DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communications filed on August 29, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 9/30/2024 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 2025/0274973).
Regarding Claim 1, Li teaches a terminal device comprising:
at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (“The processor(s) 302 of the UE device 106 can be configured to implement part or all of the methods described herein, e.g., by executing program instructions stored on a memory medium (e.g., a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium)” – See [0058]), cause the terminal device at least to:
determine, based on at least one measurement requirement, a first interruption ratio (“new UE assistance information (UAI) or UE capability information (e.g., “maxMGLOverhead,”) can be introduced for indicating a preferred or supported maximum measurement gap length (MGL) overhead. A MGL overhead parameter can be defined such that it is calculated based on the proportion of measurement gap time in each measurement gap repetition period (MGRP), according to some embodiments; for example, the MGL overhead can be defined as sum(MGLx)/sum(MGRPx), as one possibility” – See [0104]; “the wireless device capability information indicating measurement gap handling capability can include an indication of a preferred or needed maximum gap length overhead based on the active measurement gaps for the wireless device” – See [0086]; The UE determines, based on the active measurement gaps configured for the UE, a preferred/needed maximum MGL overhead ratio (first interruption ratio)); and
transmit, to a network device, a first message requesting the network device to grant the first interruption ratio, wherein the first interruption ratio is different from a second interruption ratio acceptable by the network device (“One possible aspect of such techniques can include supporting UE capability reporting on measurement gap related capabilities for the UE. Such reporting could include reporting the maximum number of configured gap patterns supported by a UE, and/or the maximum measurement gap length overhead supported by a UE” – See [0102]; “In such a scenario, it can be the case that as long as the MGL overhead is less than the maximum overhead supported (as indicated by the UE capability/assistance information) by the UE, the network can configure any desired measurement gap patterns” – See [0104]; “the wireless device capability information indicating measurement gap handling capability can include an indication of a preferred or needed maximum gap length overhead” – See [0086]; The UE transmits a report to the network device, wherein the report indicates a request for the preferred/needed maximum MGL overhead ratio (first interruption ratio). Since the network device can grant any interruption ratio that is less than the requested maximum value, the first interruption ratio is different than a second interruption ratio that is acceptable by the network device).
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches the terminal device of Claim 1. Li further teaches that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message comprising a granted interruption ratio, which is the first interruption ratio or a third interruption ratio different from the second interruption ratio (“In 506, the wireless device can receive measurement gap configuration information from the cellular base station” – See [0089]; “The network can be expected to configure gaps for the UE following the UE capability (e.g., not to exceed the supported maximum active gaps and/or the maximum MGL overhead) in such a case. A UE providing such capability and/or assistance information can thus expect the configured gaps not to exceed the reported UE capability; in case the configured gaps do exceed the UE capability, it can be left to UE implementation to choose which gaps to activate among the configured gaps, at least according to some embodiments” – See [0105]; The UE receives a grant message from the network device, wherein the grant message assigns a measurement gap configuration having a first interruption ratio that meets the requested maximum value. Alternatively, the grant message may assign a measurement gap configuration having a third interruption ratio that exceeds the first interruption ratio).
Regarding Claim 6, Li teaches the terminal device of Claim 2. Li further teaches that the granted interruption ratio is determined based on at least one of the following: a service type provided to the terminal device; a connected mode of the terminal device; a network load; or a duration of at least one measurement interruption (“new UE assistance information (UAI) or UE capability information (e.g., “maxMGLOverhead,”) can be introduced for indicating a preferred or supported maximum measurement gap length (MGL) overhead. A MGL overhead parameter can be defined such that it is calculated based on the proportion of measurement gap time in each measurement gap repetition period (MGRP), according to some embodiments; for example, the MGL overhead can be defined as sum(MGLx)/sum(MGRPx), as one possibility” – See [0104]; The interruption ratio is determined based on a measurement gap length (MGL), which is a duration that data transmission/reception is interrupted to perform measurements).
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches the terminal device of Claim 1. Li further teaches that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message rejecting to grant the first interruption ratio (“In 506, the wireless device can receive measurement gap configuration information from the cellular base station” – See [0089]; “The network can be expected to configure gaps for the UE following the UE capability (e.g., not to exceed the supported maximum active gaps and/or the maximum MGL overhead) in such a case. A UE providing such capability and/or assistance information can thus expect the configured gaps not to exceed the reported UE capability; in case the configured gaps do exceed the UE capability, it can be left to UE implementation to choose which gaps to activate among the configured gaps, at least according to some embodiments” – See [0105]; The network device may grant an interruption ratio different than the one requested by the UE. Since the interruption ratio granted in the configuration message (second message) is different than the one that was requested, it is a rejection of the requested interruption ratio).
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2025/0274973) in view of Zheng et al. (US 2022/0060923).
Regarding Claim 3, Li teaches the terminal device of Claim 2. Li does not explicitly teach that the second message further comprises a first time period for the granted interruption ratio.
However, Zheng teaches that the second message further comprises a first time period for the granted interruption ratio (“For example, in NR, the measurement gap configuration (measGapConfig) may include a gap type, a gap offset (gapOffset), a gap length (MGL) (unit: millisecond (ms)), a gap repetition period (MGRP) (unit: ms)” – See [0094]; The measurement gap configuration (second message) comprises a measurement gap repetition period which is a first time for the granted interruption ratio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li such that the second message further comprises a first time period for the granted interruption ratio since including this information in the second message is defined in the well-known 3GPP 5G NR standards.
Claim 15 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2025/0274973) in view of Zheng et al. (US 2022/0060923) and further in view of Chervyakov et al. (WO 2022/119832).
Regarding Claim 4, Li in view of Zheng teaches the terminal device of Claim 3. Li and Zheng do not explicitly teach that the terminal device is further caused to: determine a second time period for the granted interruption ratio, the second time period being different from the first time period; and transmit, to the network device, a third message requesting the second time period for the granted interruption ratio.
However, Chervyakov teaches that the terminal device is further caused to: determine a second time period for the granted interruption ratio, the second time period being different from the first time period; and transmit, to the network device, a third message requesting the second time period for the granted interruption ratio (“the UE may request a new MG configuration with a shorter measurement gap repetition period (MGRP) than the initial MG configuration when a shorter period between gaps is needed” – See [0043]; The UE determines at a new MGRP (second time period) is needed, wherein the new MGRP is different from the initial MGRP (first time period). The UE transmits a request to the network device requesting the new MGRP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include determining a second time period for the granted interruption ratio, the second time period being different from the first time period; and transmitting, to the network device, a third message requesting the second time period for the granted interruption ratio. Motivation for doing so would be to request a new time period when needed (See Chervyakov, [0043]).
Regarding Claim 5, Li in view of Zheng and Chervyakov teaches the terminal device of Claim 4. Chervyakov further teaches that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a fourth message granting or rejecting the second time period requested by the terminal device (“The gNB may also encode a measurement gap configuration (MeasGapConfig) information element (IE) for transmission to the UE, the MeasGapConfig IE to configure (i.e., grant) the UE with the new MG configuration (i.e., newgapUE)” – See [0059]; The UE receives, from the network, device a fourth message granting the requested new/second time period).
Claim 17 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 5.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2025/0274973) in view of Xu et al. (US 2024/0187902).
Regarding Claim 8, Li teaches the terminal device of Claim 1. Li does not explicitly teach that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message requesting to reduce measurements; and perform, based on the second message, at least one operation for reducing the measurements.
However, Xu teaches that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message requesting to reduce measurements; and perform, based on the second message, at least one operation for reducing the measurements (“the network entity 105-a may configure the UE 115-a to skip one or more MGs based on a priority of SSBs associated with the MG. For example, MGs associated with CD SSBs may have a higher priority than MGs associated with NCD SSBs. In some cases, the UE 115-a may receive the periodic traffic 215 during the second duration 240-c which may collide with an MG corresponding to the first duration 235-c, and the UE 115-a may determine to skip the MG based on the MG corresponding to an NCD SSB. Additionally, or alternatively, the UE 115-a may determine to perform the MG based on the MG corresponding to a CD SSB regardless of collisions with periodic traffic 215. In some cases, the periodicity of the CD SSB may be different from the periodicity of the MG or of the NCD SSB. In some examples, the UE 115-a may refrain from monitoring for NCD SSBs based on the priority” – See [0116]; The UE receives, from the network device, a second message requesting the UE to skip one or more MGs (i.e., reduce measurements), wherein the UE skips one or more MGs in accordance with the request).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include receiving, from the network device, a second message requesting to reduce measurements; and perform, based on the second message, at least one operation for reducing the measurements. Motivation for doing so would be to refrain from interrupting reception of traffic for performing a measurement when the measurement has a low priority, such a non-cell defining SSB (See Xu, [0116]).
Regarding Claim 9, Li in view of Xu teaches the terminal device of Claim 8. Xu further teaches that the at least one operation comprises at least one of the following: reducing a number of measurements performed on all carriers which cause the measurement interruptions; reducing a number of measurements performed on at least one carrier which cause the measurement interruptions; stopping measurements performed on at least one carrier which cause the measurement interruptions; reducing a number of measurements performed on at least one carrier for at least one measurement type which cause the measurement interruptions; or stopping measurements performed on at least one carrier for at least one measurement type which cause the measurement interruptions (“The UEs 115 and the network entities 105 may wirelessly communicate with one another via one or more communication links 125 (e.g., an access link) using resources associated with one or more carriers” – See [0068]; “the network entity 105-a may configure the UE 115-a to skip one or more MGs based on a priority of SSBs associated with the MG. For example, MGs associated with CD SSBs may have a higher priority than MGs associated with NCD SSBs. In some cases, the UE 115-a may receive the periodic traffic 215 during the second duration 240-c which may collide with an MG corresponding to the first duration 235-c, and the UE 115-a may determine to skip the MG based on the MG corresponding to an NCD SSB. Additionally, or alternatively, the UE 115-a may determine to perform the MG based on the MG corresponding to a CD SSB regardless of collisions with periodic traffic 215. In some cases, the periodicity of the CD SSB may be different from the periodicity of the MG or of the NCD SSB. In some examples, the UE 115-a may refrain from monitoring for NCD SSBs based on the priority” – See [0116]; The UE skips/reduces a number of measurements on at least one carrier which case interruptions to traffic reception).
Regarding Claim 10, Li in view of Xu teaches the terminal device of Claim 9. Xu further teaches that the at least one carrier has a pre-defined priority or a priority configured by the network device; and/or wherein the at least one measurement type is configured based on a pre-defined priority rule or a priority rule signaled by the network device (“In some examples, the network entity 105-a may configure the UE 115-a to skip one or more MGs based on a priority of SSBs associated with the MG” – See [0116]; The measurement type is configured based on a priority rule signaled by the network device).
Claims 11, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2025/0274973) in view of He et al. (US 2022/0322308).
Regarding Claim 11, Li teaches the terminal device of Claim 1. Li does not explicitly teach that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message indicating the terminal device to perform measurements only within configured measurement gaps (MGs) and/or network controlled small gaps (NCSGs) for a third time period.
However, He teaches that the terminal device is further caused to: receive, from the network device, a second message indicating the terminal device to perform measurements only within configured measurement gaps (MGs) and/or network controlled small gaps (NCSGs) for a third time period (“the downlink message may indicate one or more parameters associated with the first measurement gap configuration … the one or more parameters may define and/or selectively modify the first measurement gap configuration, including a gap length, a gap periodicity, a timer, a validity time, and the like” – See [0167]; The measurement gap configuration (second message) indicates that the terminal only perform measurements in the configured gaps during a validity time period (third time period)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Li to include receiving, from the network device, a second message indicating the terminal device to perform measurements only within configured measurement gaps (MGs) and/or network controlled small gaps (NCSGs) for a third time period. Motivation for doing so would be to configure the terminal to only apply the configured measurements for a defined validity time (See He, [0061]).
Regarding Claim 12, Li in view of He teaches the terminal device of Claim 11. Li further teaches that the second message comprises configuration information of the MGs and/or NCSGs (“the measurement gap configuration information configures a first measurement gap pattern” – See [0092]; The measurement gap configuration (second message) comprises configuration information of the measurement gaps).
Claim 19 is rejected based on reasoning similar to Claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Scott M Sciacca whose telephone number is (571)270-1919. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 7:30 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. EST.
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, Joseph Avellino 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.
/SCOTT M SCIACCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights