CTNF 18/768,819 CTNF 94973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner 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. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 9, the limitation “ 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 is based at least in part on detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied ” is indefinite because the infinitive clause “ to switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm ” is followed by the predicate “ is based at least in part on detecting ,” which lacks a grammatical subject, leaving unclear whether the switching operation, the first/second algorithm, or some other element is conditioned on the detection . For examination purposes, the Office is interpreting “ 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 is based at least in part on detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied ” as requiring that the one or more processors are configured to cause the UE to perform the switching 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6, 10, 11, 21, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Nagaraja (US 2019/0021017 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Nagaraja discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: one or more memories; and at least because Nagaraja teaches a UE memory storing program codes and data (Nagaraja, para [0047] “ The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data ”). Further, 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: at least because Nagaraja teaches the UE controller/processor, coupled to that memory, carrying out the UE-side operations (Nagaraja, para [0047] “ The controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 ”). Moreover, Nagaraja discloses: transmit a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; and at least because Nagaraja teaches the UE sending the base station a request for the measurement gap pattern the UE has selected (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 ”). Additionally, 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. at least because Nagaraja teaches the base station returning to the UE a measurement request carrying the gap configuration the base station selected based on the UE information (Nagaraja, para [0113] “ 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 ”) (Nagaraja, para [0071] “ the base station 504 may send, to the UE 502, a measurement request 518 including information on the configured measurement gaps ”). Regarding claim 6, 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, at least because Nagaraja teaches the UE determining that a latency-sensitive application condition is met (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 ”). Additionally, 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. at least because Nagaraja teaches that the UE’s gap request is made upon that determination (Nagaraja, para [0066] “ the UE may request the base station to configure measurement gaps ”). Regarding claim 10, 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 at least because Nagaraja teaches the UE deciding from its newest observations that upcoming gaps should be skipped, an updated selection of its 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 ”). Additionally, Nagaraja discloses: transmit a third indication of the updated UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration. at least because Nagaraja teaches the UE notifying the base station of that updated selection (Nagaraja, para [0065] “ the UE may notify the base station to skip next upcoming measurement gap ”). Regarding claim 11, Nagaraja discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication at a network node, comprising: one or more memories; and at least because Nagaraja teaches a base-station memory storing program codes and data (Nagaraja, para [0051] “ The controller/processor 375 can be associated with a memory 376 that stores program codes and data ”). Moreover, 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: at least because Nagaraja teaches the base-station controller/processor, coupled to that memory, carrying out the network-side operations (Nagaraja, para [0051] “ The controller/processor 375 can be associated with a memory 376 ”). Further, Nagaraja discloses: receive a first indication of a user equipment (UE)-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; and at least because Nagaraja teaches the base station obtaining UE information that carries the UE’s own gap pattern request (Nagaraja, para [0070] “ 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. at least because Nagaraja teaches the base station sending back the gap configuration it selected based on the UE information (Nagaraja, para [0113] “ including configuration information that defines the measurement gap parameters configured by the base station for the given UE based on the UE information ”). Regarding claim 21, the claim recites: A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: transmitting a first indication of a UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration; and 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. Claim 21 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 24, the claim recites: The method of claim 21, further comprising: detecting that a measurement gap scheduling configuration condition has been satisfied, 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. Claim 24 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 26, 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; and 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. Claim 26 is analogous to claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 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 Kim (US 2023/0403694 A1) . Regarding claim 2, although Nagaraja in para. [0060] teaches that the UE requests a gap pattern that the base station then configures, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that an express on-off designation accompanies the terminal’s chosen tuning-away arrangement: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: a measurement gap configuration activation state, Nevertheless, Nagaraja in view of Kim teaches a request message whose A/D field designates whether an identified positioning gap is to be active or inactive (i.e., "a measurement gap configuration activation state" as claimed) (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 ”). Additionally, the claim 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 mapping of the alternative addressed above suffices for the claim, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in order to let the terminal invoke or release an already-configured gap with a compact layer-2 message rather than a full reconfiguration, reducing signaling overhead and shortening the time needed to put the desired gap behavior into effect. Regarding claim 3, although Nagaraja in para. [0060] teaches that the UE selects and requests a gap pattern that the base station configures, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the choice draws on base-station-furnished values bounding what the handset may ask for: 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. Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kim teaches gap configuration information elements, furnished by RRC reconfiguration, supplying the identity, offset, length, and periodicity values (i.e., "allowed measurement scheduling parameters" as claimed) on which gap operation proceeds (Kim, para [0764] “ the gap configuration information includes a measGapId and a type2Indicator and a gapOffset and a mgl and a mgrp ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in order to ground the terminal’s gap requests in values the base station has already sanctioned, so that any requested gap behavior stays consistent with what the serving cell is prepared to schedule. Regarding claim 4, although Nagaraja in para. [0063] teaches that gap selections are informed by configured properties such as durations and periodicities, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that a label denoting one particular stored arrangement is among the furnished values: 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, Even so, Nagaraja in view of Kim teaches that each preconfigured positioning gap carries a measGapId2 identity (i.e., "a measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier" as claimed) by which it is named in activation signaling (Kim, para [0505] “ MG ID field contains measGapId2-1. The measGapId2 is the identifier of the Type7Gap ”). Additionally, the claim 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 mapping of the alternative addressed above suffices for the claim, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in order to let the terminal and the base station refer to a specific stored gap arrangement by its identifier, avoiding retransmission of the full set of timing values each time that arrangement is invoked. Regarding claim 12, the claim recites: The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: a measurement gap configuration activation state, 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. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites: 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. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 14, the claim recites, in the alternative: 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, The rejection proceeds on the further alternative addressed below; the remaining recitations are alternatives that are not separately required. Further, even though Nagaraja in para. [0063] teaches that gap selections are informed by configured properties such as durations and periodicities, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that an adjustable label denoting one particular stored arrangement is among the furnished values: or a configurable measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier. Yet, Nagaraja in view of Kim teaches activation requests that name a specific preconfigured gap by its identifier value (i.e., "a configurable measurement gap scheduling configuration identifier" as claimed) (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 ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in order to let the base station resolve exactly which stored gap arrangement the terminal is invoking, keeping the two sides aligned without repeating the underlying timing values. Regarding claim 15, Nagaraja discloses: The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: at least because Nagaraja teaches the base-station controller/processor carrying out the network-side operations (Nagaraja, para [0051] “ The controller/processor 375 can be associated with a memory 376 ”). Additionally, even though Nagaraja in para. [0071] teaches that the base station conveys configured gap properties to the terminal, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the furnished values travel in a particular standardized reconfiguration wrapper: transmit the one or more allowed measurement scheduling parameters in: a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE), or radio resource control (RRC) signaling. Nevertheless, Nagaraja in view of Kim teaches delivering the gap configuration information within an RRC reconfiguration message (i.e., "radio resource control (RRC) signaling" as claimed) (Kim, para [0764] “ Base station transmits a second RRCReconfiguration message, the second RRCReconfiguration message includes a second configuration ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in order to carry the sanctioned gap values in the standardized reconfiguration container the terminal already parses, avoiding any new signaling mechanism. Regarding claim 17, 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: at least because Nagaraja teaches the base station obtaining the terminal’s gap pattern request (Nagaraja, para [0070] “ UE information 512 may include a request for a measurement gap pattern ”). Moreover, even though Nagaraja in para. [0070] teaches that the base station obtains the terminal’s gap pattern request, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the incoming submission arrives inside a defined low-level message wrapper: 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. Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kim teaches that the terminal’s gap activation request is itself a MAC control element (i.e., "a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE)" as claimed) received by the base station (Kim, para [0509] “ a third value indicating that the type of corresponding MAC CE is type7Gap L2 request message ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in order to receive the terminal’s gap requests over the fast, low-overhead medium access control channel rather than waiting on slower higher-layer procedures. Regarding claim 22, the claim recites: The method of claim 21, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration includes at least one of: a measurement gap configuration activation state, 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. Claim 22 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 27, 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 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 28, 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, the claim recites: 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. Claim 29 is analogous to claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 8, 9, 18, 19, 23, 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 5, although Nagaraja in para. [0060] teaches that gap arrangements are configured in response to the terminal’s request, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that use of the chosen arrangement begins only after a set waiting interval: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is linked to an activation delay. Yet, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches starting a preconfigured gap pattern at a reference time plus a time offset (i.e., "an activation delay" as claimed) (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, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kazmi in order to give the terminal a predictable transition interval before its chosen gap arrangement takes effect, so that ongoing transmissions and retuning complete cleanly before the first gap occurs. Regarding claim 8, although Nagaraja in para. [0071] teaches that the terminal obtains its gap arrangements through explicit base-station configuration messages, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the handset is told to move from one arrangement-picking scheme to another: The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to: 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 Nevertheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the network supplying information (i.e., "a third indication" as claimed) that places the terminal under condition-driven use of preconfigured gap patterns (Kazmi, para [0019] “ receiving, from a network node, information that indicates one or more pre-configured measurement gap patterns ”). Moreover, even though Nagaraja in para. [0071] teaches that gap usage follows whichever arrangement the base station last configured, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the handset actually carries out the changeover between the two picking schemes: switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm. Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the terminal moving between gap-usage behaviors (i.e., "switch from the first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to the second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm" as claimed) at a defined time instance (Kazmi, para [0123] “ switching from using pre-configured measurement gaps to active BWP for performing measurements at a well-defined time instance known to both UE and serving cell(s) ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kazmi in order to let the terminal fall back on condition-driven selection among preconfigured gap patterns when explicit reconfiguration would be too slow, covering both receipt of the switching indication and execution of the changeover itself. Regarding claim 9, although Nagaraja in para. [0071] teaches that the terminal’s gap handling is steered by base-station configuration messages, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that a stated triggering circumstance announces the changeover between picking schemes: The apparatus of claim 8, 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 Even so, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the terminal receiving a defined set of conditions (i.e., "a switch operating condition" as claimed) for taking up the preconfigured gap behavior (Kazmi, para [0022] “ the first set of one or more conditions comprises a condition that one or more reference signals used for the measurements are not fully within a bandwidth of an active bandwidth part of the UE ”). Moreover, even though Nagaraja in para. [0113] teaches that configuration messages control when the terminal’s gap behavior changes, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the changeover is carried out upon noting that the announced circumstance is met: 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 is based at least in part on detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied. Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches taking up the preconfigured pattern upon determining the received conditions are satisfied (i.e., "detecting that the switch operating condition has been satisfied" as claimed), consistent with the interpretation of claim 9 set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above (Kazmi, para [0019] “ determining that a first set of one or more conditions for using a pre-configured measurement gap pattern is satisfied ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kazmi in order to tie the changeover between selection behaviors to an operating condition both sides can evaluate, sparing the network a dedicated command at the moment the change is needed. Regarding claim 18, the claim recites: The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: transmit a third indication to change from a first measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm to a second measurement gap scheduling configuration selection algorithm. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 19, Nagaraja discloses: The apparatus of claim 18, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the third indication, are configured to cause the network node to: at least because Nagaraja teaches the base station sending the terminal gap-configuration messaging (Nagaraja, para [0113] “ send back a measurement request (e.g., measurement request 518) ”). In addition, even though Nagaraja in para. [0113] teaches that the base station steers the terminal’s gap behavior through configuration messages, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the operator side issues a directive naming the changeover to perform: 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. Yet, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the network supplying the rules and parameter information (i.e., "an instruction that specifies to switch" as claimed) under which the terminal moves to the preconfigured-pattern behavior (Kazmi, para [0027] “ determining the time instance at which to start using the pre-configured measurement gap pattern based on one or more predefined rules and/or information received from a network node about one or more parameters related to the determined time instance ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kazmi in order to let the network state exactly which selection behavior the terminal is to adopt, keeping scheduling expectations aligned on both sides of the link. Regarding claim 23, the claim recites: The method of claim 21, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is linked to an activation delay. Claim 23 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 30, although Nagaraja in para. [0008] teaches that the base station configures gap behavior from terminal-supplied operating details, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the operator side announces the circumstance under which the changeover occurs: 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. Nevertheless, Nagaraja in view of Kazmi teaches the network furnishing the condition information (i.e., "a switch operating condition" as claimed) that moves the terminal between gap-selection behaviors (Kazmi, para [0027] “ information received from a network node about one or more parameters related to the determined time instance ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Kazmi in order to publish the changeover circumstance to the terminal in advance, so the transition happens at a moment both sides can anticipate without further signaling . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja (US 2019/0021017 A1) in view of Yi (US 2019/0141550 A1) . Regarding claim 7, although Nagaraja in para. [0066] teaches that the terminal seeks gap arrangements upon noting latency-sensitive application usage, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the triggering circumstance is judged against a numeric latency bound: 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, Yet, Nagaraja in view of Yi teaches packet delay evaluated against a threshold (i.e., "a delay threshold" as claimed) during a measurement period (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 ”). Additionally, the claim recites, in the alternative: a buffer threshold, a measurement metric threshold, or a speed threshold. Because these recitations are stated in the alternative, the mapping of the alternative addressed above suffices for the claim, and the remaining alternatives are not separately required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Yi in order to anchor the terminal’s gap-related requests to an objective queuing-delay test, so that gaps yield to traffic only when latency budgets would otherwise be breached. Regarding claim 20, although Nagaraja in para. [0008] teaches that the base station draws on terminal-supplied operating details when arranging gaps, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the received submission compiles operating particulars amassed over a stretch of time: 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, Nonetheless, Nagaraja in view of Yi teaches the terminal sending the base station a report of uplink packet delay figures compiled per measurement period (i.e., "a log report that includes information gathered for a duration" as claimed) (Yi, paras [0105]-[0106] “ 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 … the UE receives a measurement configuration including a measurement period and a report unit from an eNB ”). Additionally, the claim recites, in the alternative: the information including at least one of: a measurement metric, a measurement gap occasion skipping frequency, a measurement gap occasion skipping pattern, The rejection proceeds on the further alternative addressed below; the remaining recitations are alternatives that are not separately required. Furthermore, even though Nagaraja in para. [0008] teaches that the base station uses terminal-reported operating details for gap arrangement, Nagaraja does not explicitly disclose that the compiled particulars convey how long outbound traffic actually waited: or an observed uplink delay. Yet, Nagaraja in view of Yi teaches that the reported figures are the uplink packet delays the terminal observed (i.e., "an observed uplink delay" as claimed) (Yi, para [0105] “ UL packet delay of Reporting Unit ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Nagaraja in view of Yi in order to give the base station an accumulated record of the uplink delays the terminal actually observed, sharpening the operating details on which it arranges the terminal’s gaps. Regarding claim 25, the claim recites: 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaraja (US 2019/0021017 A1) in view of Kim (US 2023/0403694 A1) and further in view of Kazmi (US 2024/0098540 A1) . Regarding claim 16, although Nagaraja in para. [0060] in view of Kim in para. [0764] teaches that requested gap arrangements are grounded in furnished values such as the measGapId, Nagaraja in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose that the chosen arrangement takes effect only after a set waiting interval: The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the UE-selected measurement gap scheduling configuration is linked to an activation delay. Even so, Nagaraja in view of Kim and further in view of Kazmi teaches starting a preconfigured gap pattern at a reference time plus a time offset (i.e., "an activation delay" as claimed) (Kazmi, para [0025] “ is a reference time, T0, plus a time offset, DT1 ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to further modify Nagaraja in view of Kim in view of Kazmi in order to give the terminal and the base station a common, predictable point at which a newly invoked gap arrangement takes effect. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 2 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 3 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 4 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 5 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 6 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 7 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 8 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 9 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 10 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 11 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 12 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 13 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 14 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 15 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 16 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 17 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 18 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 19 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 20 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 21 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 22 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/768,819 Page 23 Art Unit: 2478
Prosecution Insights