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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment & remarks filed on 08/06/2026.
Claims 1-14, 16 are currently pending.
Claims 7, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claim 15 is canceled.
Claim 16 is newly added.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 16 are rejected.
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 (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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Imadur Rahman et al (US 20160081020 A1) in view of Susan Sanders et al (US 20240205734 A1).
For Claim 1, Rahman discloses a system comprising: a distributed unit (DU) configured (Rahman teaches, in ¶ 0012, lines 1-5, that UE receives measurement configuration or assistance data/information, which is a message or an Information Element (IE) sent by the network node (e.g., a serving eNB, a positioning node, etc.) to configure the UE to perform the requested measurements) to:
determine, based on an active duration of a Cell Discontinuous Transmission (DTX)/Discontinuous Reception (DRX) cycle associated with an inter-frequency cell, an optimal measurement gap (MG) (Rahman teaches, in FIG. 16, Step 700, that the network node 28 determines reference the RX cycles for the UE 12 for multiple groups of carriers based on one or more predefined rules. Rahman teaches, in ¶ 0095, lines 12-16, that there are measurement gaps to be distributed with respect to the longest DRX cycle (mDRX or sDRX) when assuming aligned DRX cycles and at least one gap being used per ON-duration); and
provide, to a user equipment (UE), information of the MG, wherein the information of the MG is utilized by the UE to perform an inter frequency measurement (Rahman teaches, in FIG. 16, Step 702, that The network node 28 sends, in this example, explicit indicators to the UE 12 for the reference DRX cycles determined for the UE 12 for the multiple groups of carriers. Rahman teaches, in ¶ 0095, lines 12-16, that the indicator enables the UE 12 to determine at least one reference DRX cycle for use by the UE 12 for performing measurements on cells belonging to one or more inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT carrier frequencies or layers).
Rahman fails to expressly disclose an optimal measurement gap.
However, Sanders, in the analogous art, discloses an optimal measurement gap (Sanders teaches, in ¶ 0012, lines 13-20, that if the service information indicates that the UE is to receive an eMBB service, then the RAN device may select a measurement gap configuration optimized for high throughput (e.g., rather than low latency and high reliability)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman with the service-aware measurement gap taught in Sanders. The motivation is to reduce latency, or increase throughput, and, more generally, improve overall network performance [Sanders: ¶ 0012].
For Claim 8, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claims 2-6, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imadur Rahman et al (US 20160081020 A1) in view of Susan Sanders et al (US 20240205734 A1) as applied to claim 1, or 8 above, and further in view of Ericsson (“Solutions for L1/L2 triggered Mobility” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #118, R3-226230, November 14-18, 2022)).
For Claims 2, 9, Rahman and Sanders disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of receiving, from a central unit (CU), a UE Context Setup Request message to prepare a Layer 1/Layer 2 (L1/L2) Triggered Mobility (LTM) candidate cell for the UE; and providing, to the CU, a UE Context Setup Response message comprising the LTM information.
However, Ericsson, in the analogous art, discloses receiving, from a central unit (CU), a UE Context Setup Request message to prepare a Layer 1/Layer 2 (L1/L2) Triggered Mobility (LTM) candidate cell for the UE (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 3, DU receiving, from CU, UE CONTEXT SETUP Request for configuring L1/L2 mobility for candidate cells); and providing, to the CU, a UE Context Setup Response message comprising the LTM information (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 4, DU sending, to CU, UE CONTEXT SETUP RESPONSE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman and Sanders with the use of one
message to signal the candidate target cells taught in Ericsson. The motivation is to avoid the excessive signalling and resulting waste of resources [Ericsson: Page 2, para 2].
For Claims 3, 10, Rahman and Sanders disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of providing, to a central unit (CU), a UE Context Modification Required message comprising the LTM information.
However, Ericsson, in the analogous art, discloses providing, to a central unit (CU), a UE Context Modification Required message comprising the LTM information (Ericsson teaches, on Page 3, para 1, the gNB-DU sends a UE Context Modification Response message to the gNB-CU including the configuration of the L1/L2 triggered mobility candidate target cell. Ericsson teaches, on Page 22, para 1, that Then the gNB-DU shall send the measurement gaps information to the gNB-CU in the MeasGapConfig IE of the Dut to CU RRC Information IE that is included in the UE CONTEXT MODIFICATION RESPONSE message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman and Sanders with the use of one
message to signal the candidate target cells taught in Ericsson. The motivation is to avoid the excessive signalling and resulting waste of resources [Ericsson: Page 2, para 2].
For Claims 4, 11, Rahman and Sanders disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the CU is configured to: generate a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message comprising the configuration of the inter-frequency cell; and provide, to the UE, the RRC Reconfiguration message.
However, Ericsson, in the analogous art, discloses that the CU is configured to: generate a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message comprising the configuration of the inter-frequency cell (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 5, CU sending, to DU, RRC Reconfiguration message); and provide, to the UE, the RRC Reconfiguration message (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 6, DU forwarding the RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman and Sanders with the use of one
message to signal the candidate target cells taught in Ericsson. The motivation is to avoid the excessive signalling and resulting waste of resources [Ericsson: Page 2, para 2].
For Claims 5, 12, Rahman and Sanders disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the CU is configured to: generate a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message comprising information of the inter-frequency measurement; and provide, to the UE, the RRC Reconfiguration message.
However, Ericsson, in the analogous art, discloses that the CU is configured to: generate a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message comprising information of the inter-frequency measurement (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 5, CU sending, to DU, RRC Reconfiguration message); and provide, to the UE, the RRC Reconfiguration message (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 6, DU forwarding the RRC Reconfiguration message to the UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman and Sanders with the use of one
message to signal the candidate target cells taught in Ericsson. The motivation is to avoid the excessive signalling and resulting waste of resources [Ericsson: Page 2, para 2].
For Claims 6, 13, Rahman teaches, in ¶ 0095, lines 12-16, that the UE 12 determines the at least one reference DRX cycle based on the obtained indicator; The UE 12 performs one or more radio measurements on one or more cells of one or more inter-frequency according to the at least one reference DRX cycle; the UE 12 uses the performed one or more radio measurements for one or more purposes or operations, e.g. for cell reselection, reporting measurement results to the network node, positioning of the UE 12, etc.
Rahman and Sanders fail to disclose a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message.
However, Ericsson, in the analogous art, discloses a Radio Resource Control (RRC) Reconfiguration message (Ericsson teaches, in Figure 1, Step 5, CU sending, to DU, RRC Reconfiguration message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman and Sanders with the use of one
message to signal the candidate target cells taught in Ericsson. The motivation is to avoid the excessive signalling and resulting waste of resources [Ericsson: Page 2, para 2].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imadur Rahman et al (US 20160081020 A1) in view of Susan Sanders et al (US 20240205734 A1) & Ericsson (“Solutions for L1/L2 triggered Mobility” 3GPP TSG-RAN WG3 Meeting #118, R3-226230, November 14-18, 2022)) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of ALFARHAN FARIS Alfarhan et al (WO 2024242695 A2).
For Claim 16, Rahman, Sanders and Ericsson disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception that the Cell DTX/DRX cycle corresponds to a cycle of the inter-frequency cell entering a sleep mode and a wake-up mode, such that the active duration of the Cell DTX/DRX cycle corresponds to the wake-up mode of the inter-frequency cell and a non-active duration of the Cell DTX/DRX cycle corresponds to the sleep mode of the inter-frequency cell in which the inter-frequency cell reduces power consumption.
However, Alfarhan, in the analogous art, discloses the Cell DTX/DRX cycle corresponds to a cycle of the inter-frequency cell entering a sleep mode and a wake-up mode, such that the active duration of the Cell DTX/DRX cycle corresponds to the wake-up mode of the inter-frequency cell and a non-active duration of the Cell DTX/DRX cycle corresponds to the sleep mode of the inter-frequency cell in which the inter-frequency cell reduces power consumption (Alfarhan teaches, in ¶ 0193, a certain measurement gap configuration is applicable when the cell DTX mode changes from active to inactive, a certain measurement gap configuration is applicable when the cell DTX is (de)-activated, and another measurement gap configuration is applicable when cell DTX mode changes from inactive to active. A cell DTX mode configuration may be associated with one or more measurement gap configuration).
Alfarhan also teaches, in ¶ 0092, that the WTRU may determine whether the WTRU can transmit or receive on certain resources depending on a network availability state, which implies the gNB’s power savings status. An availability state may correspond to a network energy savings state or a gNB activity level. An availability state may be uplink or downlink specific, and may change from symbol to symbol, slot to slot, frame to frame, or on longer duration granularity. The availability state may be determined by the WTRU or indicated by the network. An availability state can be, for example, “On”, “DL and UL active”, “UL only active”, “off”, “reduced Tx power”, “dormant”, “micro sleep”, “light sleep”, or “deep sleep”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system in Rahman, Sanders and Ericsson with signaled NES state taught in Alfarhan. The motivation is to enable the WTRU to adapt its active C-DRX cycle, active spatial elements (e.g., antenna or logical ports), active TRPs, paging occasions as a function of the signaled or determined NES state [Alfarhan: ¶ 0095].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 7, 14 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
“determining whether or not an active duration of the Cell DTX/DRX cycle associated with the inter-frequency cell is shorter than the optimal MG; and based on determining that the active duration is shorter than the optimal MG, performing the inter-frequency measurement over multiple active durations”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will respond in the rebuttal that follows:
Claim Rejection under 35 USC 103
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that "As an initial point, a DU is not suggested anywhere in the references. Instead, Rahman discloses a network node such as an eNB base station, which is not a DU in the art. Because the cited art does not disclose a DU and the Office Action does not account for this deficiency, the rejection must be withdrawn," (remarks, page 8).
