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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed July 17, 2026. Claims 1, 9, 11, 19, 21, and 26 have been amended; claims 8 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7, 9-17, and 19-30 are pending and are examined herein. The amendment of independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 to incorporate the subject matter of cancelled claims 8 and 18 necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action, as set forth below. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
The amendment to claim 9 filed July 17, 2026 deletes the word “is” that separated the infinitive clause from its predicate. The amended claim now recites that the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm based at least in part on detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied, which is the reading the non-final Office action adopted for examination. The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in the non-final Office action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed July 17, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 6, 10, 11, 21, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn however, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi.
Furthermore, amended claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 now recite the subject matter of cancelled claims 8 and 18, which the non-final Office action rejected over Nagaraja in view of Kazmi. Nagaraja is applied below to the limitations it was applied to in the non-final Office action, and Kazmi is applied to the third indication and to the switch between the first and second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithms, as set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 below.
In regard to Applicant’s arguments filed on July 17, 2026, the Examiner has fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “this paragraph describes condition-based activation of a pre-configured gap pattern, not switching between two algorithms for selecting a measurement gap scheduling configuration” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 1), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, as the claim language would be read by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111; In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm is a defined procedure by which the UE determines the measurement gap scheduling configuration it uses. The claims do not recite what distinguishes the first selection algorithm from the second, and the specification does not define the term more narrowly: it describes the selection algorithm only by example, as any of an artificial intelligence algorithm, a machine learning algorithm, or a static algorithm, each configured for particular operating scenarios (Specification, para [0117], “the UE 120 may use an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm, a machine learning (ML) algorithm, and/or a static algorithm to determine a respective configuration of one or more parameters of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration”; Specification, para [0117], “each selection algorithm may be configured for particular operating scenarios”), and it describes the configuration so selected as including an activation state of a measurement gap configuration (Specification, para [0112], “a measurement gap configuration activation state (e.g., an enabled state and/or a disabled state for a particular measurement gap configuration)”). Kazmi describes two such procedures. In the gap-based measurement procedure the UE measures using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern (Kazmi, para [0133], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures using a MGP is referred to herein as a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP)”) and determines by rule the time instance from which the gaps are used (Kazmi, para [0192], “The information about the time instance (Tb) is obtained by the UE 312 based on one or more rules, which can be pre-defined, configured by the network node or autonomously determined by the UE”), and in the active BWP based measurement procedure the UE measures without gaps (Kazmi, para [0132], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures within the active BWP is referred to herein as an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP). In BMP, the UE 312 measures without measurement gaps”). Each procedure is a rule by which the UE determines whether, and from when, its configured measurement gaps are used, which is a measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm as claimed. The rejection below no longer relies on paragraph [0019] of Kazmi for the switching limitations.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that “this paragraph describes switching between measurement modes (i.e., pre-configured measurement gaps versus active BWP-based measurement) which is different from switching from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm as recited by claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 as amended” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation set out above, the switch Kazmi describes between its two measurement procedures is a switch between two measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithms. Kazmi further describes that switch as commanded by the network node: the network node switches the active BWP of the UE by DCI or RRC signaling (Kazmi, para [0130], “The UE may anytime be configured by the network node to switch the active BWP(s) on one or more serving cells based on any active BWP switching mechanism such as, e.g., timer based active BWP switching, DCI based active BWP switching, or RRC based active BWP switching”), and that switching action requires the UE to change procedures (Kazmi, para [0232], “if the UE is using GMP and the active BWP switching action (A1) requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs within or less than Ts since the last active BWP switching (A2) that resulted in UE applying the GMP”; Kazmi, para [0199], “The RSs are fully within the BW of the new active BWP (BWP4). This triggers the UE 312 to switch from GMP to BMP to continue performing the measurements on the same RSs (e.g., SSB1)”). In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the two selection algorithms differ in something other than whether, and from when, the configured measurement gaps are used) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP § 2111.01. The label Kazmi gives its procedures, measurement modes rather than selection algorithms, does not distinguish them from the claim, because a reference is evaluated for what it teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art and not for the terminology it uses. See In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990); MPEP § 2131.
As to Applicant’s argument that “Kim and Yi were not relied on to reject the limitations of claim 8, and do not cure the deficiencies of Nagaraja and Kazmi discussed above” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 3), Kim and Yi are not relied on for the third indication or for the switch between the first and second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithms. Kazmi supplies those limitations, Nagaraja supplies the UE-selected and network node selected measurement gap scheduling configurations, and Kim and Yi supply only the limitations of the dependent claims they are applied to, as set forth in the rejections below. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, 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); MPEP § 2145(IV).
As to the dependent claims, Applicant argues them only on the basis of their dependency from claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 (Remarks, page 11, paragraph 1; Remarks, page 12, paragraph 3). Because the independent claims are rejected as set forth below, the dependent claims stand rejected with them.
The amendment of independent claims 1, 11, 21, and 26 necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth below: the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nagaraja in view of Kazmi; the rejection of claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim; and the rejection of claims 7, 20, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Yi.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja (US 2019/0021017 A1) in view of Kazmi (US 2024/0098540 A1).
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Nagaraja discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and, because Nagaraja teaches a UE apparatus 1302’ whose processing system 1414 includes a computer-readable medium/memory 1406 that stores the software the processor executes, which means that the apparatus for wireless communication at a UE comprises one or more memories: (Nagaraja, para [0129] “In one configuration, the apparatus 1302/1302’ for wireless communication is a UE, and may include means for transmitting, to a base station, UE information of the UE”; Nagaraja, para [0128] “The processing system 1414 includes a processor 1404 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1406. The processor 1404 is responsible for general processing, including the execution of software stored on the computer-readable medium/memory 1406”).
Furthermore, Nagaraja discloses: one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured individually or collectively to cause the UE to:, as Nagaraja describes the processor 1404 coupled to that memory and the stored software which, when the processor executes it, causes the processing system of the UE to perform the functions Nagaraja describes for the UE, such that the one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories are configured to cause the UE to carry out the operations that follow: (Nagaraja, para [0128] “The computer-readable medium/memory 1406 may also be used for storing data that is manipulated by the processor 1404 when executing software. The processing system 1414 . . . The components may be software components running in the processor 1404, resident/stored in the computer-readable medium/memory 1406, one or more hardware components coupled to the processor 1404, or some combination thereof.”).
Moreover, Nagaraja discloses: transmit a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration of the set of measurement gap scheduling configurations;, since Nagaraja explains the UE sending the base station a request for the measurement gap pattern the UE has selected, chosen among measurement gaps of different gap durations or periodicities (i.e., “the set of measurement gap scheduling configurations” as claimed), whereby the request is a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration of a set of measurement gap scheduling configurations: (Nagaraja, para [0060] “the UE may send a request for a measurement gap pattern, and the base station may configure the measurement gaps in response to the request, e.g., based on the requested measurement gap pattern”; Nagaraja, para [0063] “the UE may request a subset of measurement gaps, where the measurement gaps may have different gap durations or periodicities”).
In addition, Nagaraja discloses: receive a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration;, in that Nagaraja shows the base station sending back to the UE a measurement request carrying the configuration information for the measurement gaps the base station configured on the basis of the UE information and the UE’s measurement gap configuration request, with the result that the measurement request is a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration: (Nagaraja, para [0113] “The base station may then send back a measurement request (e.g., measurement request 518) including configuration information that defines the measurement gap parameters configured by the base station for the given UE based on the UE information and/or the measurement gap configuration request discussed above”; Nagaraja, para [0071] “the base station 504 may send, to the UE 502, a measurement request 518 including information on the configured measurement gaps (e.g., parameters). The UE 502 may receive the measurement request 518 at 519”).
Although Nagaraja teaches the UE requesting a measurement gap pattern and receiving from the base station the measurement gaps configured in response: (Nagaraja, para [0113]), Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose receive a third indication to switch from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm; and switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm.
However, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses receive a third indication to switch from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm; and given that Kazmi sets out two procedures by which the UE determines how its configured measurement gaps are used: a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP), under which the UE measures using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern (i.e., “a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm” as claimed), and an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP), under which the UE measures without measurement gaps (i.e., “a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm” as claimed). The network node commands the UE to switch its active BWP by DCI or RRC signaling, and an active BWP switching action to a BWP that fully contains the measured reference signals requires the UE to apply the BMP in place of the GMP, so that the DCI or RRC signaling the UE receives from the network node is a third indication to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0133], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures using a MGP is referred to herein as a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP)”; Kazmi, para [0132], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures within the active BWP is referred to herein as an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP). In BMP, the UE 312 measures without measurement gaps”; Kazmi, para [0130], “The UE may anytime be configured by the network node to switch the active BWP(s) on one or more serving cells based on any active BWP switching mechanism such as, e.g., timer based active BWP switching, DCI based active BWP switching, or RRC based active BWP switching”; Kazmi, para [0192], “The triggering conditions enabling the UE to change or switch from GMP to BMP for performing the measurements may comprise an active BWP switching such that after the BWP switching, the RSs used for measurements are fully contained within the BW of the new active BWP”; Kazmi, para [0232], “if the UE is using GMP and the active BWP switching action (A1) requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs within or less than Ts since the last active BWP switching (A2) that resulted in UE applying the GMP”).
Furthermore, Kazmi discloses switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm. because Kazmi teaches the UE, on being switched to an active BWP whose bandwidth fully contains the measured reference signals, changing from the GMP to the BMP and continuing its measurements without gaps from the time instance Tb it determines by rule, which means that the UE switches from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0199], “The RSs are fully within the BW of the new active BWP (BWP4). This triggers the UE 312 to switch from GMP to BMP to continue performing the measurements on the same RSs (e.g., SSB1)”; Kazmi, para [0192], “The information about the time instance (Tb) is obtained by the UE 312 based on one or more rules, which can be pre-defined, configured by the network node or autonomously determined by the UE ... The UE 312 may also start applying the BMP for measurements at or after Tb, i.e. performing measurement without gaps”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of Nagaraja, which requests a measurement gap pattern and receives the measurement gaps the base station configures in response, use those configured gaps under Kazmi’s gap-based measurement procedure and change to Kazmi’s active BWP based measurement procedure without gaps when the base station switches its active BWP to one that contains the measured reference signals. Kazmi states that reconfiguring measurement gaps costs signaling overhead and processing in the UE and the base station, and that without defined rules the UE may switch between measuring within the active BWP and measuring in gaps at any time, which leaves the serving cell uncertain when it may schedule the UE; Kazmi’s answer is to keep the configured gap pattern and to change between the two measurement procedures at a time known to both the UE and the serving cell when the active BWP is switched. Applying that known technique to the gaps Nagaraja’s base station configures at the UE’s request would have let those gaps be used only while the UE needs them and released without a further configuration exchange, with the predictable result that the base station of Nagaraja could continue to schedule the UE during gap occasions the UE is not using. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because Kazmi’s procedures operate on a measurement gap pattern the network has already configured, which is exactly what Nagaraja’s base station provides.
Regarding claim 5, (Original) which depends on claim 1, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is linked to an activation delay., as Kazmi further discloses that the pre-configured measurement gap pattern is put into use not at once but at a determined time instance equal to a reference time plus a time offset, so that the configured gap pattern the UE of the combination requested is linked to an activation delay (Kazmi, para [0025], “the determined time instance at which to start using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern is a reference time, T0, plus a time offset, DT1”).
For these reasons, Nagaraja and Kazmi are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, (Original) which depends on claim 1, Nagaraja discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: detect that a measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied,, as Nagaraja further discloses the UE determining that it is using a particular type of application, an ultra-low latency or mission critical application, to communicate with the base station, which means that the UE detects that a measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied (Nagaraja, para [0066] “if the UE determines that the UE uses a particular type of application (e.g., an ultra-low latency application or a mission critical application) to communicate with the base station”).
Furthermore, Nagaraja discloses wherein, to transmit the first indication of the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to transmit the first indication of the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration based at least in part on detecting that the measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied., as Nagaraja further discloses that the UE’s request for measurement gaps is made upon that determination, such that the first indication is transmitted based at least in part on detecting that the measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied (Nagaraja, para [0066] “if the UE determines that the UE uses a particular type of application (e.g., an ultra-low latency application or a mission critical application) to communicate with the base station, the UE may request the base station to configure measurement gaps”).
Regarding claim 9, (Currently Amended) which depends on claim 1, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the UE to receive the third indication, are configured to cause the UE to: receive a switch operating condition that indicates to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm, and, as Kazmi further discloses a rule under which the UE changes from the GMP to the BMP only when it has been using the GMP for more than a time period Tq when the active BWP switching action requiring the BMP occurs, the parameters of that rule, Tq among them, being configured by the network node, with the result that the UE receives a switch operating condition that indicates to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0233], “if the UE 312 has been using GMP for more than Tq and the active BWP switching action requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs then the UE changes from GMP to BMP for doing the measurements”; Kazmi, para [0234], “The parameters in the above rules (e.g., L1, H1, G1, G2, Ts, Tq etc.) can be pre-defined or configured by the network node”).
Furthermore, Kazmi discloses wherein, to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm based at least in part on detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied., as Kazmi further discloses the UE changing from the GMP to the BMP when the condition of the rule is met and keeping the GMP when it is not, so that the switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm is based at least in part on detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied (Kazmi, para [0233], “if the UE 312 has been using GMP for less than or equal to Tq and the active BWP switching action requiring the UE 312 to apply the BMP occurs then the UE 312 does not change from GMP to BMP for doing the measurements”; Kazmi, para [0233], “But if the UE 312 has been using GMP for more than Tq and the active BWP switching action requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs then the UE changes from GMP to BMP for doing the measurements”).
Consequently, Nagaraja and Kazmi are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, (Original) which depends on claim 1, Nagaraja discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: determine an updated UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; and, as Nagaraja further discloses the UE deciding from its latest measurements or sensor inputs that the next upcoming measurement gap should be skipped, so that the UE determines an updated UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration (Nagaraja, para [0065] “the UE may notify the base station to skip next upcoming measurement gap (e.g., do not configure the next gap for the UE) based on the previous measurements or sensor inputs”).
Furthermore, Nagaraja discloses transmit a third indication of the updated UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration., as Nagaraja further discloses the UE notifying the base station of that decision, which means that the UE transmits a third indication of the updated UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration (Nagaraja, para [0065] “the UE may notify the network to skip a particular measurement gap (e.g., next measurement gap)”).
Regarding claim 11, (Currently Amended) Nagaraja discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories; and, because Nagaraja teaches a base station apparatus 1002 whose processing system 1114 includes a computer-readable medium/memory 1106 that stores the software the processor executes, which means that the apparatus for wireless communication at a network node comprises one or more memories: (Nagaraja, para [0087] “The apparatus 1002 may be a base station (e.g., such as base station 102, 180, 310, 504, 1350)”; Nagaraja, para [0100] “The processing system 1114 includes a processor 1104 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1106. The processor 1104 is responsible for general processing, including the execution of software stored on the computer-readable medium/memory 1106”).
Furthermore, Nagaraja discloses: one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured individually or collectively to cause the network node to:, as Nagaraja describes the processor 1104 coupled to that memory and the stored software which, when the processor executes it, causes the processing system of the base station to perform the functions Nagaraja describes for the base station, such that the one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories are configured to cause the network node to carry out the operations that follow: (Nagaraja, para [0100] “The processing system 1114 includes a processor 1104 coupled to a computer-readable medium/memory 1106”; Nagaraja, para [0100] “The software, when executed by the processor 1104, causes the processing system 1114 to perform the various functions described supra for any particular apparatus”).
Moreover, Nagaraja discloses: receive a first indication of a user equipment (UE)-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration;, since Nagaraja explains the base station collecting UE information from the UE that carries the UE’s own request for a measurement gap pattern, whereby the base station receives a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration: (Nagaraja, para [0070] “At 514, the base station 504 may collect (e.g., receive) UE information 512 of the UE 502”; Nagaraja, para [0070] “In some configurations, UE information 512 may include a request for a measurement gap pattern”).
In addition, Nagaraja discloses: transmit a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; and, in that Nagaraja shows the base station sending back a measurement request carrying the configuration information for the measurement gaps it configured on the basis of the UE information and the UE’s measurement gap configuration request, with the result that the base station transmits a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration: (Nagaraja, para [0113] “The base station may then send back a measurement request (e.g., measurement request 518) including configuration information that defines the measurement gap parameters configured by the base station for the given UE based on the UE information and/or the measurement gap configuration request discussed above”).
Although Nagaraja teaches the base station configuring measurement gaps at the UE’s request and sending the configured gaps to the UE: (Nagaraja, para [0113]), Nagaraja does not expressly teach transmit a third indication for changing from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm.
However, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses transmit a third indication for changing from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm. given that Kazmi sets out two procedures by which the UE determines how its configured measurement gaps are used: a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP), under which the UE measures using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern (i.e., “a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm” as claimed), and an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP), under which the UE measures without measurement gaps (i.e., “a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm” as claimed). The network node transmits DCI or RRC signaling that switches the active BWP of the UE, and an active BWP switching to a BWP that fully contains the measured reference signals is the trigger on which the UE changes from the GMP to the BMP, so that the DCI or RRC signaling the network node transmits is a third indication for changing from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0133], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures using a MGP is referred to herein as a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP)”; Kazmi, para [0132], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures within the active BWP is referred to herein as an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP). In BMP, the UE 312 measures without measurement gaps”; Kazmi, para [0130], “The UE may anytime be configured by the network node to switch the active BWP(s) on one or more serving cells based on any active BWP switching mechanism such as, e.g., timer based active BWP switching, DCI based active BWP switching, or RRC based active BWP switching”; Kazmi, para [0192], “The triggering conditions enabling the UE to change or switch from GMP to BMP for performing the measurements may comprise an active BWP switching such that after the BWP switching, the RSs used for measurements are fully contained within the BW of the new active BWP”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base station of Nagaraja, which configures measurement gaps at the UE’s request and sends the configured gaps to the UE, also switch the UE’s active BWP by DCI or RRC signaling so that the UE changes from Kazmi’s gap-based measurement procedure to Kazmi’s active BWP based measurement procedure without gaps when the new active BWP contains the measured reference signals. Kazmi states that reconfiguring measurement gaps costs signaling overhead and processing in the UE and the base station, and that without defined rules the UE may switch between measuring within the active BWP and measuring in gaps at any time, which leaves the serving cell uncertain when it may schedule the UE; Kazmi’s answer is to keep the configured gap pattern and to change between the two measurement procedures at a time known to both the UE and the serving cell when the active BWP is switched. Applying that known technique to the gaps Nagaraja’s base station configures would have let the base station release the UE from those gaps by the active BWP switching it already performs, without a further gap configuration exchange, with the predictable result that the base station could schedule the UE during the gap occasions the UE no longer uses. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because Kazmi’s procedures operate on a measurement gap pattern the network has already configured, which is exactly what Nagaraja’s base station provides.
Regarding claim 19, (Currently Amended) which depends on claim 11, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the third indication, are configured to cause the network node to: transmit an instruction that specifies to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm., as Kazmi further discloses the base station’s DCI command to switch the active BWP, on receipt of which the UE is required to switch to the configured BWP the command indicates, that switching action being what requires the UE to apply the BMP, with the result that the DCI command is an instruction that specifies to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0005], “when the UE receives a DCI command to switch active BWP, then the UE is required to switch its current active BWP to one of the configured BWPs indicated in the command”; Kazmi, para [0232], “if the UE is using GMP and the active BWP switching action (A1) requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs within or less than Ts since the last active BWP switching (A2) that resulted in UE applying the GMP”).
Consequently, Nagaraja and Kazmi are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 21, (Currently Amended) Nagaraja discloses: A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration;, because Nagaraja teaches a method performed by the UE in which the UE sends the base station a request for the measurement gap pattern the UE has selected, which means that the UE transmits a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration: (Nagaraja, para [0108] “The method may be performed by a UE (e.g., the UE 104/350/502/1050, the apparatus 1302)”; Nagaraja, para [0060] “the UE may send a request for a measurement gap pattern, and the base station may configure the measurement gaps in response to the request, e.g., based on the requested measurement gap pattern”).
Furthermore, Nagaraja discloses: receiving a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration;, as Nagaraja describes the base station sending back to the UE a measurement request carrying the configuration information for the measurement gaps the base station configured on the basis of the UE information and the UE’s measurement gap configuration request, such that the UE receives a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration: (Nagaraja, para [0113] “The base station may then send back a measurement request (e.g., measurement request 518) including configuration information that defines the measurement gap parameters configured by the base station for the given UE based on the UE information and/or the measurement gap configuration request discussed above”; Nagaraja, para [0071] “the base station 504 may send, to the UE 502, a measurement request 518 including information on the configured measurement gaps (e.g., parameters). The UE 502 may receive the measurement request 518 at 519”).
Although Nagaraja teaches the UE requesting a measurement gap pattern and receiving from the base station the measurement gaps configured in response: (Nagaraja, para [0113]), Nagaraja stops short of disclosing receiving a third indication to switch from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm; and switching from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm.
However, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses receiving a third indication to switch from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm; and since Kazmi explains two procedures by which the UE determines how its configured measurement gaps are used: a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP), under which the UE measures using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern (i.e., “a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm” as claimed), and an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP), under which the UE measures without measurement gaps (i.e., “a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm” as claimed). The network node commands the UE to switch its active BWP by DCI or RRC signaling, and an active BWP switching action to a BWP that fully contains the measured reference signals requires the UE to apply the BMP in place of the GMP, whereby the DCI or RRC signaling the UE receives from the network node is a third indication to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0133], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures using a MGP is referred to herein as a gap-based measurement procedure (GMP)”; Kazmi, para [0132], “This measurement mechanism or procedure or scheme where the UE 312 measures within the active BWP is referred to herein as an active BWP based measurement procedure (BMP). In BMP, the UE 312 measures without measurement gaps”; Kazmi, para [0130], “The UE may anytime be configured by the network node to switch the active BWP(s) on one or more serving cells based on any active BWP switching mechanism such as, e.g., timer based active BWP switching, DCI based active BWP switching, or RRC based active BWP switching”; Kazmi, para [0192], “The triggering conditions enabling the UE to change or switch from GMP to BMP for performing the measurements may comprise an active BWP switching such that after the BWP switching, the RSs used for measurements are fully contained within the BW of the new active BWP”; Kazmi, para [0232], “if the UE is using GMP and the active BWP switching action (A1) requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs within or less than Ts since the last active BWP switching (A2) that resulted in UE applying the GMP”).
Furthermore, Kazmi discloses switching from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm. in that Kazmi shows the UE, on being switched to an active BWP whose bandwidth fully contains the measured reference signals, changing from the GMP to the BMP and continuing its measurements without gaps from the time instance Tb it determines by rule, with the result that the UE switches from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0199], “The RSs are fully within the BW of the new active BWP (BWP4). This triggers the UE 312 to switch from GMP to BMP to continue performing the measurements on the same RSs (e.g., SSB1)”; Kazmi, para [0192], “The information about the time instance (Tb) is obtained by the UE 312 based on one or more rules, which can be pre-defined, configured by the network node or autonomously determined by the UE”; Kazmi, para [0192], “The UE 312 may also start applying the BMP for measurements at or after Tb, i.e. performing measurement without gaps”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of Nagaraja, which requests a measurement gap pattern and receives the measurement gaps the base station configures in response, use those configured gaps under Kazmi’s gap-based measurement procedure and change to Kazmi’s active BWP based measurement procedure without gaps when the base station switches its active BWP to one that contains the measured reference signals. Kazmi states that reconfiguring measurement gaps costs signaling overhead and processing in the UE and the base station, and that without defined rules the UE may switch between measuring within the active BWP and measuring in gaps at any time, which leaves the serving cell uncertain when it may schedule the UE; Kazmi’s answer is to keep the configured gap pattern and to change between the two measurement procedures at a time known to both the UE and the serving cell when the active BWP is switched. Applying that known technique to the gaps Nagaraja’s base station configures at the UE’s request would have let those gaps be used only while the UE needs them and released without a further configuration exchange, with the predictable result that the base station of Nagaraja could continue to schedule the UE during gap occasions the UE is not using. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because Kazmi’s procedures operate on a measurement gap pattern the network has already configured, which is exactly what Nagaraja’s base station provides.
Regarding claim 23, (Original) which depends on claim 21, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is linked to an activation delay., as Kazmi further discloses that the pre-configured measurement gap pattern is put into use not at once but at a determined time instance equal to a reference time plus a time offset, whereby the configured gap pattern the UE of the combination requested is linked to an activation delay (Kazmi, para [0025], “the determined time instance at which to start using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern is a reference time, T0, plus a time offset, DT1”).
Thus, Nagaraja and Kazmi are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 24, (Original) which depends on claim 21, Nagaraja discloses The method of claim 21, further comprising: detecting that a measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied,, as Nagaraja further discloses the UE determining that it is using a particular type of application, an ultra-low latency or mission critical application, to communicate with the base station, with the result that the UE detects that a measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied (Nagaraja, para [0066] “if the UE determines that the UE uses a particular type of application (e.g., an ultra-low latency application or a mission critical application) to communicate with the base station”).
Furthermore, Nagaraja discloses wherein transmitting the first indication of the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is based at least in part on detecting that the measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied., as Nagaraja further discloses that the UE’s request for measurement gaps is made upon that determination, so that transmitting the first indication is based at least in part on detecting that the measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied (Nagaraja, para [0066] “if the UE determines that the UE uses a particular type of application (e.g., an ultra-low latency application or a mission critical application) to communicate with the base station, the UE may request the base station to configure measurement gaps”).
Regarding claim 26, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: A method of wireless communication performed by a network node, comprising: receiving a first indication of a user equipment (UE)-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; transmitting a second indication of a network node selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that is based at least in part on the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; and transmitting a third indication for changing from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm. Claim 26 is analogous to claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 30, (Original) which depends on claim 26, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses The method of claim 26, further comprising: transmitting a switch operating condition that indicates to switch from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm., as Kazmi further discloses the network node configuring the parameters of the rule under which the UE changes from the GMP to the BMP only when it has been using the GMP for more than the time period Tq when the active BWP switching action requiring the BMP occurs, so that the network node transmits a switch operating condition that indicates to switch from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm (Kazmi, para [0234], “The parameters in the above rules (e.g., L1, H1, G1, G2, Ts, Tq etc.) can be pre-defined or configured by the network node”; Kazmi, para [0233], “if the UE 312 has been using GMP for more than Tq and the active BWP switching action requiring the UE to apply the BMP occurs then the UE changes from GMP to BMP for doing the measurements”).
For these reasons, Nagaraja and Kazmi are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja (US 2019/0021017 A1) in view of Kazmi (US 2024/0098540 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 2023/0403694 A1).
Regarding claim 2, (Original) which depends on claim 1, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the UE requesting a measurement gap pattern that the base station then configures, and the UE using or not using the configured gaps according to the measurement procedure it applies: (Nagaraja, para [0060], Kazmi, para [0134]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi stops short of disclosing that the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: a measurement gap configuration activation state.
Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: as Kim describes the UE requesting activation of a particular preconfigured gap by setting the A/D field and the MG ID field of its request, such that the request the UE selects is a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that includes what the fields of the request carry (Kim, para [0507], “If A/D field is set to 1 and MG ID field is set to n-1, UE request activation of type7Gap n”).
Furthermore, Kim discloses a measurement gap configuration activation state, since Kim explains that the A/D field designates whether the identified positioning measurement gap is activated or deactivated, whereby the request includes a measurement gap configuration activation state (Kim, para [0506], “A/D field indicates the activation or deactivation of the Positioning Measurement Gap (i.e., Type7Gap). The field is set to 1 to indicate activation, otherwise it indicates deactivation”).
Claim 2 further recites, in the alternative: a measurement gap occasion activation state, a frequency layer-specific measurement gap configuration state, a network node identifier for applying the measurement gap scheduling configuration, or a measurement gap scheduling configuration applicability window. Because these recitations are stated in the alternative, the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a measurement gap configuration activation state, which is the limitation mapped above, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi include, in the measurement gap request it sends the base station, an activation or deactivation designation of the kind Kim’s request message carries. Kim’s request lets the UE invoke or release an already configured gap with a compact layer 2 message instead of a full reconfiguration, which is the same signaling economy Kazmi seeks by keeping the configured gap pattern in place while the UE moves between measuring with and without gaps. Adding the designation to Nagaraja’s request would have yielded no more than the predictable result of the base station learning from the request itself whether the UE wants the configured gaps active, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the designation is one more field in a request message Nagaraja’s UE already sends.
Regarding claim 3, (Original) which depends on claim 1, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the UE selecting and requesting a measurement gap pattern that the base station configures, and the base station configuring the gap pattern the UE later uses under its measurement procedures: (Nagaraja, para [0060], Kazmi, para [0130]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi does not explicitly disclose that the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters.
Yet, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters. since Kim explains the base station transmitting, in an RRC reconfiguration message, gap configuration information whose gap identifier, type indicator, gap offset, gap length and gap repetition period are the values that define the gaps the UE is to use, whereby the gap request the UE selects is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters (Kim, para [0764], “Base station transmits a second RRCReconfiguration message, the second RRCReconfiguration message includes a second configuration, the second configuration includes one or more gap configuration information, the gap configuration information includes a measGapId and a type2Indicator and a gapOffset and a mg1 and a mgrp”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base station of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi furnish the UE, by RRC reconfiguration, the gap configuration values of the kind Kim’s message carries, and to have the UE ground its gap request in those values. Kim’s configuration lets a later compact request refer to a gap the base station has already defined, which is the signaling economy Kazmi seeks by keeping a configured gap pattern in place for later use, and it would have yielded the predictable result that any gap arrangement Nagaraja’s UE requests stays within what the serving cell is prepared to schedule. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since Nagaraja’s base station already sends the UE gap configuration information by a configuration message.
Regarding claim 4, (Original) which depends on claim 3, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters include one or more of: a measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier,, as Kim further discloses the MG ID field carrying the measGapId2 that identifies the positioning measurement gap, with the result that the allowed measurement scheduling parameters include a measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier (Kim, para [0505], “MG ID field contains measGapId2-1. The measGapId2 is the identifier of the Type7Gap”).
Claim 4 further recites, in the alternative: a minimum deactivated measurement gap occasion count, a maximum deactivated measurement gap occasion count, a buffer size threshold, a delay threshold, a network node identifier that indicates an availability for using the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration, or a measurement metric threshold. Because these recitations are stated in the alternative, the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier, which is the limitation mapped above, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required.
Consequently, Nagaraja, Kazmi and Kim are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 12, (Original) which depends on claim 11, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the base station receiving the UE’s request for a measurement gap pattern, and the UE using or not using the configured gaps according to the measurement procedure it applies: (Nagaraja, para [0070], Kazmi, para [0134]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi does not explicitly disclose that the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: a measurement gap configuration activation state.
Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: as Kim describes the UE requesting activation of a particular preconfigured gap by setting the A/D field and the MG ID field of its request, such that the request the base station receives is a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that includes what the fields of the request carry (Kim, para [0507], “If A/D field is set to 1 and MG ID field is set to n-1, UE request activation of type7Gap n”).
Furthermore, Kim discloses a measurement gap configuration activation state, since Kim explains that the A/D field designates whether the identified positioning measurement gap is activated or deactivated, whereby the request includes a measurement gap configuration activation state (Kim, para [0506], “A/D field indicates the activation or deactivation of the Positioning Measurement Gap (i.e., Type7Gap). The field is set to 1 to indicate activation, otherwise it indicates deactivation”).
Claim 12 further recites, in the alternative: a measurement gap occasion activation state, a frequency layer-specific measurement gap configuration state, a network node identifier for applying the measurement gap scheduling configuration, or a measurement gap scheduling configuration applicability window. Because these recitations are stated in the alternative, the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a measurement gap configuration activation state, which is the limitation mapped above, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base station of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi receive, in the measurement gap request from the UE, an activation or deactivation designation of the kind Kim’s request message carries. Kim’s request lets the UE invoke or release an already configured gap with a compact layer 2 message instead of a full reconfiguration, which is the same signaling economy Kazmi seeks by keeping the configured gap pattern in place while the UE moves between measuring with and without gaps. Receiving the designation in Nagaraja’s request would have yielded no more than the predictable result of the base station learning from the request itself whether the UE wants the configured gaps active, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the designation is one more field in a request message Nagaraja’s base station already receives.
Regarding claim 13, (Original) which depends on claim 11, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the base station receiving the UE’s request for a measurement gap pattern and configuring the gap pattern the UE later uses under its measurement procedures: (Nagaraja, para [0070], Kazmi, para [0130]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi does not expressly teach that the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters.
Yet, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters. since Kim explains the base station transmitting, in an RRC reconfiguration message, gap configuration information whose gap identifier, type indicator, gap offset, gap length and gap repetition period are the values that define the gaps the UE is to use, whereby the gap request the base station receives is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters (Kim, para [0764], “Base station transmits a second RRCReconfiguration message, the second RRCReconfiguration message includes a second configuration, the second configuration includes one or more gap configuration information, the gap configuration information includes a measGapId and a type2Indicator and a gapOffset and a mg1 and a mgrp”).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base station of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi furnish the UE, by RRC reconfiguration, the gap configuration values of the kind Kim’s message carries, so that the gap request it receives from the UE is grounded in those values. Kim’s configuration lets a later compact request refer to a gap the base station has already defined, which is the signaling economy Kazmi seeks by keeping a configured gap pattern in place for later use, and it would have yielded the predictable result that any gap arrangement the UE requests stays within what the serving cell is prepared to schedule. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since Nagaraja’s base station already sends the UE gap configuration information by a configuration message.
Regarding claim 14, (Original) which depends on claim 13, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters include one or more of: a minimum deactivated measurement gap occasion count, a maximum deactivated measurement gap occasion count, a minimum activated measurement gap scheduling configuration count, a buffer size threshold, a delay threshold, a network node identifier that indicates an availability for using the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration, a measurement metric threshold, or a configurable measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier., as Kim further discloses the UE’s activation request naming a specific preconfigured gap by an identifier value set in the MG ID field, with the result that the allowed measurement scheduling parameters include a configurable measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier (Kim, para [0507], “If A/D field is set to 1 and MG ID field is set to n-1, UE request activation of type7Gap n”).
Claim 14 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a configurable measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier, which is the limitation mapped above; the remaining alternatives are not separately required.
Consequently, Nagaraja, Kazmi and Kim are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 15, (Original) which depends on claim 13, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: transmit the one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters in: a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or radio resource control (RRC) signaling., as Kim further discloses the base station transmitting the gap configuration information inside an RRC reconfiguration message, so that the base station of the combination, whose processors carry out its operations, transmits the allowed measurement scheduling parameters in RRC signaling (Kim, para [0764], “Base station transmits a second RRCReconfiguration message, the second RRCReconfiguration message includes a second configuration, the second configuration includes one or more gap configuration information”).
Claim 15 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of radio resource control (RRC) signaling, which is the limitation mapped above; the remaining alternative, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), is not separately required.
For these reasons, Nagaraja, Kazmi and Kim are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 16, (Original) which depends on claim 13, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi discloses The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is linked to an activation delay., as Kazmi further discloses that the pre-configured measurement gap pattern is put into use not at once but at a determined time instance equal to a reference time plus a time offset, which means that the configured gap pattern the UE of the combination requested is linked to an activation delay (Kazmi, para [0025], “the determined time instance at which to start using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern is a reference time, T0, plus a time offset, DT1”).
Therefore, Nagaraja and Kazmi are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 17, (Original) which depends on claim 11, Nagaraja discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the first indication of the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration, are configured to cause the network node to:, as Nagaraja further discloses the base station collecting the UE information that carries the UE’s request for a measurement gap pattern, such that the processors of the base station cause it to receive the first indication as follows (Nagaraja, para [0070] “At 514, the base station 504 may collect (e.g., receive) UE information 512 of the UE 502”; Nagaraja, para [0070] “In some configurations, UE information 512 may include a request for a measurement gap pattern”).
Even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the base station receiving the UE’s request for a measurement gap pattern, and the network node configuring the UE with the gap pattern and the BWP switching that governs its use: (Nagaraja, para [0070], Kazmi, para [0130]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi stops short of disclosing that the network node receives the first indication in at least one of: uplink control information, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or radio resource control (RRC) signaling.
Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses receive the first indication in at least one of: uplink control information, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or radio resource control (RRC) signaling. since Kim explains that the UE’s gap request message is itself a MAC control element whose extended logical channel identifier marks it as the gap request, whereby the base station receives the first indication in a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE) (Kim, para [0509], “8 bit eLCID field is set to a third value indicating that the type of corresponding MAC CE is type7Gap L2 request message”).
Claim 17 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), which is the limitation mapped above; the remaining alternatives, uplink control information and radio resource control (RRC) signaling, are not separately required.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base station of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi receive the UE’s measurement gap request as a MAC control element of the kind Kim describes. Kim carries the gap request in a layer 2 control element so that the UE can ask for a gap without a higher layer procedure, which is the low delay and low overhead that Kazmi also seeks for gap handling, and it would have yielded the predictable result that Nagaraja’s base station learns the UE’s requested gap pattern over the medium access control channel it already decodes. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since a MAC control element is a standard container for UE to base station control information.
Regarding claim 22, (Original) which depends on claim 21, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the UE requesting a measurement gap pattern that the base station then configures, and the UE using or not using the configured gaps according to the measurement procedure it applies: (Nagaraja, para [0060], Kazmi, para [0134]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi does not expressly teach that the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: a measurement gap configuration activation state.
Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The method of claim 21, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: as Kim describes the UE requesting activation of a particular preconfigured gap by setting the A/D field and the MG ID field of its request, such that the request the UE selects is a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration that includes what the fields of the request carry (Kim, para [0507], “If A/D field is set to 1 and MG ID field is set to n-1, UE request activation of type7Gap n”).
Furthermore, Kim discloses a measurement gap configuration activation state, since Kim explains that the A/D field designates whether the identified positioning measurement gap is activated or deactivated, whereby the request includes a measurement gap configuration activation state (Kim, para [0506], “A/D field indicates the activation or deactivation of the Positioning Measurement Gap (i.e., Type7Gap). The field is set to 1 to indicate activation, otherwise it indicates deactivation”).
Claim 22 further recites, in the alternative: a measurement gap occasion activation state, a frequency layer-specific measurement gap configuration state, a network node identifier for applying the measurement gap scheduling configuration, or a measurement gap scheduling configuration applicability window. Because these recitations are stated in the alternative, the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a measurement gap configuration activation state, which is the limitation mapped above, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi include, in the measurement gap request it sends the base station, an activation or deactivation designation of the kind Kim’s request message carries. Kim’s request lets the UE invoke or release an already configured gap with a compact layer 2 message instead of a full reconfiguration, which is the same signaling economy Kazmi seeks by keeping the configured gap pattern in place while the UE moves between measuring with and without gaps. Adding the designation to Nagaraja’s request would have yielded no more than the predictable result of the base station learning from the request itself whether the UE wants the configured gaps active, and one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since the designation is one more field in a request message Nagaraja’s UE already sends.
Regarding claim 27, (Original) which depends on claim 26, the claim recites: The method of claim 26, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is based at least in part on one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters. Claim 27 is analogous to claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 28, (Original) which depends on claim 27, the claim recites: The method of claim 27, wherein the one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters include one or more of: a minimum deactivated measurement gap occasion count, a maximum deactivated measurement gap occasion count, a minimum activated measurement gap scheduling configuration count, a buffer size threshold, a delay threshold, a network node identifier that indicates an availability for using the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration, a measurement metric threshold, or a configurable measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier. Claim 28 is analogous to claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 29, (Original) which depends on claim 28, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Kim discloses The method of claim 28, further comprising: transmitting the one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters in: a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or radio resource control (RRC) signaling., as Kim further discloses the base station transmitting the gap configuration information inside an RRC reconfiguration message, with the result that the network node of the combination transmits the allowed measurement scheduling parameters in RRC signaling (Kim, para [0764], “Base station transmits a second RRCReconfiguration message, the second RRCReconfiguration message includes a second configuration, the second configuration includes one or more gap configuration information”).
Claim 29 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when either of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of radio resource control (RRC) signaling, which is the limitation mapped above; the remaining alternative, a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), is not separately required.
Consequently, Nagaraja, Kazmi and Kim are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 13 above.
Claims 7, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja (US 2019/0021017 A1) in view of Kazmi (US 2024/0098540 A1) and further in view of Yi (US 2019/0141550 A1).
Regarding claim 7, (Original) which depends on claim 6, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the UE requesting measurement gaps upon determining that it is using a latency sensitive application, and the UE applying its measurement procedures to the configured gaps: (Nagaraja, para [0066], Kazmi, para [0134]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi does not expressly teach that the measurement gap scheduling configuration condition is based at least in part on at least one of: a delay threshold.
Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Yi discloses The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the measurement gap scheduling configuration condition is based at least in part on at least one of: a delay threshold, as Yi describes the UE measuring the packet delay of its uplink data units over a measurement period and comparing that delay against a threshold, such that the condition on which the UE of the combination acts is based at least in part on a delay threshold (Yi, para [0116], “each of the set of RBs has at least one PDCP SDU whose packet delay may be above a threshold during the measurement period”).
Claim 7 further recites, in the alternative: a buffer threshold, a measurement metric threshold, or a speed threshold. Because these recitations are stated in the alternative, the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of a delay threshold, which is the limitation mapped above, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the UE of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi judge its latency sensitive application condition by Yi’s test of uplink packet delay against a threshold over a measurement period. Yi measures uplink packet delay per bearer or logical channel group so that the network can verify that the quality of service the UE experiences meets its target, and an objective delay test would have given Nagaraja’s UE a measurable trigger in place of a bare application type, with the predictable result that the UE requests gaps that leave room for uplink traffic only when its packets are actually waiting longer than the latency budget allows. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since Yi’s delay measurement runs in the same PDCP layer of the same UE.
Regarding claim 20, (Original) which depends on claim 11, even though Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the base station drawing on UE information it receives from the UE when configuring the UE’s measurement gaps, and the UE reporting its gap usage timing to the network node: (Nagaraja, para [0008], Kazmi, para [0192]), Nagaraja in view of Kazmi stops short of disclosing that the network node receives a log report that includes information gathered for a duration, the information including an observed uplink delay.
However, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi and further in view of Yi discloses The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: receive a log report that includes information gathered for a duration, the information including at least one of: a measurement metric, a measurement gap occasion skipping frequency, a measurement gap occasion skipping pattern, given that Yi sets out the eNB configuring the UE, by an RRC message, with an uplink packet measurement report and a measurement period that sets the time interval over which the reported uplink packet measurements are taken, so that the report the base station of the combination receives is a log report that includes information gathered for a duration (Yi, para [0105], “The UE is configured with UL Packet Measurement Report by the eNB by receiving an RRC message with MDT measurement configuration which may include a measurement period and a reporting unit. The measurement period indicates time interval of UL packet measurements”).
Furthermore, Yi discloses or an observed uplink delay. because Yi teaches that the report the UE transmits to the eNB carries the uplink packet delay the UE measured for the reporting unit, which means that the information in the log report includes an observed uplink delay (Yi, para [0105], “The UE transmits the UL Packet Measurement Report which may include Identifier of the Reporting Unit, UL packet delay of Reporting Unit, and UL packet discard rate of the Reporting Unit to the eNB”).
Claim 20 recites its alternatives joined by or, so the claim is satisfied when any one of them is satisfied. The alternative relied on is the recitation of an observed uplink delay, which is the limitation mapped above; the remaining alternatives, a measurement metric, a measurement gap occasion skipping frequency, and a measurement gap occasion skipping pattern, are not separately required.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the base station of Nagaraja in view of Kazmi receive from the UE Yi’s uplink packet measurement report of the uplink packet delays observed over a configured measurement period. Yi collects that report so that the network can verify the quality of service the UE experiences, and Nagaraja’s base station configures the UE’s measurement gaps from the operating details the UE reports, so an accumulated record of the uplink delays the UE actually observed would have sharpened those details with the predictable result of gap configurations better matched to the UE’s traffic. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, since Yi’s report is carried to the base station by the RRC signaling Nagaraja’s UE already uses.
Regarding claim 25, (Original) which depends on claim 21, The method of claim 21, further comprising: transmitting a log report that includes information gathered for a duration, the information including at least one of: a measurement metric, a measurement gap occasion skipping frequency, a measurement gap occasion skipping pattern, or an observed uplink delay.
Claim 25 is analogous to claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
