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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patentable over claims 4, 9 and 10 of U.S. application 18208750. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the system/method in both has the same components: (I) whether a resource for use to perform at least one Layer 1 (L1) measurement for a serving cell of a wireless communication network is within a corresponding active bandwidth part (BWP) of the resource, (II) reporting that the apparatus needs or does not need an interruption/gap to the corresponding active BWP, and (III) performing at least one Layer 1 (L1) measurement.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: typo error in claim 10, “reporting an need” should be “reporting a need”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 4, 6 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, it recites the term “ an L1 measurement” while the parent claim recites “at least one L1 measurement”, applicants need to clarify the relation between them. Also it recites “interruption ratio of the interruption to the corresponding active BWP”, which is an ambiguous relation between “interruption or Gap which is commonly defined by the repetition or length” and BWP “Frequency range in Hz”!!!
Regarding claim 6, it recites the term “performing a calculation to determine a value of an interruption ratio based on the interruption length and a measurement cycle length with respect to the corresponding active BWP”, this ratio is calculated but never used!!!
Regarding claim 16, it recites the term “…. perform at least one Layer 1 (L1) measurement for a serving cell of a wireless communication network is within a corresponding active bandwidth part (BWP) of the resource;” then “in response to determining that the resource is outside the corresponding active BWP of the resource, (a) performing, by the processor, one or more of reporting to the wireless communication network that the apparatus does not need an interruption to the corresponding active BWP of the resource or (b) performing the at least one L1 measurement without interrupting the corresponding active BWP.
The examiner is not sure about this conditional statement:
The first part (a) is the opposite of claim 1 and 17, where there is no measurement gap needed outside the active BWP.
The second part (b), if it is an alternative response for being outside the active BWP, then the examiner is not sure whether this measurement is performed within an active BWP “first limitation” or outside the active BWP “last limitation”.
Alternatively, the second part (b) might be an alternative for the “in response to determining that the resource is outside the corresponding active BWP” or in other words, “being in the active BWP” -- > performing part (b). This is the broadest reasonable interpretation that the examiner adopted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 12-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20240032008 A1), hereinafter Chen, in view of Ma et al. (US 20200296612 A1) hereinafter Ma.
Regarding Claim 1,
Chen teaches an apparatus, comprising: a transceiver configured to communicate wirelessly; and a processor coupled to the transceiver (Fig. 1) and configured to perform operations comprising:
determining, by the processor, whether a resource for use to perform at least one measurement for a serving cell of a wireless communication network is within a corresponding active bandwidth part (BWP) of the resource (Measurement gap (MG) capability information may be provided on a per-UE basis in measurement and mobility parameters. This information may include an inter-frequency-measurement-no-gap field to indicate whether the UE can perform inter-frequency SSB based measurements without measurement gaps if the SSB is completely contained in the active BWP of the UE [0039]);
and in response to determining that the resource is outside the corresponding active BWP of the resource, reporting, by the processor to the wireless communication network, that the apparatus needs an interruption to the corresponding active BWP of the resource (The UE may then respond by reporting UE capability information in an RRC reconfiguration complete message based on the band combinations configured by the network. The UE capability information may be transmitted by a need-for-gaps information (NeedForGapsInfoNR) IE that indicates whether measurement gap is required for the UE to perform measurements on an NR target band. In the existing design, the UE will report that a gap is needed in a gap indication field of the NeedForGapsInfoNR IE if any configured BWP requires a gap on a measurement frequency [0037]-[0045]).
Chen does not explicitly teach perform at least one Layer 1 (L1) measurement
Ma teaches performing at least one Layer 1 (L1) measurement (It should also be noted that the measurement quantity of the target measurement described in this embodiment may be all measurement quantities of L1, L2 and L3 [0070]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Ma to the teachings of Chen. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce communication resource consumption (Ma [0071]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 2,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above.
Chen further teaches the resource is a synchronization signal block (SSB) (“SSB based”[0032][0035][0037][0039]).
Regarding Claim 8,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above.
Chen further teaches wherein the interruption is used by the processor to perform measurement according to an interruption location in the corresponding active BWP (Outside: In this case, the measurement gap may provide the UE 104 with the time to retune its transceiver to the intra-frequency target, perform the measurement, and re-tune the transceiver back to the active BWP. … measurement gap is required for the UE to perform measurements on an NR target band. [0037]-[0045]; or inside the active BWP “no-gap” [0039][0045]).
Regarding Claim 9,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, which teaches L1 measurements.
Chen further teaches wherein, following the reporting by the processor of a need for the interruption, performing, by the processor of during the interruption, the at least one measurement for the serving cell based on the resource that is outside the corresponding active BWP (In this case, the measurement gap may provide the UE 104 with the time to retune its transceiver to the intra-frequency target, perform the measurement, and re-tune the transceiver back to the active BWP. … measurement gap is required for the UE to perform measurements on an NR target band. [0037]-[0045]).
Regarding Claim 12,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen further teaches wherein the serving cell of the wireless communication network is a primary cell (Pcell), a primary and secondary cell (PSCell), or a secondary cell (SCell) (the UE 104 may indicate whether a gap is needed in each of the eight BWPs (four for the PCell and four for the SCell) [0057][0061][0064]][0068]).
Regarding Claim 13,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen further teaches the reporting includes reporting a need for the interruption after transmission of at least one of a radio resource control (RCC) reconfiguration message, a downlink control information (DCI) message, or a media access control-control element (MAC-CE) message by the wireless communication network (RRC reconfiguration message [0044][0045]). .
Regarding Claim 14,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly teach the reporting includes reporting a need for the interruption via an existing reporting capability of Layer 3 that is used for reporting L1 measurements.
Ma teaches the reporting includes reporting a need for the interruption via an existing reporting capability of Layer 3 that is used for reporting L1 measurements ([0070]-[0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Ma to the teachings of Chen. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce communication resource consumption (Ma [0070]-[0074]).
Regarding Claim 15,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen further teaches wherein the processor is configured to perform further operations comprising in response to determining that the resource is within the corresponding active BWP of the resource, reporting, by the processor to a wireless communication network, that the apparatus does not need an interruption to the corresponding active BWP of the resource (no-gap [0039][0045]).
Regarding claim 16 (as best understood by the examiner), is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 15, where Chen further teaches performing the at least one measurement without interrupting the corresponding active BWP (no-gap [0039][0045]).
Regarding claim 17 “method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 “apparatus”, where Chen teaches both method and apparatus (Chen [0147], Fig. 1). Chen further teaches the added feature about the configuring being performed based at least on the bandwidth capability of the UE (The UE capability information may be transmitted by a need-for-gaps information (NeedForGapsInfoNR) IE that indicates whether measurement gap is required for the UE to perform measurements on an NR target band [0045]);
Regarding Claim 18,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 17.
Chen further teaches wherein the configuring includes configuring whether the UE is to use the interruption based on the bandwidth capability of the UE and a network bandwidth capability of the wireless communication network ([0044][0045]).
Regarding Claim 20,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 17.
Chen further teaches receiving, at the wireless communication network, a report of a need for an interruption from the UE when the resource is outside the corresponding active BWP of the resource ([0039]-[0045]).
Claims 3-7, 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, and Ma, and in further view of Sharma et al. (US 20230130297 A1), hereinafter Sharma.
Regarding Claim 3,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen and Ma do not explicitly teach wherein the interruption is used by the processor to perform the at least one L1 measurement using the resource outside the corresponding active BWP, and wherein the interruption includes a predetermined time period during which the apparatus does not perform data transmission or data reception before and after an SSB-based measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window.
Sharma teaches wherein the interruption is used by the processor to perform the at least one L1 measurement using the resource outside the corresponding active BWP (The L1 measurement gaps 630 [0075], Fig. 6), and wherein the interruption includes a predetermined time period during which the apparatus does not perform data transmission or data reception before and after an SSB-based measurement timing configuration (SMTC) window (the UE may be able to switch from the active BWP to the initial BWP, measure one or more SSBs 650 … and return to the active BWP within the L1 MGL 612 [0075][0076], Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Sharma to the teachings of Chen and Ma. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a reduce capability UE to perform L1 measurement despite lack of an SSB transmitted on an active BWP (Sharma [0030]).
Regarding Claim 4 (as best understood by the examiner),
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen and Ma do not explicitly teach performing an L1 measurement according to an interruption ratio of the interruption to the corresponding active BWP.
Sharma teaches performing an L1 measurement according to an interruption ratio of the interruption to the corresponding active BWP (the L1 MGL 612 may be specified in terms of a RF retuning time, a scaling factor (K) based on a number of configured L1 measurement resources (e.g., SSBs 650…), and a length of a downlink slot… In some implementations, the L1 MGL 612 may be computed based on a known RF retuning time (e.g., 0.5 ms for FR1), known length of a downlink slot (e.g., based on sub-carrier spacing), and configured measurement resources without explicit signaling of the L1 MGL 612 [0075][0076], Fig. 6 and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Sharma to the teachings of Chen and Ma. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a reduce capability UE to perform L1 measurement despite lack of an SSB transmitted on an active BWP (Sharma [0030]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen and Ma do not explicitly teach performing an L1 measurement according to an interruption length of the interruption to the corresponding active BWP.
Sharma teaches performing an L1 measurement according to an interruption length of the interruption to the corresponding active BWP (the L1 MGL 612 may be specified in terms of a RF retuning time, a scaling factor (K) based on a number of configured L1 measurement resources (e.g., SSBs 650…), and a length of a downlink slot… In some implementations, the L1 MGL 612 may be computed based on a known RF retuning time (e.g., 0.5 ms for FR1), known length of a downlink slot (e.g., based on sub-carrier spacing), and configured measurement resources without explicit signaling of the L1 MGL 612 [0076], Fig. 6 and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Sharma to the teachings of Chen and Ma. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a reduce capability UE to perform L1 measurement despite lack of an SSB transmitted on an active BWP (Sharma [0030]).
Regarding Claims 6 (as best under stood by the examiner) and 7, are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5, where Sharma further teaches determining a value of an interruption ratio based on the interruption length and a measurement cycle length with respect to the corresponding active BWP ( [0076], Fig. 6 and [0084]); Sharma teaches wherein a data transmission and a data reception by the apparatus are interrupted based on the interruption length and a measurement cycle length with respect to the corresponding active BWP ([0076], Fig. 6 and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Sharma to the teachings of Chen and Ma. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a reduce capability UE to perform L1 measurement despite lack of an SSB transmitted on an active BWP (Sharma [0030]).
Regarding Claim 10,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen further teaches the reporting includes reporting a need for the interruption in order to perform an RF re-turning to enlarge a bandwidth of the corresponding active BWP for conducting the at least one measurement ([0037]-[0045] [0053]).
Chen and Ma do not explicitly teach the at least one L1 measurement including a L1-reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) measurement, a L1-signal to interference plus noise ratio (L1-SINR) measurement, or a L1-reference signal received quality (L1-RSRQ) measurement.
Sharma teaches the at least one L1 measurement including a L1-reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) measurement, a L1-signal to interference plus noise ratio (L1-SINR) measurement, or a L1-reference signal received quality (L1-RSRQ) measurement (L1-RSRP, for example [0030][0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Sharma to the teachings of Chen and Ma. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a reduce capability UE to perform L1 measurement despite lack of an SSB transmitted on an active BWP (Sharma [0030]).
Regarding Claim 11,
Chen and Ma teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen further teaches the reporting includes reporting a need for the interruption in order to perform the at least one measurement ([0037]-[0045]).
Chen and Ma do not explicitly teach the at least one L1 measurement including one or more of a radio link monitoring (RLM) measurement, a beam failure detection (BFD) measurement, or a candidate beam detection (CBD) measurement.
Sharma teaches the at least one L1 measurement including one or more of a radio link monitoring (RLM) measurement, a beam failure detection (BFD) measurement, or a candidate beam detection (CBD) measurement (perform L1 measurements for radio link monitoring (RLM), beam failure detection (BFD), candidate beam detection (CBD), … [0030][0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Sharma to the teachings of Chen and Ma. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a reduce capability UE to perform L1 measurement despite lack of an SSB transmitted on an active BWP (Sharma [0030]).
Regarding claim 19 “method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 or 5 “apparatus”, where Chen teaches both method and apparatus (Chen [0147], Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYMAN A ABAZA whose telephone number is (571)270-0422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. 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, Deborah Reynolds, can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465