In response, and also as an initial matter, Examiner points to Applicant’s own specification, which in ¶ 0033 states in part “Specifically, a disaggregated architecture, defined in one or more 3GPP technical specifications, disaggregates a base station into multiple logical entities. For instance, a gNodeB (gNB) may be disaggregated into a Central Unit (CU) and a Distributed Unit (DU)”. Based on Applicant’s specification, it is clear that Rahman’s gNodeB (gNB) can comprise both a Central Unit (CU) and a Distributed Unit (DU). Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Also, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that "The cited art merely discloses a UE receiving a configuration of a DRX cycle for itself. None of the cited art suggests any CELL DTX/DRX cycle, let alone use of such a cell DTX/DRX cycle for any purpose (including determining a measurement gap)," (remarks, page 9).
First, Examiner would like to restate the claim invention at issue. Claim1 states in part “a Cell Discontinuous Transmission (DTX)/Discontinuous Reception (DRX) cycle associated with an inter-frequency cell”.
And, as Applicant rightly pointed out, Rahman teaches, in ¶ 0095, lines 12-16, that the indicator enables the UE 12 to determine at least one reference DRX cycle for use by the UE 12 for performing measurements on cells belonging to one or more inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT carrier frequencies or layers. Rahman also states in ¶ 0099 that the network node may configure the UE 12 to have different DRX configurations for different CGs, namely, one DRX configuration for the MCG and another DRX configuration for the SCG. To clarify, Rahman teaches in in ¶ 0009 that The MCG and the SCG are defined as follows. The MCG is a group of serving cells associated with the MeNB, and the MCG includes the PCell and optionally one or more SCells. The SCG is a group of serving cells associated with the SeNB, and the SCG includes a Primary Cell of the SCG, which is referred to as the PSCell, and optionally one or more SCells
From the above citations, it is clear to see that Rahman teaches determining, for a UE, at least one DRX configuration for the MCG (i.e., a group of serving cells associated with the MeNB), for use by the UE 12 for performing measurements on cells belonging to one or more inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT carrier frequencies or layers. Since the MCG in “DRX configuration for the MCG” includes the PCell and optionally one or more SCells, the DRX is, under the BRI, a cell DRX associated with an inter-frequency cell.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that "Rahman does not suggest any determination of an optimal MG by the DU based on these DRX cycles and providing information of the same to the UE, or the claim specifically requires the DU to make this determination and to provide information of the optimal measurement gap itself. The Office Action's conflation of determining and providing an indicator of a DRX cycle with determining an optimal MG based on a DRX cycle is plainly erroneous. Simply said, none of the cited art suggests a network node (let alone DU) determination of an MG and providing information on the same," (remarks, pages 9-10).
First, MPEP 2145 admonishes Applicant to beware that “one cannot show nonobviousness 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).”
Little wonder that Examiner indicates in the rejection that Sanders, in the analogous art, discloses an optimal measurement gap (Sanders teaches, in ¶ 0012, lines 13-20, that if the service information indicates that the UE is to receive an eMBB service, then the RAN device may select a measurement gap configuration optimized for high throughput (e.g., rather than low latency and high reliability). Sanders teaches, in ¶ 0028, that As shown at reference 154, the RAN 110 may transmit the measurement gap configuration for reception by the UE 105).
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s remarks, Examiner believes that the applied art, in combination, teaches the determination of an optimal MG and providing the MG information of the same to the UE.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejection be maintained as each, and every element of the claim is disclosed or suggested by the combination of cited art.
Regarding the rejection of independent claim 8, Examiner respectfully submits that this claim is not patentable for at least similar reasons as those provided above with reference to claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, Examiner respectfully submits that these claims are not patentable for at least their respective dependencies, as well as for being rejected on their own merits.
Regarding new claim 16, Examiner respectfully submits that this claim is not patentable for at least its dependency, as well as for being rejected on its own merit. In particular, Alfarhan teaches, in ¶ 0193, a certain measurement gap configuration is applicable when the cell DTX mode changes from active to inactive, a certain measurement gap configuration is applicable when the cell DTX is (de)-activated, and another measurement gap configuration is applicable when cell DTX mode changes from inactive to active. A cell DTX mode configuration may be associated with one or more measurement gap configuration.
For at least these reasons, the pending claims are not yet allowable.
Accordingly, Examiner respectfully requests that the rejections be maintained as proper.
In light of the above rebuttal and rejection, Examiner believes that this instant rejection should be made final.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. ELSHAFIE et al (US 20240276364 A1) teaches that a user equipment (UE) may receive, from a network node, an indication of a network capability for low power cell wake-up signal (LP-C-WUS) reception. The UE may transmit, to the network node, an indication of a UE capability for LP-C-WUS transmission. The UE may receive, from the network node, a cell discontinuous reception (DRX) configuration indicating one or more LP-C-WUS monitoring occasions in a cell DRX cycle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-4PM.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights