the first criterion, based at least in part on a priority. However, Siomina teach, “the priority may be zero, which corresponds to a decision to not configure measurement gaps for the received request 232 indicating the need for measurement gaps for positioning”, see para. or a type of a neighbor cell measurement to be performed in the measurement gap, or a second deactivation criterion, corresponding to the second criterion, based at least in part on at least one of a RSRP measurement or a RSRQ measurement on a current serving cell and based at least in part on a low-mobility criterion for the UE.
Lee, Palenius, Tumula and Siomina are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to configuration of measurement gap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Siomina in the system of Lee, Palenius and Tumula so the system can establish parameter that dynamically adjust to the levels of priority configured. The motivation for doing so would have been to be able to verify parameters to improve the use of the available resources.
Regarding claim 9 Lee disclose, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: periodically determine whether the at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation is satisfied para. 214, “the configuration information may include periodic resource information for the MG skip signaling”.
Regarding claim 10 Lee disclose, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit, to the network node, an indication that the at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation is no longer satisfied para. 205, “A UE transmits a measurement gap (MG) skip signaling”; and
receive, from the network node, an activation indication for the measurement gap based at least in part on the indication that the at least one criterion for measurement gap deactivation is no longer satisfied para. 181-182, “The network may provide a UE with MeasGapConfig that specifies the measurement gap configuration and controls setup/release of measurement gaps”.
Regarding claims 13 and 22 the limitations of claims 13 and 22 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claims 18-19 and 27-29 the limitations of claims 17-19 and 26-29, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 8-10, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Prateek (U.S. Pub. 20080085710) which disclose(s) inter frequency/radio access technology e.g. long term evolution, measurement performing method for use in long term evolution system, involves selecting minimum gap pattern out of available set of minimum gap patterns.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights