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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (11,576,070) in view of Joseph et al. (2020/0045655) .
For independent claim 1, Dutta et al. (11,576,070) discloses an apparatus comprising
one or more memories; and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more memories comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the UE to ( See column 2 lines 44-55) : receive an indication of a set of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs) ; receive an indication of a set of physical cell identifiers (PCIs) associated with the set of SSBs, wherein the set of PCIs are stored in association with the set of SSBs ( See column 2 lines 44-60 and paragraph 96 lines 1-7); and refrain from performing a measurement on a first SSB, in the set of SSBs ( See column 2 lines 44-60 and paragraph 96 lines 1-7).
For independent claim 1, Dutta et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the first SSB is associated with a same PCI, in the set of PCIs, as a second SSB that is included in the set of SSBs and is measured in a communications network. Joseph et al. from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches a provision of wherein the first SSB is associated with a same PCI, in the set of PCIs, as a second SSB that is included in the set of SSBs and is measured in a communications network ( See details of box 720 in Figure 7). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use wherein the first SSB is associated with a same PCI, in the set of PCIs, as a second SSB that is included in the set of SSBs and is measured in a communications network as taught by Joseph et al. (2020/0045655) in the communications network of Dutta et al. (11,576,070 for the purpose of using the same PCI in the network.
The independent claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as indicating in claim 1.
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.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (11,576,070) in view of Joseph et al. (2020/0045655) and further in view of Lee ( 12,149,974).
For dependent claims 2 and 15, Dutta et al. (11,576,070) in view of Joseph et al. (2020/0045655) disclose all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of MeasObjects in a communications network. Lee from the same or similar fields of endeavor a provision of the Measobjects ( See paragraph 73 lines 1-4). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the MeasObjects as taught by Lee in the communications network of Dutta et al. (11,576,070) in view of Joseph et al. (2020/0045655) for the purpose of using the specific software in the network.
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.
Claim 28 is Dutta et al. (11,576,070) in view of Venugopal ( 2021/0194545).
For independent claim 28, Dutta et al. (11,576,070) discloses all the subject matter of the claimed invention with the exception of selecting to maximize a quantity of PCI in the network. Venugopal from the same or similar fields of endeavor a provision of the selection to maximize a quantity of PCI ( See paragraph 0097 lines 1-10). Thus, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the selection to maximize a quantity of PCI ( See paragraph 0097 lines 1-10) as taught by Venugopal in the communications network of Dutta et al. (11,576,070) for the purpose of using the selection to maximize a quantity of PCI ( See paragraph 0097 lines 1-10) in the network.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Venugopal et al. (2022/0225249) is cited to show a system which is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Claims 3-13, 16-27, and 29-30 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANG T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-3171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 5:30 AM to 3:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/DANG T TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /D.T.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights