DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 07/07/2026 has been entered and made of record.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Inventions I, claims 1-14, 17-18 and 20, and withdrawn of Inventions II, claims 15-16 and 19, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 15-16 and 19 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-14, 17-18 and 20 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “an association degree between a Gap and a measurement object or a radio access type” and “the priority of the Gap used only for a first measurement object or a first radio access type is higher than the priorities of other Gaps”. It is not clear to Examiner what association degree really measures. For example, based on specification, non-exclusive association means a measurement object is associated with a plurality of Gaps (specification PGPUB paragraph [0117]: “a Gap that is exclusively associated with measured objects or RATs has a higher priority than a non-exclusively associated Gap. The non-exclusive association means that a measurement object associated by the Gap is associated to a plurality of Gaps”), i.e. one measurement object can have multiple gaps, which is different from one gap can be in multiple measurement objects. It is not clear to Examiner whether association degree means to measure one measurement object has how many multiple Gaps or one Gap is in how many measurement objects. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph.
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 1-5, 10-12, 14, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axmon et al. (US 20240244469 A1), hereinafter “Axmon”, in view of Li et al. (US 20250227528 A1), hereinafter “Li”.
Per claim 1, 17, 18 and 20:
Regarding claim 1, Axmon teaches ‘A Gap conflict processing method’ (Axmon: [0016]: “a method implemented in a wireless device (WD) which has been configured with concurrent measurement gap patterns. The method comprises determining, based on a threshold value, whether two measurement gaps in the concurrent measurement gap patterns are too close to each other in time. The method comprises, based on the determination, determining whether to use the two measurement gaps for performing measurements”; [FIG.19]: block 110: “Determine whether there are conflicts between concurrent measurement gaps”, block 120: “For each conflict, determine which gap to keep and which gap to cancel”; [0039]: “FIG. 19 is an example flow chart for steps in a WD”; [0002]: “a wireless device (WD, also called user equipment or UE)”);
‘comprising:
determining, by a terminal, a first Gap according to priorities or sharing factors of at least two Gaps which conflict with each other, wherein the first Gap is any one of the following: a Gap, having the highest priority, of the two Gaps which conflict with each other’ (Axmon: [FIG.19]: block 120: “For each conflict, determine which gap to keep”; [0131]: “the WD 22 may determine which of the two measurement gaps to keep according to a rule”; [0151]: “the WD 22 may use other concurrent gap sharing mechanism as indicated by the network node 16, e.g., through a RRC message, to determine which gap shall be canceled”; [FIG.18]: “MGRP2” > “MGRP1” => keep “MGP2” and cancel “MGP1”, i.e. prioritize gap with longer repetition cycle; [0131]-[0149]: different rules to keep or cancel a gap). However, Axmon fails to expressly teach use (keep) the gap with higher priority of the two gaps according to priorities;
‘a Gap, having the lowest sharing factor, of the two Gaps which conflict with each other’ (this is optional);
‘using, by the terminal, the first Gap’ (Axmon: [FIG.19]: block 130: “Carry out activities associated with measurements in gaps in the measurement gaps that are kept”, use the gap kept);
‘ignoring, by the terminal, a first time period, which conflicts with the first Gap, in a second Gap, wherein the second Gap is a Gap which conflicts with the first Gap’ (Axmon: [FIG.19]: block 120: “For each conflict, determine … which gap to cancel”; [0048]: “the WD further determines based on one or more rules, which one of the gaps the WD can cancel, and further cancels the determined gap”; [0098]: “avoid performing measurements during the cancelled at least one measurement gap”; [TABLE 1]: “mgl is the measurement gap length”, time period of a gap; [FIG.18]: “
PNG
media_image1.png
199
203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” => ignore the time period of MGP1);
‘in a case that at least two Gaps partially overlap’ (Axmon: [FIG.2]: “(c)” => “Fully partial overlapped (FPO) … is partially overlapped”); ‘at least two Gaps fully overlap’ (Axmon: [FIG.2]: “(b)” => “Fully-overlapping”); ‘a time distance between at least two Gaps is less than a preset threshold, it is determined that the at least two Gaps conflict with each other’ (Axmon: [FIG.18]: “
PNG
media_image2.png
102
146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”, [0163]: “the WD 22 finds that starting points of the gaps are less than Δms apart”; [0108]: “Comparing the magnitude of the difference (T11−T21) between the starting points in time of the individual gaps in time with certain threshold (Δ)”; [0116]: “the value of Δ may be configured by the network node”, the value of threshold (Δ) is preset (configured by network)).
Li in the same field of endeavor teaches use measurement gap with higher priority based on priority rule (Li: [0056]: “The measurement gap sharing rule can also be referred to as an activation rule, a cancel rule, a priority rule, a muting rule”; [0097]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap”; [0165]: “MG1 has higher priority in the first periodicity, and measurement occurs in MG1”; [0174]: “Setting priority on MG will always prioritize one gap when overlapping happens”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 17, Axmon teaches ‘A Gap conflict processing method’ (Axmon: [0018]: “a method implemented in a network node. The network node is configured to communicate with a WD which has been configured with concurrent measurement gap patterns. The method comprises determining, based on a threshold value, whether two measurement gaps in the concurrent measurement gap patterns are too close to each other in time. The method comprises based on the determination, determining whether to permit the WD to use the two measurement gaps for measurements”; [FIG.20]:block 210: “Determine whether there are conflicts between concurrent measurement gaps”, block 220: “For each conflict, determine which gap to keep and which gap to cancel”; [0040]: “FIG. 20 is an example flow chart for steps in a network node”);
‘comprising:
determining, by a network side device, a first Gap according to priorities or sharing factors of at least two Gaps which conflict with each other, wherein the first Gap is any one of the following: a Gap, having the highest priority, of the two Gaps which conflict with each other’ (Axmon: [FIG.20]: block 220: “For each conflict, determine which gap to keep”; [0131]: “the WD 22 may determine which of the two measurement gaps to keep according to a rule”; [0151]: “the WD 22 may use other concurrent gap sharing mechanism as indicated by the network node 16, e.g., through a RRC message, to determine which gap shall be canceled”; [FIG.18]: “MGRP2” > “MGRP1” => keep “MGP2” and cancel “MGP1”, i.e. prioritize gap with longer repetition cycle; [0131]-[0149]: different rules to keep or cancel a gap; [0172]: “A network node 16 that takes measurement gaps into account in the scheduling, i.e., which allocates the WD 22 for uplink transmission and/or downlink reception only outside radio time used for measurement gaps, follows essentially the same rules as the WD”);
‘a Gap, having the lowest sharing factor, of the two Gaps which conflict with each other’ (this is optional);
‘using, by the network side device, the first Gap’ (Axmon: [FIG.20]: block 230: “Do not schedule WD on downlink and/or uplink radio time overlapped by kept measurement gaps”, use the gap kept for measurement);
‘ignoring, by the network side device, a first time period, which conflicts with the first Gap, in a second Gap, wherein the second Gap is a Gap which conflicts with the first Gap’ (Axmon: [FIG.20]: block 220: “For each conflict, determine … which gap to cancel”; TABLE 1]: “mgl is the measurement gap length”, time period of a gap; [FIG.18]: “
PNG
media_image1.png
199
203
media_image1.png
Greyscale
” => ignore the time period of MGP1);
‘in a case that at least two Gaps partially overlap’ (Axmon: [FIG.2]: “(c)” => “Fully partial overlapped (FPO) … is partially overlapped”); ‘at least two Gaps fully overlap’ (Axmon: [FIG.2]: “(b)” => “Fully-overlapping”); ‘a time distance between at least two Gaps is less than a preset threshold, it is determined that the at least two Gaps conflict with each other’ (Axmon: [FIG.18]: “
PNG
media_image2.png
102
146
media_image2.png
Greyscale
”, [0163]: “the WD 22 finds that starting points of the gaps are less than Δms apart”; [0108]: “Comparing the magnitude of the difference (T11−T21) between the starting points in time of the individual gaps in time with certain threshold (Δ)”; [0116]: “the value of Δ may be configured by the network node”, the value of threshold (Δ) is preset (configured by network)).
