DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 4 June 2026. Claims 1-3, 5-9, 12, 14-16, and 19-26 are pending in this 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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 12, 14, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2020/0014523).
For Claims 1 and 14, Huang teaches a method and a terminal device comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see paragraphs 125-128: hardware), cause the terminal device at least to:
determine at least one parameter of at least one interruption window, wherein an interruption of data communication between a network device and the terminal device is allowed to occur during the at least one interruption window (see abstract, paragraphs 37, 60, 196); and
perform one or more measurements during a measurement window associated with the at least one interruption window using a radio frequency (RF) chain of the terminal device that is not used for reception on active component carriers, wherein activation or retuning of the RF chain causes the interruption on one or more other RF chains of the terminal device that are used for reception on the active component carriers, and wherein no measurement gap is required for the one or more measurements (see paragraphs 38, 60, 67, 196).
For Claim 12, Huang teaches a network device comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see paragraphs 125-128: hardware), cause the network device at least to:
receive, from a terminal device, a first message comprising at least one parameter of at least one interruption window, wherein an interruption of data communication between the network device and the terminal device is allowed to occur during the at least one interruption window, and wherein the at least one parameter is determined by the terminal device, wherein the first message is a user equipment (UE) assistance information message and further comprises an indication that the terminal device requests no gap and an interruption with a measurement (see abstract, paragraphs 37, 60, 196 38, 67, 42),
wherein the network device is further caused to:
transmit, to the terminal device, a second message comprising configuration information indicating: at least one interruption window, and one or more measurements at the terminal device within a measurement window associated with the at least one interruption window (see paragraphs 40, 60, 85, 196).
For Claims 6 and 19, Huang teaches the terminal device, wherein the terminal device is further caused to: transmit, to the network device, a first message comprising the at least one parameter (see paragraphs 60, 113: capacity indication).
For Claims 7 and 20, Huang teaches the terminal device, wherein the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message comprising configuration information of the at least one interruption window or the one or more measurements (see abstract).
For Claim 8, Huang teaches the terminal device, wherein the configuration information is comprised in a measurement configuration information element (see paragraphs 41, 58, 123: information exchanged in IEs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 9, 15-16, 21, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0014523) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Cui et al. (US 2024/0172096).
For Claims 2 and 15, Huang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one parameter comprises at least one of the following:
a location and/or a length of a pre-measurement interruption window before the measurement window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern);
a location and/or a length of a post-measurement interruption window after the measurement window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern);
a pre-measurement offset between the pre-measurement interruption window and the measurement window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern); or
a post-measurement offset between the measurement window and the post-measurement interruption window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the parameters as in Cui when implementing the measurements as in Huang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring the UE has the information needed to time the retuning.
For Claims 3 and 16, Huang further teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one parameter further comprises: a maximum amount of dropped data that the terminal device is allowed within the at least one interruption window (see paragraph 37).
Huang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Cui teaches the parameter comprising a pre-measurement interruption length; a post-measurement interruption length (see paragraphs 127-129 and also 96, 101, 111).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the parameters as in Cui when implementing the measurements as in Huang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring the UE has the information needed to time the retuning.
For Claim 5, Huang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one interruption window and the measurement window are comprised in a total interruption window (see paragraphs 127-129).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have a complete interruption window as in Cui when arranging resources for the measurements as in Huang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring the UE has the information needed to time the retuning and the measurements.
For Claim 9, though Huang does teach the RF chains corresponding to bands (see paragraphs 59, 196), Huang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one parameter is determined per band, per band group, per measured cell, or per component carrier (see paragraphs 82, 84, 86, 88: per cell information).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to determine parameters as in Cui when determining parameters for RF chains as in Huang. The motivation would be to provide parameters appropriate to the respective RF chains.
For Claims 21 and 26, Huang as applied above is not explicit as to, but Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one parameter comprises each of:
a location and a length of a pre-measurement interruption window before the measurement window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern);
a location and a length of a post-measurement interruption window after the measurement window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern);
a pre-measurement offset between the pre-measurement interruption window and the measurement window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern); and
a post-measurement offset between the measurement window and the post- measurement interruption window (see paragraph 96: gap length and offset, paragraphs 101, 111: tuning time, measurement gap pattern).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the parameters as in Cui when implementing the measurements as in Huang. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of ensuring the UE has the information needed to time the retuning.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2020/0014523) and Cui et al. (US 2024/0172096) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 21 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2024/0179551).
For Claim 22, the references as applied are not explicit as to, but Zhang teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one parameter further comprises a pre-measurement visible interruption length indicating an allowed length of the interruption caused by hardware reconfiguration prior to the measurement window, and a post-measurement visible interruption length indicating an allowed length of the interruption caused by hardware reconfiguration after the measurement window, wherein the pre-measurement visible interruption length is shorter than the pre- measurement interruption window to provide flexibility in a location of the interruption within the pre-measurement interruption window (see paragraph 161).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide the further parameters as in Zhang when implementing the method of Huang and Cui. The motivation would be to provide for the necessary retuning time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 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.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 4 June 2026 has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections over prior art have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chin et al. (US 2017/0013623) teaches a system for non-gap measurement using an RF chain which is not being used for transmission or reception.
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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 6/17/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights