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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In Claim 13, “The network device of claims 12” should be corrected to ---The network device of claim 12---.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17, the claims recites “the at least one parameter further comprises”. However, the independent claim has no teaching as to what the at least one parameter comprises, so the use of “further” appears to be unnecessary.
For Claims 10 and 11, “the first message” and “the second message” lack antecedent basis in the claim.
For Claim 10, it is not clear what is meant by “an indication that the terminal device requests no gap and an interruption with a measurement” and “an indication that the terminal device requests no gap, no network controlled small gap, and an interruption with a measurement”. If the terminal is requesting “no gap” and also requesting “an interruption with a measurement”, the terminal appears to be both requesting no gap and requesting a gap.
For Claim 11, it is unclear what is meant by “another radio resource control reconfiguration message” because there is no previous recitation of a radio resource control reconfiguration message.
For Claim 11, “the configuration information” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
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) 1-3, 5-9, 11-16, and 18-20, as understood in light of any rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cui et al. (US 2024/0172096).
For Claims 1 and 14, Cui 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 77-78), 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 paragraphs 98, 111, 114); and
perform one or more measurements during a measurement window associated with the at least one interruption window (see paragraphs 96, 105).
For Claims 2 and 15, 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).
For Claims 3 and 16, Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein the at least one parameter further comprises at least one of the following: a pre-measurement interruption length; or a post-measurement interruption length (see paragraphs 127-129 and also 96, 101, 111).
For Claims 5 and 18, 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).
For Claims 6 and 19, Cui 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 abstract, paragraphs 18, 80).
For Claims 7 and 20, Cui 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 paragraphs 98, 111).
For Claim 8, Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein the configuration information is comprised in a measurement configuration information element (see paragraph 98: measurement gap configuration inherently involves transmission of an information element).
For Claim 9, 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).
For Claim 11, Cui teaches the terminal device, wherein at least one of the following:
the first message comprises at least one of a user equipment (UE) assistance information message or a message for reporting UE capability parameters (see paragraph 51); or
the second message comprises at least one of another radio resource control reconfiguration message or a message for transmitting the configuration information of the at least one interruption window.
For Claim 12, Cui 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 paragraph 152), 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 (see abstract, paragraphs 16, 18, 80), 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 (see paragraphs 19, 20, 80), and wherein the at least one parameter is determined by the terminal device (see paragraph 16).
For Claim 13, Cui teaches the network device, wherein the network device is further caused to:
transmit, to the terminal device, a second message comprising configuration information indicating at least one of: at least one interruption window; or one or more measurements at the terminal device within a measurement window associated with the at least one interruption window (see paragraphs 96, 101, 111: measurement gap configuration).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2024/0172096) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Callender et al. (US 2015/0327054).
For Claims 4 and 17, Cui as applied above is not explicit as to, but in a similar field of endeavor Callender 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 at least a portion of an interruption window (see paragraphs 6, 7, 95: maximum amount of dropping data during measurement process).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage the dropping of data as in Callender when implementing the device of Cui. The motivation would be to avoid excessive disruption to the communications during the entire measurement process.
Claim(s) 10, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui et al. (US 2024/0172096) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2018/0287591).
For Claim 10, Cui teaches the terminal device 1, wherein
the terminal device requests no gap and an interruption with a measurement (see paragraphs 86-87, 89: UE configures autonomous UE interruption); or
an indication that the terminal device requests no gap, no network controlled small gap, and an interruption with a measurement.
Cui as applied above is not explicit as to, but Wang teaches the first message further comprises at least one of the following: an indication that the terminal device requests no gap (see paragraph 30: UE indicates autonomous gap and thus no need for scheduling a gap).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use an indication as in Wang to convey to the network side that the UE is not in need of scheduling for a gap as in Cui. The motivation would be to conserve resources at the network side.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zheng et al. (US 2021/0160798) teaches configuring a measurement window periodicity, offset, and length. Cui et al. (US 2024/0413898) teaches configuring an SMTC for a measurement window. Manolakos et al. (US 2024/0205872) teaches determining a maximum window in which a UE disregards traffic.
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 2/13/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466