Li in the same field of endeavor teaches use measurement gap with higher priority based on priority rule (Li: [0056]: “The measurement gap sharing rule can also be referred to as an activation rule, a cancel rule, a priority rule, a muting rule”; [0097]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap”; [0165]: “MG1 has higher priority in the first periodicity, and measurement occurs in MG1”; [0174]: “Setting priority on MG will always prioritize one gap when overlapping happens”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 18, Axmon teaches ‘A terminal’ (Axmon: [FIG.7]: “Wireless Device”); ‘comprising a processor and a memory’ (Axmon: [FIG.7]: “Wireless Device” => “Processor”, “Memory”); ‘wherein the memory stores a program or instructions runnable on the processor, the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, implements/implement’ (Axmon: [0080]: “The WD 22 includes memory 88 that is configured to store data, programmatic software code and/or other information described herein. In some embodiments, the software 90 and/or the client application 92 may include instructions that, when executed by the processor 86 and/or processing circuitry 84, causes the processor 86 and/or processing circuitry 84 to perform the processes described herein with respect to WD”).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘the steps of the Gap conflict processing method according to claim 1’ (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Axmon teaches ‘A network side device’ (Axmon: [FIG.7]: “Network Node”); ‘comprising a processor and a memory’ (Axmon: [FIG.7]: “Network Node” => “Processor”, “Memory”); ‘wherein the memory stores a program or instructions runnable on the processor; and the program or the instructions, when executed by the processor, implements/implement’ (Axmon: [0076]: “The memory 72 is configured to store data, programmatic software code and/or other information described herein. In some embodiments, the software 74 may include instructions that, when executed by the processor 70 and/or processing circuitry 68, causes the processor 70 and/or processing circuitry 68 to perform the processes described herein with respect to network node”).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘the steps of the Gap conflict processing method according to claim 17’ (see rejection of claim 17 above).
Regarding claim 2, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Axmon teaches ‘using, by the terminal, a second time period, which does not conflict with the first Gap, in the second Gap’ (Axmon: [FIG.2]: “(a)” => “Fully non-overlapped”; [FIG.15]: use both “MGP1” and “MGP2”);
‘ignoring, by the terminal, the second time period, which does not conflict with the first Gap, in the second Gap’ (this is optional).
Regarding claim 3, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 3 (discussed above).
Axmon teaches ‘wherein in a case that the terminal ignores the second time period, which does not conflict with the first Gap, in the second Gap, the method further comprises: performing, by the terminal, data transmission in the second time period’ (Axmon: [FIG.2]: “(a)” => “Fully non-overlapped”; [TABLE 1]: “mgl is the measurement gap length”, time period of a gap; [0116]: “In case of larger buffer size larger value of Δ may be used compared to the value of Δ when the buffer size is smaller. This will enable the WD 22 to drop or cancel gaps even if they are not too close when the WD 22 has substantial outstanding traffic to transmit”, cancel (ignore) the non-conflict gap and transmit data in the time period of non-conflict gap).
Regarding claim 4, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘determining, by the terminal, a priority of the Gap according to related information of a Gap’ (Axmon: [FIG.18]: “MGRP2” > “MGRP1” => keep “MGP2” and cancel “MGP1”, i.e. prioritize gap with longer repetition cycle. Li: [0097]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap”);
‘wherein the related information of the Gap comprises at least one of: a Gap purpose’ (Axmon: [0142]: “measurement purpose”); ‘an association degree between the Gap and a measurement object or a radio access type; a Gap parameter; or a Gap type’ (these are optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of priority rule with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 5, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 4 (discussed above).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘determining, by the terminal, that the priority of a task-related Gap is higher than the priority of a Gap for another purpose’ (Li: [0097]-[0098]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap … the gap for handover (HO) measurements/Paging monitoring/RACH transmission/SI acquisition has higher priority than the gap for measurements”, gap for positioning (task-specific) or gap for handover (task-specific));
‘the task-related Gap comprises at least one of: a MUSIM periodic Gap; a MUSIM paging Gap; a MUSIM aperiodic Gap; a Gap for a signaling process’ (these are optional); ‘a Gap for positioning measurement’ (Axmon: [0142]: “positioning measurements”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of priority rule with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 10, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 4 (discussed above).
Axmon teaches ‘wherein the Gap parameter comprises: at least one of a repetition cycle of the Gap’ (Axmon: [TABLE 1]: “mgrp is measurement gap repetition period”); ‘a Gap length, or Gap start time’ (these are optional);
‘the determining, by the terminal, a priority of the Gap according to a Gap parameter comprises:
determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the Gap with a large cycle is higher than the priority of the Gap with a small cycle’ (Axmon: [FIG.18]: “MGRP2” > “MGRP1” => keep MGP2 and cancel MGP1, i.e. prioritize gap with large cycle; [0165]: “Scenario A where MGRP2>2×MGRP1 … consistently cancels measurement gaps from MGP1 only”);
‘determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the Gap with a small length is higher than the priority of the Gap with a large length; or, determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the Gap with early start time is higher than the priority of the Gap with late start time; or, determining, by the terminal, that the Gap of which a ratio of a time length of a conflicting part to the Gap is smaller has a higher priority’ (these are optional).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 4 (discussed above).
Axmon teaches ‘wherein the Gap type’ (Axmon: [0135]-[0142]: “concurrent gap … types of measurements”); ‘comprises at least one of: a preconfigured Gap; a parallel Gap; a Gap configured with an association relationship; a network controlled small Gap; an autonomous Gap’ (these are optional); ‘a positioning Gap for positioning measurement’ (Axmon: [0142]: “positioning measurements (e.g., measurements done on PRS”); ‘a MUSIM Gap; an uplink Gap; a measurement Gap not configured with an association relationship; a Gap of a master cell group; or a Gap of a secondary cell group’ (these are optional).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 11 (discussed above).
Combination of Axmon and Li ‘wherein the determining, by the terminal, a priority of the Gap according to a Gap type’ (Axmon: [0131]: “the WD 22 may determine which of the two measurement gaps to keep according to a rule”; [0142]: “cancels a gap based on … types of measurements”, prioritize a gap based on gap type. Li: [0097]: “priority rule”; [0058]: “different priority of different type of measurements”; [0122]: “the gap scaling indication can be used to indicate which group of gaps shall be prioritized once overlap occurs”);
‘comprises at least one of: determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the Gap of the master cell group is higher than the priority of the Gap of the secondary cell group’ (Axmon: [0004]: “the WD creates gaps on all the serving cells (e.g., PCell, PSCell, SCells”; [TABLE 1]: “EN-DC”. ” Li: [0099]: “the gap for PCell L3 measurements has higher priority than the gap for inter-frequency/inter-RAT measurements” => for EN-DC, gap for secondary cell group (PSCell and its SCells) is inter-RAT measurements and so has lower priority than gap for master cell group (PCell and its SCells));
‘determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the network controlled small Gap is lower than the priorities of other types of Gaps; determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the network controlled small Gap is higher than the priority of the autonomous Gap; or determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the measurement Gap not configured with an association relationship is higher than the priority of the autonomous Gap’ (these are optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of scaling with that of Axmon in order to prioritize measurement gaps in case overlap occurs (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 14, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘receiving, by the terminal, first configuration information sent by a network side device, wherein the first configuration information comprises: priority indication information of the Gap’ (Axmon: [0005]: “A radio resource control (RRC) message for measurement gap configuration provided by a network node to a WD is shown below”; [0006]: “MeasGapConfig”; [TABLE 1]; [0010]: “five major scenarios for concurrent gaps, see FIG. 2”. Li: [0183]: “The network can configure an indication map to the UE together with each gap to indicate the priority of this gap if a collision happens between gaps”);
‘determining, by the terminal, the priority of the Gap according to the first configuration information, wherein the priority indication information is used for indicating a priority level of the Gap, or a priority value of the Gap’ (Li: [0169]: “a gap indication rule, the network node indicates to the UE the used MGs and the unused MGs in each occasion/periodicity, and UE follows the indications”; [0175]: “a gap indication rule is a general type of sharing rule and priority rule and can transform to a sharing rule and priority rule”; [0058]: “different priority of MGs or MGP sets, or different priority of different type of measurements. Examples of priority levels are: (low or high), or (low, medium and high) or multi-level (e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . . P, where 0 is lowest and P is highest”; [0097]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap”);
‘wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the terminal, second configuration information sent by a network side device, wherein the second configuration information comprises: the sharing factors corresponding to the various Gaps, or the sharing factors corresponding to various Gap types; and determining, by the terminal according to the second configuration information, the sharing factors of the various Gaps which conflict each other; wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the terminal, a target time length suitable for the sharing factors of the various Gaps; wherein the target time length is configured by a network or pre-appointed’ (these are optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of priority rule with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Axmon and Li as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Ingale et al. (US 20220279469 A1), hereinafter “Ingale”.
Regarding claim 6, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 4 (discussed above).
Axmon does not expressly teach, but Li teaches ‘determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the MUSIM Gap is higher than the priority of the Gap for another purpose’ (Axmon: [0097]: “the measurement gap for measurements in Idle mode cell reselection in MUSIM has lower priority than other measurement gap for RS based measurements in CONNECTED mode”, priority data session on current USIM instead of measurement gap for another USIM; [0118]: “a gap scaling indication can be applied for MUSIM gaps”; [0122]: “the gap scaling indication can be used to indicate which group of gaps shall be prioritized once overlap occurs”). However, combination of Axmon and Li fails to expressly teach MUSIM Gap is higher priority than gap for another purpose;
‘the MUSIM Gap comprises at least one of: a MUSIM periodic Gap’ (Li: [TABLE 1]: “mgrp is measurement gap repetition period”; [FIG.6]: “
PNG
media_image3.png
58
342
media_image3.png
Greyscale
”; [0006]: “Each individual MGP in the C-MGP can be periodic”); ‘a MUSIM aperiodic Gap’ (this is optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of scaling with that of Axmon in order to prioritize measurement gaps in case overlap occurs (see reference quotes in element above).
Ingale in the same field of endeavor teaches activity such as CMAS/ETWS on second USIM has higher priority than data session on current (first) USIM (Ingale: [0083]: “the activity on the second USIM is of higher priority than the data session on the first USIM or the paging message indicates CMAS/ETWS notification based on which the UE (100) decides to take action to acquire the warning messages broadcasted by the second USIM”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ingale’s teaching with that of combination of Axmon and Li to prioritize MUSIM Gap over gap for another purpose in order to acquire the warning messages broadcasted by the second USIM (see reference quotes in element above).
Regarding claim 8, combination of Axmon, Li and Ingale teaches the method according to claim 6 (discussed above).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the Gap for positioning measurement is higher than the priority of the Gap for another purpose’ (Axmon: [0142]: “positioning measurements”. Li: [0097]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap”);
‘wherein in a case that the Gaps which conflict with each other comprise at least one Gap for positioning measurement, the method further comprises: determining, by the terminal, that a first Gap pattern for positioning measurement has a high priority’ (Axmon: [FIG.18]: prioritize “MGP2” over “MGP1”; [0009]: “concurrent measurement gap patterns (MGP)”. Li: [FIG.3]: “MGP1”, “MGP2”, [0075]: “the C-MGP includes two measurement gap patterns (MGPs)”; [0178]: “The MGP sets is multiple or at least one MGs which are grouped based on MG's usage, such as MU-SIM, positioning”, gap pattern for positioning has high priority).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of priority rule with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Axmon, Li and Ingale as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Hasegawa et al. (US 20240187903 A1), hereinafter “Hasegawa”.
Regarding claim 7, combination of Axmon, Li and Ingale teaches the method according to claim 6 (discussed above).
Axmon does not expressly teach, but Li teaches ‘wherein in a case that the Gaps which conflict with each other comprise at least one MUSIM Gap’ (Li: [FIG.6]: “MGP #1 (mobility)” conflicts with “MGP #2 (MU-SIM)”);
‘the priorities of the various Gaps meet at least one condition as follows: the MUSIM aperiodic Gap has a high priority’ (Li: [0006]: “concurrent measurement gap patterns (C-MGP) … Each individual MGP in the C-MGP can be periodic (e.g. gap recurs after MGRP) or it can be aperiodic … MGPs belonging to the C-MGP can be aperiodic”, MUSIM aperiodic gap; [0118]: “a gap scaling indication can be applied for MUSIM gaps”; [0122]: “the gap scaling indication can be used to indicate which group of gaps shall be prioritized once overlap occurs”). However, combination of Axmon, Li and Ingale fails to expressly teach aperiodic gap has a high priority;
‘the MUSIM periodic Gap has a high priority; the MUSIM Gap with a specific cycle length has a high priority; and the dedicated MUSIM Gap has a high priority’ (these are optional).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of scaling with that of Axmon in order to prioritize measurement gaps in case overlap occurs (see reference quotes in element above).
Hasegawa in the same field of endeavor teaches aperiodic gap has high priority (Hasegawa: [0154]: “an aperiodic measurement gap may have a higher priority than a periodic or semi-persistent measurement gap”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hasegawa’s teaching with that of combination of Axmon, Li and Ingale for the MUSIM aperiodic Gap to have a high priority in order to prioritize aperiodic gap over other gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Axmon and Li as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 20240276276 A1), hereinafter “Yamamoto”.
Regarding claim 9, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 4 (discussed above).
Combination of Axmon and Li teaches ‘wherein the determining, by the terminal, a priority of the Gap according to an association degree between a Gap and a measurement object or a radio access type comprises: determining, by the terminal, that the priority of the Gap used only for a first measurement object or a first radio access type is higher than the priorities of other Gaps’ (Axmon: [FIG.19]: block 120: “For each conflict, determine which gap to keep”; [0131]: “the WD 22 may determine which of the two measurement gaps to keep according to a rule”; [0131]-[0149]: different rules to keep or cancel a gap. Li: [0097]: “the priority rule can be that the measurement gap for positioning measurement has a higher priority than other measurement gap”). However, combination of Axmon and Li fails to expressly teach an association degree between a Gap and a measurement object and the priority of the Gap used only for a first measurement object is higher than the priorities of other Gaps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li’s teaching of priority rule with that of Axmon in order to prioritize positioning measurement over other measurement gap (see reference quotes in element above).
Yamamoto in the same field of endeavor teaches multiple measure gaps associated with a measurement object (Yamamoto: [0100]: “each of a plurality of measurement gap configurations is associated with the measurement object configuration”) and associate gap for measurement PRS only with a special measurement object identified by a dummy value (Yamamoto: [0101]: “in a case in which the identification information indicates that an associated measurement gap configuration is for measurement of the PRS, a dummy value may be input in a field of an essential information element in the measurement object configuration (MeasObjectNR) including the identification information … the UE 100 (the controller 120) can avoid performing measurement and reporting of the measurement object other than the PRS in the gap pattern for measurement of the PRS”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Yamamoto’s teaching with that of combination of Axmon and Li for the terminal to determine the priority of the Gap used only for a first measurement object or a first radio access type is higher than the priorities of other Gaps in order to prioritize PRS over other gaps by associating gap for PRS only with a special measurement object (see reference quotes in element above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over combination of Axmon and Li as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tang et al. (US 20210410024 A1), hereinafter “Tang”.
Regarding claim 13, combination of Axmon and Li teaches the method according to claim 1 (discussed above).
Axmon teaches ‘wherein in a case that the Gaps which conflict with each other comprise at least one network controlled small Gap, the method further comprises at least one of the following: in a case that a visible interruption length (VIL) comprised in the network controlled small Gap does not conflict with the first Gap, skipping, by the terminal, ignoring the VIL’ (Axmon: [FIG.19]: block 110: “Determine whether there are conflicts between concurrent measurement gaps”, block 120: “For each conflict, determine which gap to keep and which gap to cancel”; [FIG.2]: “(a)” => “Fully non-overlapped”; [FIG.15]: use both “MGP1” and “MGP2”, do not ignore (cancel) for non-conflict gaps; [0116]: “In case of larger buffer size larger value of Δ may be used compared to the value of Δ when the buffer size is smaller. This will enable the WD 22 to drop or cancel gaps even if they are not too close when the WD 22 has substantial outstanding traffic to transmit”, cancel (ignore) the non-conflict gap and transmit data in the time period of non-conflict gap). However, combination of Axmon and Li fails to expressly teach ‘network controlled small Gap’ and ‘in a case that a visible interruption length (VIL) comprised in the network controlled small Gap does not conflict with the first Gap, skipping, by the terminal, ignoring the VIL’;
‘in a case that a part or an entirety of a measurement length (ML) comprised in the network controlled small Gap conflicts with the first Gap, and the first Gap is a per-UE Gap or a Gap with the same frequency range as the network controlled small Gap, skipping, by the terminal, transmitting data in the conflicted ML part’ (these are optional).
Tang in the same field of endeavor teaches network controlled small Gap configuration includes visible interruption length (Tang: [TABLE 1]: “NCSG Configurations supported by the UE”, “Visible interruption length before measurement (VIL1, ms)”, “Visible interruption length after measurement (VIL2, ms)”; [0002]: “network controlled small gap (NCSG)”) and UE should skip ignoring the VIL for non-conflicting gap (Tang: [FIG.4]; [0024]: “In NCSG configurations, during the VIL1 period and the VIL2 period, the UE 110 is not expected to transmit or receive any data”, UE should not ignore the VIL for non-conflicting gap since UE cannot transmit or receive any data during the VIL period).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Tang’s teaching with that of combination of Axmon and Li in order to promote collaboration and inter-operation by conforming to 3GPP on NCSG (Tang: [0002]: “In the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Radio Access Network (RAN) Working Group (WG) 4, also known as RAN4, the concept of a network controlled small gap (NCSG) is being introduced”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220217562 A1 see [FIG.2]-[FIG.7], [0006]-[0038];
US 20220369143 A1 see [FIG.16]-[FIG.17], [0119]-[0121], [0258]-[0271];
US 20240357632 A1 see [0071]-[0084], [0117]-[0119];
US 20240373305 A1 see [FIG.2a]-[FIG.7b], [0004];
US 20110092201 A1 see [Abstract].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUOXING FAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at (571)272-3927. 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.
/G.F./Examiner, Art Unit 2462
/YEMANE MESFIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2462
Prosecution Insights