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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 05/05/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/remarks filed on 05/05/2026 with respect to claim(s) 32 and the similarly amended independent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Upon further consideration, the previously cited prior art reference(s) Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200322827) does address the new amended limitations set forth within independent claim(s) 32. Therefore, new rejections have been formulated to address the limitations as set forth in independent claim 32 and the similarly amended independent and their respective dependent claims.
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 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.
Claim(s) 32, 34-35, 37-41, 43-44, 46-47, 63, 65-70 and 72-74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200322827), in view of Callender et al. (US. Pub. 20200288337).
Regarding claim 32 Yao disclose, a wireless device for transitioning between measurement gap patterns, MGPs para. 124, “gap configuration may include a plurality of patterns, and parameter configurations (such as an MGL, a measurement gap repetition period”, the wireless device comprising:
a memory storing instructions read as “a memory” see para. 64; and
a processor read as “a processor” see para. 64 operable to execute the instructions to cause the wireless device to:
detect a triggering event for transitioning from a first MGP to a second MGP para. 135, “the first device may send the first gap configuration to the second device again based on the first measurement message or the time parameter configuration”;
perform at least one task according to the second MGP based on the first set of properties associated with the first MGP read as: “the first gap configuration” and the second set of properties associated with the second MGP read as: “the second gap configuration”, para. 135, “The second device receives the message carrying the first gap configuration, and performs the measurement within the measurement gap based on the first gap configuration. The first gap configuration is different from the second gap configuration”.
Yao does not specifically disclose in response to detecting the triggering event. However, Callender teach, “The UE may switch from or to a default BWP, e.g., upon a trigger, timer, counter, or a condition” see para. 158, transition to the second MGP by maintaining a first set of properties associated with the first MGP para. 60, “If the UE changes the active BW part (for example in response to DCI signaling) from the first BW part to the second BW part and vice versa, it changes from a first certain measurement gap (in this case the none-gap pattern) to a second certain measurement gap” and adapt a second set of properties associated with the first MGP to a second set of properties associated with the second MGP para. 60, “a second certain measurement gap (characterized by a certain length, periodicity and offset) and vice versa”.
Yao and Callender are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to channel measurements configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Callender in the system of Yao so the system configures the first preferred measurement gap pattern for the user equipment and change it when the channel conditions change and adapting the configuration. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the configuration can dynamically be modified to improve the quality of services according to the current transmission parameters.
Regarding claim 34 Yao disclose, wherein the second set of properties associated with the second MGP comprises a property or parameter associated with scheduling during measurement gaps para. 4, “The base station may set a measurement gap repetition period and a measurement gap length in the measurement gap repetition period”.
Regarding claim 35 Yao disclose, wherein the first set of properties associated with the first MGP that are used to perform the at least one task according to the second MGP comprises any one or more of:
a property associated with a measurement gap length, MGL para. 4, “a measurement gap length in the measurement gap repetition period”, a property associated with a measurement gap repetition period, MGRP, and a property associated with an offset.
Regarding claim 37 Yao disclose, wherein when performing the at least one task the wireless device is adapted to perform at least one of:
perform at least one measurement during a measurement gap according to the second MGBP para. 4, “the terminal device continues to perform the inter-frequency measurement within a measurement gap length in a next measurement gap period”, and receive scheduling during a measurement gap of the second MGP when the measurement gap is not used for measurements. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Regarding claim 38 Yao disclose, wherein when detecting the triggering event for transitioning from the first MGP to the second MGP the wireless device is adapted to receive at least one message from a network node para. 135, “the first device may send the first gap configuration to the second device again based on the first measurement message or the time parameter configuration”.
Regarding claim 39 Yao disclose, wherein the at least one message comprises at least one of: a configuration of a signal, a measurement or measurement type, a procedure, a characteristic of a signal or a measurement, an activity or inactivity level, a characteristic associated with a traffic level, and a timing parameter para. 6, “The time parameter configuration is used to configure a time at which the second device sends a first measurement message”.
Regarding claim 40 Yao disclose, wherein when detecting the triggering event for transitioning from the first MGP to the second MGP the wireless device is adapted to perform at least one of: detect a configuration for measurements in a radio access technology para. 135, “the first device may send the first gap configuration to the second device again based on the first measurement message or the time parameter configuration”; detect a configuration or deconfiguration of a number of carrier frequencies for performance of measurements; detect a configuration for measurements on at least one reference signal; and detect a configuration for measurements on a type of reference signal. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Claim 41 recites an apparatus corresponding to the apparatus of claim 32 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 32.
Regarding claims 43,44, 46, 65,66 and 67 the limitations of claims 43,44, 46, and 65-67, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 34,35 and 37, respectively.
Regarding claims 47, 68 and 74 the limitations of claim 47, 68 and 74 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 39.
Regarding claim 63 the limitations of claim 63 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 32.
Regarding claim 69 the limitations of claim 69 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 40.
Regarding claim 70 the limitations of claim 70 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 41.
Regarding claims 72-73 the limitations of claims 72-73, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 35 and 37, respectively.
Claim(s) 33, 42, 64 and 71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200322827), in view of Callender et al. (US. Pub. 20200288337), further in view of Li et al. (EPO. Pub. EP3065443).
Regarding claim 33 Yao and Callender does not specifically disclose wherein:
the first MGP comprises a predefined MGP, PMGP. However, Li teach, “the UE needs to perform identification and measurement according to a pre-configured measurement gap pattern, for example, perform measurement according to a measurement gap pattern 1” see para. 12, and the second MGP comprises a normal MGP, NMGBP para. 18, “the macro base station configures a second measurement gap pattern for the UE, where a measurement gap period in the second measurement gap pattern is less than a measurement gap period in the first measurement gap pattern”, or the first MGP comprises a NMGP and the second MGP comprises a PMGP. The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the first of the alternatives.
Yao, Callender and Li are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to channel measurements configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li in the system of Yao and Callender so the system configures the first preferred measurement gap pattern for the user equipment and updated it when the channel conditions change. The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the configuration can dynamically change to improve the quality of services according to the relevant channel parameters.
Regarding claim 42, 64 and 71 the limitations of claim 42, 64 and 71 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 33.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee et al. (U.S. Pub. 20180295474) which disclose(s) a method and apparatus for transmitting a warning message by using V2X services in a wireless access system.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/R.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights