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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-14, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026, have been fully considered and entered but they are not persuasive / moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Argument related to Double Patent.
… Applicant respectfully submits a Terminal Disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c), which should moot this ground of rejection. Withdrawal of the double patenting rejections of Claims 1 - 6 and 17 is respectfully requested. …
Reply
Please note the applicant did not submit a Terminal Disclaimer. Hence the examiner is keeping the double patent rejection.
First Argument related to claim 1:
… However, Applicant has amended Claim 1 to incorporate a selective determination process based on the bandwidth capability of the apparatus. Applicant emphasizes the non-inevitability of interruptions in the present invention. As disclosed in paragraph [0022] "Such selective use of interruptions may enable the UE 110 to use a resource to perform an L1 measurement for the serving cell regardless of whether the resource is within or outside of its active BWP" of the specification, the present invention is specifically designed to achieve the "selective use of interruptions". Unlike Chen, which mandates a gap based solely on location whenever a resource is outside the BWP, the present invention utilizes a capability-based judgment to reduce unnecessary system interruptions, thereby improving communication efficiency. .
Chen and Ma fail to teach or suggest utilizing the UE's inherent wideband RF.
Reply
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Such selective use of interruptions may enable the UE 110 to use a resource to perform an L1 measurement for the serving cell regardless of whether the resource is within or outside of its active BWP, … utilizing the UE's inherent wideband RF) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For claim 1, it first determines that the resource is outside the corresponding active BWP of the resource then it selectively decide the usage of interruptions based on UE capabilities.
For the comment that Chen, mandates a gap based solely on location whenever a resource is outside the BWP, ….
Chen [0052] describes that UE Capabilities can be used to perform the measurement outside of a measurement gap even if a BWP is not overlapping with the target frequency. For example, the UE may have an additional RF chain or other RF capabilities that allow it to perform the measurement without interfering with communications.
Chen [0053] describe the use of small gaps “ NCSG” if the BWP is adjacent to the carrier to be measured according to the MO. This also satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 “that the apparatus needs the interruption to the…”, which can be interpretated as the need for legacy Gap versus small gaps.
Also Ma teaches that depending on actual different capabilities of the UEs ... [0041] whether the UE requires a gap indication per-CC according to its capabilities after the UE receives measurement configuration…[0043]. Ma further teaches that the UE can report “no gap needed” when its frequency coverage or configuration allows measurement without interruption ([0120]-[0123], [0090]-[0091]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second Argument related to claim 1:
Furthermore, Chen's teaching actually teaches away from the present invention. Paragraph [0039] of Chen explicitly limits "no-gap" scenarios to cases where the resource is "completely contained in the active BWP of the UE". By stating that a gap is required when the target is not contained within the active BWP, Chen leads a person of ordinary skill to believe that such interruptions are unavoidable. This discourages the development of a solution like the present invention, which selectively bypasses interruptions based on hardware capability.
Reply
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Please refer to the first argument where Chen in more than one location [0052][0053] teaches that the UE capability can dictate the need for interruption or for even using small gaps versus legacy gaps.
Argument related to claim 16:
The Examiner contends that Chen teaches performing measurements without interruptions, citing Chen's "no-gap" disclosure in paragraph [0039]. However, Applicant respectfully points out that Chen's teaching of "no-gap" measurements is subject to a strict prerequisite:
"... 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." (Para. [0039] of Chen).
Crucially, when the measurement resource is outside the active BWP, Chen teaches a fundamentally different method:
"Measurement gaps ... may be provided if the UE 104 ... does not contain the intra-frequency target (for example, SSB). In this case, the measurement gap may provide the UE 104 with the time to retune its transceiver to the intra-frequency target..." (Para. [0037] of Chen)
In contrast, the present invention's Claim 16 specifically recites a scenario where, in response to determining that the resource is outside the corresponding active BWP, the apparatus performs the at least one L1 measurement without interrupting the corresponding active BWP.
Chen's explicit disclosure that a gap is a necessity for RF retuning whenever a target is outside the active BWP actually teaches away from the technical path of Claim 16. A person of ordinary skill in the art, following the guidance of Chen, would have been led to believe that an interruption is mandatory for any measurement outside the active BWP. Chen fails to suggest, and in fact discourages, the possibility of performing an "outside BWP" measurement without an interruption. …
Reply
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have "relatively acceptable dimensional stability" and "some degree of flexibility," but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since "Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art." Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Chen in more than one location [0052][0053] teaches that the UE capability can dictate the need for interruption or for even using small gaps versus legacy gaps.
Also Ma teaches that depending on actual different capabilities of the UEs ... [0041] whether the UE requires a gap indication per-CC according to its capabilities after the UE receives measurement configuration…[0043]. Ma further teaches that the UE can report “no gap needed” when its frequency coverage or configuration allows measurement without interruption ([0120]-[0123], [0090]-[0091]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
First argument related to claim 17:
In the cited passages (and elsewhere), the signaling described in Chen is a reporting of a requirement based on pre-defined rules. This is a reactive mechanism where the UE simply checks standardized band combinations to see if a gap is mandated.
In contrast, Claim 17 recites a proactive network-side operation wherein the network receives a bandwidth capability of a UE (e.g., the physical RF width the UE is capable of maintaining), and subsequently configures whether the UE is to use an interruption based at least on that specific bandwidth capability. Unlike Chen, where the configuration is a direct response to a reported requirement that a gap is needed, Claim 17 enables the network to manage measurement behavior based on the UE's actual hardware limits. This allows the network to selectively configure a UE to bypass interruptions if its hardware capability is sufficient to cover the resource outside the BWP. Chen and Ma do not teach or suggest a configuration method driven by physical bandwidth capabilities to selectively control interruption usage. ….
Reply
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Chen, Fig. 5, 508 receive UE capability information. Chen in more than one location [0052][0053] teaches that the UE capability can dictate the need for interruption or for even using small gaps versus legacy gaps.
Also Ma teaches that depending on actual different capabilities of the UEs ... [0041] whether the UE requires a gap indication per-CC according to its capabilities after the UE receives measurement configuration…[0043]. Ma further teaches that the UE can report “no gap needed” when its frequency coverage or configuration allows measurement without interruption ([0120]-[0123], [0090]-[0091]).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 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, determining, by the processor, a need for an interruption based on a bandwidth capability of the apparatus ([0052][0053]; Fig. 5 “508” receive UE capability information) 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 [0045]).
Chen does not explicitly teach determining, by the processor, a need for an interruption based on a bandwidth capability of the apparatus for performing at least one Layer 1 (L1) measurement
Ma teaches determining, by the processor, a need for an interruption based on a bandwidth capability of the apparatus (depending on actual different capabilities of the UEs, one UE may not require a measurement gap in some inter-frequency measurements, ... [0041] indicate whether the UE requires a gap indication per-CC according to its capabilities after the UE receives measurement configuration…. [0043]. UE can report “no gap needed” when its frequency coverage or configuration allows measurement without interruption ([0120]-[0123], [0090]-[0091]); for 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 the 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 the 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 the 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, is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1, where claim 16 further define the need for interruption as “no need” or “no gap”. Ma further teaches that depending on actual different capabilities of the UEs, one UE may not require a measurement gap in some inter-frequency measurements, ... [0041] indicate whether the UE requires a gap indication per-CC according to its capabilities after the UE receives measurement configuration…. [0043], the UE can report “no gap needed” when its frequency coverage or configuration allows measurement without interruption ([0120]-[0123], [0090]-[0091]). Same motivation applied.
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], Fig. 8, Fig. 5 “508” receive UE capability information. Ma further teaches that depending on actual different capabilities of the UEs, one UE may not require a measurement gap in some inter-frequency measurements, ... [0041] indicate whether the UE requires a gap indication per-CC according to its capabilities after the UE receives measurement configuration…. [0043], the UE can report “no gap needed” when its frequency coverage or configuration allows measurement without interruption ([0120]-[0123], [0090]-[0091]). Same motivation applied.
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,
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 a time duration of the interruption to a time duration of a measurement cycle length with respect to the corresponding active BWP.
Sharma teaches performing an L1 measurement according to an interruption ratio of a time duration of the interruption to a time duration of a measurement cycle length with respect 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 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 further 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 the 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights