CTNF 18/431,840 CTNF 69003 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)("optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be. The M.P.E.P. provides, “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” See M.P.E.P § 2111.04; see also M.P.E.P §§ 2103(C) and 2173.05(h). Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP § 2111.01 for more information on the plain meaning of claim language. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) " adapted to " or " adapted for " clauses, (C) " wherein" or " whereby " clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. The determination of whether particular language is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0230619 ( Cui, et al ) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0052996 ( Sahai, et al ) . Cui, et al discloses a method of communication performed by a network entity (figures 2-4), comprising receiving a recommended configuration for a reference signal processing gap for a user equipment (UE) (#104, #212), wherein the reference signal processing gap comprises a period of time (¶39), and wherein one or more reference signal resources of at least one reference signal instance processed by the UE (#104, #212, ¶33-34), during the period of time, is prioritized by the UE (#104) for reference processing over reception, processing, or both, of other downlink signals and channels different from downlink signals and channels for the one or more reference resources (¶38, 42, 61, 153, 157, 164, claims 13, 18, 25). PNG media_image1.png 440 392 media_image1.png Greyscale In addition, and alternatively, regarding the limitation of “wherein one or more PRS resources of at least one PRS instance processed by the UE, during the period of time, is prioritized by the UE for PRS processing over reception, processing, or both, of other downlink signals and channels different from downlink signals and channels for the one or more PRS resources,” in remarks of July 7, 2025, Applicant stated that this limitation is done the User Equipment and not the network entity. These claims, as written, is a method of communication performed by a network entity, a network entity, and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a network entity, these limitations limit the operation of the user equipment and not the network entity. Hence, these limitations have no patentable weight. PNG media_image2.png 547 364 media_image2.png Greyscale Cui, et al shows determining, based on the recommended configuration, a configuration of the PRS processing gap comprising a length (¶30-32, 48, 50, etc.). PNG media_image3.png 420 290 media_image3.png Greyscale Cui, et al shows transmitting the configuration of the PRS processing gap to the UE (#104) in response to the recommended configuration (#408, ¶55-61). PNG media_image4.png 529 720 media_image4.png Greyscale Cui, et al does not explicitly disclose a reference signal processing gap is a position reference signal (PRS) processing gap although Cui, et al uses a position reference signal for the reference signal processing gap (¶21, 26-27, 35, etc.). Shai, et al teaches the use of receiving a recommended configuration for a positioning reference signal (PRS) processing gap for a user equipment (UE) wherein the reference signal processing gap comprises a period of time and transmitting a PRS configuration to the UE, the PRS configuration including a configuration of the PRS processing gap based on the recommended configuration for the purpose of facilitate UE location determination in systems with dense PRS configurations, reduced PRS periodicity, frequency hopping, and involving UE inter-frequency measurements, note figures 4A, 5, #440, 520, ¶89-111. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of a positioning reference signal (PRS) processing gap for the purpose of facilitate UE location determination in systems with dense PRS configurations, reduced PRS periodicity, frequency hopping, and involving UE inter-frequency measurements, as taught by Shai, et al in the method of communication performed by a network entity of Cui, et al in order for configuration of dedicated gaps. PNG media_image5.png 588 426 media_image5.png Greyscale The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed March 9, 2026 have been fully considered. The Review Panel for Pre-Appeal Brief made the following conclusions. Applicant’s attorney did not address nor traverse the limitation receiving a recommended configuration for processing gap for a user equipment (UE) where the Examiner clearly pointed out in the Office Action dated March 26, 2026 on page 6. Because of this non-traversal the Review Panel maintains that Cui, et al shows that limitation. Applicant’s attorney just traversed the Examiner’s interpretation of that claim in an alternative reasoning and the Review Panel finds that the Examiner’s interpretation as reasonable. The Review Panel does agree with Applicant’s attorney that the Examiner did not properly address the transmitting of the configuration of the PRS processing gap, hence this new Office Action. The Review Panel concluded that Cui, et al shows transmitting the configuration of the PRS processing gap to the UE (#104) in response to the recommended configuration (#408, ¶55-61). Applicants have not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this action. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they now stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991). The Examiner suggests to focus on what the network entity does and not the functions User Equipment, which is trying to recapture matter from United States Patent 11,965,973. Applicant’s full cooperation to place this application in condition of allowance would be appreciated. Conclusion If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request " form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm. 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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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. WILLIAM D. CUMMING Primary Examiner Art Unit 2645 /WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 2 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 3 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 4 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 7 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 8 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 9 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 10 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/431,840 Page 11 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION
Prosecution Insights