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 .
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-16, 19, 23-25, 47-48, and 50 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS statements filed to date have been 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 14, the limitation “meets a requirement of the first counter” is indefinite since it is not clear what is meant by “meets a requirement.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 9, 12-13, 23-25, 47-48, and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al., US 2023/0188281, (“Yang”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches “A measurement method, performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
obtaining first information, the first information being information related to a measurement for a first cell, the measurement for the first cell comprising at least one of:
layer 1 (L1) measurement;
candidate beam detection (CBD);
beam failure detection (BFD); or
radio link monitoring (RLM)” (Fig. 2, step S202; the terminal 11 (Fig. 1) performs L1 measurement on a reference signal of a neighboring cell; see also, paragraph nos. 0029, 0040; note that the “first cell” reads on the neighboring cell).
Regarding independent claims 23 and 47, these independent claims are corresponding network method and UE apparatus claims of the method claim 1 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 1 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 23, see Fig. 1, network side device 12.
Regarding further independent claim 47, see Fig. 7 for the claimed structural elements.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 2 and 24, Yang teaches “wherein the first cell comprises a non-serving cell, or a cell with different physical cell identifier (PCI) from serving cell” (paragraph no. 0029 discloses a neighboring cell).
Regarding claims 3 and 25, Yang teaches “wherein the first information comprises a first factor applied to measurement period” (paragraph no. 0042 discloses a “first factor” (a) and a “measurement period” (SMTC) in the equation a*SMTC+b).
Regarding claim 6, Yang teaches “wherein the first information comprises a second factor applied to measurement period” (paragraph no. 0042 discloses a “first factor” (a) and a “measurement period” (SMTC) in the equation a*SMTC+b).
Regarding claim 9, Yang teaches “wherein the first information comprises a third factor applied to measurement period” (paragraph no. 0042 discloses a “first factor” (a) and a “measurement period” (SMTC) in the equation a*SMTC+b).
Regarding claim 12, Yang teaches the last alternative limitation “fourth indication information indicating activating or deactivating rapid reporting of a measurement result of the layer 1 measurement of the first cell or a first threshold” (see paragraph nos. 0069 and 0092 which disclose a threshold configured by the network).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches the first alternative limitation “in case that the fourth indication information indicates activating the rapid reporting of the measurement result of the layer 1 measurement of the first cell (paragraph no. 0040 discloses measurement time configuration received by the terminal – the measurement time configuration teaches “activating the rapid reporting”) or the measurement result of the layer 1 measurement of the first cell is greater than or equal to the first threshold, obtaining P1 measurement results of the layer 1 measurement of the first cell, and then reporting a measurement result to a network side” (paragraph no. 0040 discloses taking at least one measurement on the reference signal and transmitting it to the network).
Regarding claim 48, see Fig. 8 of the Yang for the claimed structural elements.
Regarding claim 50, Yang teaches at least the last alternative limitation “determining the first information by the UE itself” (Fig. 2, step S202).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Chen et al., US 2021/0306895, (“Chen”).
Yang does not teach but Chen teaches “receiving second information sent by the network side, the second information indicating a second threshold; and reporting to the network side a measurement result of the layer 1 measurement of the first cell that is greater than or equal to the second threshold” (paragraph no. 0111 and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to further modify Yang by incorporating the teachings Chen to improve the measurement of the L1 measurements via the use of a threshold.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Taherzadeh Boroujeni et al., US 2021/0359743, (“Taherzadeh”).
Yang does not teach but Taherzadeh teaches the first alternative limitation “reporting an absolute value of the measurement result” (paragraph no. 0136, “As such, the CSI report 215 may include an absolute value for one L1-SINR measurement or one L1-RSRP measurement”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to further modify Yang by incorporating the teachings Taherzadeh to improve the reporting of the L1 measurements to the network.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, 10, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest each of the claim limitations recited in claims 4, 7, 10, and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Fig. 5 of Hu, US 2024/0365146, which is of particular relevance to each of the independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights