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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,165 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 12 of the application with claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the patent, claims 1 and 12 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 in that claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 12 of the application. Claims 1 and 12 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,202,219 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 12 of the application with claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the patent, claims 1 and 12 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 in that claims 1, 3, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, and 25 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 12 of the application. Claims 1 and 12 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 18, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,350 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 12 of the application with claims 1, 10, 18, and 21 of the patent, claims 1 and 12 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 10, 18, and 21 in that claims 1, 10, 18, and 21 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 12 of the application. Claims 1 and 12 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 18, 27, 35, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 10,244,419 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because comparing claims 1 and 12 of the application with claims 1, 10, 18, 27, 35, and 36 of the patent, claims 1 and 12 of the application are anticipated by patent claims 1, 10, 18, 27, 35, and 36 in that claims 1, 10, 18, 27, 35, and 36 of the patent contain all the limitations of claim 1 and 12 of the application. Claims 1 and 12 of the application therefore are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagaraja et al. (US 2018/0034611 A1) hereinafter Nagaraja.
Regarding claim 1 – Nagaraja discloses identifying a first one of a plurality of mobility or measurement reference signal (MRS) configurations to be used by a wireless device operating in the wireless communication system, refer to Figures 10, 12, and paragraph [00847] - At 1006, the TRP transmits MRS to the UE periodically based on the MRS configuration. As discussed above, the TRP may transmit MRS according to a periodicity indicated in the MRS configuration in one or more locations in a subframe (e.g., symbols) indicated in the MRS configuration, also, refer to paragraph [00983] - FIG. 12 illustrates an example call flow 1200 of messages exchanged between a TRP and a UE for performing MRS measurements using a semi-persistent MRS configuration, according to an aspect of the present disclosure. As noted above, the TRP can transmit an MRS configuration indicating a periodicity and location of MRSs that the UE can use to generate measurement reports for the MRSs, which may be transmitted to the TRP.
sending, to the wireless device, an activation command indicating the identified first one of the plurality of MRS configurations, refer to Figure 11 and paragraph [0089] - At 1104, the UE receives, from the TRP, a message indicating an activation of MRS training subsequent to receiving the MRS configuration. When the UE receives the message indicating activation of MRS training, the UE can monitor one or more subframes for MRSs based on the periodicity and location indicated in the MRS configuration.
Regarding claim 2 – Nagaraja discloses claim 1. Nagaraja discloses wherein the sending of the activation command is performed using a medium access control (MAC) protocol, refer to paragraph [0081] -The measurement trigger may be transmitted on a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) or in a media access control (MAC) control element (CE) (MAC-CE).
Regarding claim 3 – Nagaraja discloses claim 2. Nagaraja discloses sending to the wireless device, prior to sending the activation command, MRS configuration information specifying the one or more parameters for each of one or more of the plurality of MRS configurations, refer to paragraph [0084] - A semi-persistent MRS configuration may include, for example, a periodicity at which the TRP transmits MRSs, a number of symbols used for training in a subframe in which MRSs are transmitted, an inactivity timer indicating an expiration of the semi-persistent MRS configuration if the inactivity timer expires (e.g., from the TRP not transmitting MRSs during the duration of the inactivity timer or the UE not detecting MRSs during the duration of the inactivity timer), and so on.
Regarding claim 4 – Nagaraja discloses claim 3. Nagaraja discloses wherein the sending of the MRS configuration information is performed by a different network node than the sending of the activation command, refer to Figure 6 and paragraph [0070] - The TRPs 608 may be a distributed unit (DU). The TRPs may be connected to one ANC (ANC 602) or more than one ANC (not illustrated). For example, for RAN sharing, radio as a service (RaaS), and service specific AND deployments, the TRP may be connected to more than one ANC. A TRP may include one or more antenna ports. The TRPs may be configured to individually (e.g., dynamic selection) or jointly (e.g., joint transmission) serve traffic to a UE, also, refer to Figure 7 and paragraph [0074] - A distributed unit (DU) 706 may host one or more TRPs.
Regarding claim 5 – Nagaraja discloses claim 3. Nagaraja discloses wherein the sending of the MRS configuration information is performed using a Radio Resource Configuration (RRC) protocol, refer to paragraph [0085] - In some cases, the semi-persistent MRS configuration may be transmitted using radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
Regarding claim 6 – Nagaraja discloses claim 1. Nagaraja discloses 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising sending, to the wireless device, a deactivation command identifying a second one of the MRS configurations from among the plurality of MRS configurations, the deactivation command indicating that the wireless device is to stop using the second one of the MRS configurations, refer to paragraph [0096] - This call flow may continue until the TRP deactivates MRS training (either explicitly or by not transmitting MRS for an inactivity timer period), also refer to paragraph [0102] - In some cases, the TRP can explicitly deactivate MRS training procedures by transmitting a message indicating a deactivation of MRS training. The message may be transmitted, for example, on PDCCH. When a UE determines that MRS training has been deactivated, the UE need not attempt to decode MRS at the location and periodicity indicated in a previously received MRS configuration.
Regarding claim 7 – Nagaraja discloses claim 1. Nagaraja discloses receiving from the wireless device, at one of the one or more network nodes, a measurement report comprising measurement data for a MRS specified by the first one of the MRS configurations, refer to paragraph [0007] - transmitting RSs to the UE periodically based on the RS configuration, and receiving, from the UE, measurement reports based on the transmitted RS, also, paragraph [0035] - NB 110 (eNB, BS, AP, TRP) may receive a message via a first beam from a UE (e.g., an MRS measurement report).
Regarding claim 8 – Nagaraja discloses claim 1. Nagaraja discloses wherein the first one of the MRS configurations specifies a plurality of MRS's to be measured by the wireless device, each MRS corresponding to a MRS identifier, refer to paragraph [0082] - in response to receiving a CSI-RS (MRS), the UE measures the received CSI-RS (MRS) and generates a report including one or more of the measurement reference signal received power (MRS-RP) and measurement reference signal identifier (MRS-ID).
Regarding claim 9 – Nagaraja discloses claim 8. Nagaraja discloses wherein each MRS identifier corresponds to a predetermined MRS sequence, refer to Figure 3 and paragraph [0050] - The eNB may transmit a cell-specific reference signal (CRS) across the system bandwidth for each cell supported by the eNB. The CRS may be transmitted in certain symbol periods of each subframe and may be used by the UEs to perform channel estimation, channel quality measurement, also, refer to Figure 4 and paragraph [0052] - CRSs may be transmitted on the same or different subcarriers, depending on their cell IDs.
Regarding claim 11 – Nagaraja discloses claim 1. Nagaraja discloses wherein the first one of the MRS configurations specifies one or more of: measurement gaps; and measurement periodicity, refer to paragraph [0084] - A semi-persistent MRS configuration may include, for example, a periodicity at which the TRP transmits MRSs
Regarding claim 12 – Refer to claim 1 for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13 - Refer to claim 2 for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14 - Refer to claim 3 for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15 - Refer to claim 4 for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16 - Refer to claim 5 for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17 - Refer to claim 6 for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18 - Refer to claim 7 for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19 - Refer to claim 8 for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21 - Refer to claim 11 for the rejection of claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicants have claimed uniquely distinct features in the application, which are not found in the prior art, either singularly or in combination. The independent claims identify the following uniquely distinct features:
I. The primary reason for the allowance of the claims are the inclusion of the limitation in the claims which are not found in the prior art references. The following claim elements “wherein the first one of the MRS configurations specifies a search space identifier, the search space identifier” together with the other elements are the reasons for allowance.
1. Regarding claim 10 – The method of claim 1, wherein the first one of the MRS configurations specifies a search space identifier, the search space identifier indicating one of a plurality of transmission resource regions to be used by the wireless device when performing measurements of a MRS specified by the first one of the MRS configurations.
2. Regarding claim 20 – The method of claim 12, wherein the first one of the MRS configurations specifies a search space identifier, the search space identifier indicating one of a plurality of transmission resource regions to be used by the wireless device when performing measurements of a MRS specified by the first one of the MRS configurations, and wherein the searching for the at least one MRS specified by the first one of the MRS configurations is performed using the indicated transmission resource region.
The closest prior art, either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above limitations obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Chen et al. (US 9,456,358 B2) discloses method and apparatus for indication active channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) configurations.
2. Edge et al. (US 2015/0365790 A1) discloses positioning beacons with wireless backhaul.
3. Ma et al. (US 12,149,959 B2) discloses data processing method and device in wireless communication network.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Pezzlo whose telephone number is (571) 272-3090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-0422. 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 and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form .
John Pezzlo
18 August 2026
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465B
Prosecution Insights