DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/1/24 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 §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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mu (US 20250274247 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mu, in view of Tang et al. (US 20220046443 A1), hereinafter referred to as Tang.
Regarding claim 1:
Mu discloses a terminal comprising:
a reception unit (communication component, element 416 in Fig.17) configured to receive a reference signal of channel state information in downlink (configured to receive Channel State Information (CSI)-Reference Signal (RS), e.g., equivalent to network device configures CSI-RS for terminal [claim 5] in downlink transmission [0061]);
a control unit (processing unit, element 402 in Fig.17) configured to expect that a synchronization signal is to be transmitted or is not to be transmitted in a bandwidth part in an RRC connected state (configured to perform SSB-based measurement or not to support SSB-based measurement in bandwidth part {BWP} [0119-0120, 0122 and 0127]); and a transmission unit (communication component, element 416 in Fig17 or input/output, element 558 in Fig.18) configured to determine measurements based on the reference signal of the channel state information in a case where the control unit expects that the synchronization signal is not to be transmitted in the bandwidth part in the RRC connected state (configured to perform CSI-RS-based measurements and configured not to support SSB-based measurement in BWP [0127, 0119-0120, 0122]).
Mu does not further disclose transmitting terminal capability information related to measurement based on the reference signal of the channel state information in a case where the control unit expects that the synchronization signal is not to be transmitted in the bandwidth part in the RRC connected state.
Tang, from the field of endeavor, teaches transmitting terminal capability information related to measurement based on the reference signal of the channel state information in a case where the control unit expects that the synchronization signal is not to be transmitted in the bandwidth part in the RRC connected state (providing a UE capability report/ information indicates whether UE supports concurrent SSB-based measurement or CSI-RS based measurement, e.g., SSB not to be transmitted [0054] in BWP in RRC connected state [0098 and 0059]).
Also, Tang states that CSI-RS is a multi-purpose downlink transmission [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit terminal capability information related to measurement based on CSI-RS, when the synchronization signal is not to be transmitted in the bandwidth part in the RRC connected state; thus enabling the base station to configure varied measurements information for radio resource management -- Tang [0027]
Regarding claim 2:
Mu in view of Tang discloses all features of claim 1.
Mu further discloses determining the terminal itself is a reduced capability terminal (reduced capability user equipment {UE}, e.g., terminal [0054]). In addition, Tang teaches the transmission unit transmits the terminal capability information in uplink (RF interface circuitry, element 826 in Fig.8, provides a capability report to base station, e.g., uplink [0049-0050 and 0076]].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit terminal capability information in uplink; thus enabling the base station to generate configuration information for measurements -- Tang [0106]
Regarding claim 3:
Mu in view of Tang discloses all features of claim 1.
Mu does not, while Tang further teaches the control unit expects that the measurement based on the reference signal of the channel state information is determined to be supported in a case where the synchronization signal is not transmitted in the bandwidth part in the RRC connected state by transmitting the terminal capability information related to measurement based on the reference signal of the channel state information (performing measurements based on CSI-RS {when SSB-based measurement is not performed, e.g., resulting from SSB is not transmitted, in BWP in RRC connected state [0098 and 0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time before the claimed invention was filed to transmit terminal capability information related to measurement based on CSI-RS, when the synchronization signal is not to be transmitted in the bandwidth part in the RRC connected state; thus enabling the base station to efficiently configure varied measurements information for radio resource management -- Tang [0027]
Regarding claim 4:
Claim 4 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim is recited from the perspective of the base station (gNB, element 900 in Fig.9).
Regarding claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 4 is in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 3 above, except that claim 6 is dependent on claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza, can be reached at 571-270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights