DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 and 9/10/2025 have been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 10/31/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 2-7, 10-15, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims do not comprise an associated definition for the acronyms featured. Examiner respectfully requests amending each of the dependent claims per claim set to include an associated definition.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0358719 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”), claiming benefit to and fully supported by provisionally-filed application No. 63/352,240, filed June 15, 2022.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a method for wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a measurement configuration and an associated applicable condition (Kim: Figure 10 with [0328-0329] – corresponds to a wireless device receiving a measurement configuration; [0329-0330] – corresponds to the measurement configuration comprising measurement objects (conditions), wherein “the measurement objects may include (i) information on a height-based list of Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) to measure and (ii) information on a height range corresponding to the height-based list of SSB to measure.”); and
applying the measurement configuration when the associated applicable condition is met (Kim: Figure 10 with [0331-0346] – corresponds to performing multiple tasks when one or more of the measurement objects is met, including measurement reporting and selecting an SSB beam.).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the measurement configuration is implemented by a number of SS blocks (Kim: [0006], [0289-0290], [0331] – corresponds to a measurement of a plurality of SSBs.) [to average for cell measurement derivation] (Examiner respectfully notes the bracketed limitation is considered as an intended use of a number of SS blocks and thus not required to be disclosed by the art of record. Examiner respectfully suggests positively reciting the feature to be given patentable weight.).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the measurement configuration is configured by System Information received from a base station and applied in an RRC IDLE and RRC INACTIVE modes to perform measurements for cell selection or reselection (Kim: [0327-0335] – the selected beam for measurement includes an RRC_INACTIVE or RRC_IDLE state. [0255-0277] – the RRC is configured via system information.).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the associated applicable condition comprises:
whether an altitude of the UE exceeds a first predetermined threshold and is less than a second predetermined threshold (Kim: [0177-0181 – an altitude for a UE includes a network-defined altitude threshold.).
Claims 9, 13, 15, and 16, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claims 1, 5, 7, and 8, recite similar features as claims 1, 5, 7, and 8, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 1, 5, 7, and 8. Please see above rejections of claims 1, 5, 7, and 8. Kim discloses the apparatus as a user equipment comprising a memory and processor in at least Fig. 5 with [0026], [0097-0106].
Claims 17 and 20, directed to an article of manufacture embodiment of claims 1 and 8, recite similar features and 1 and 8, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 1 and 8. Please see above rejections of claims 1 and 8. Kim discloses the article of manufacture as a non-transitory computer-readable medium in [0467].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
14. 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.
15. Claims 2-3, 10-11, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2020/0358547 A1 to Liu et al. (hereinafter “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein [a]…configuration is implemented by a bitmap to indicate one or more SSBs on which to perform measurement (Kim: [0382-0403] – corresponds to determining a reference signal linked to an SSB (in range of height) based on an ssb-PositionsInBurst; from Table 5 with [0287-0290], Kim discloses the ssb-PositionsInBurst is part of a configuration as implemented in a bitmap.).
Kim does not expressly disclose the measurement configuration includes the bitmap information of the SSB.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence Liu. Liu is similarly concerned with determining the reception of SSB (Liu: [0006-0007]). Liu discloses the measurement configuration is implemented by a bitmap to indicate one or more SSBs on which to perform measurement (Liu: [0038] – explicitly stated.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the measurement configuration of Kim in view of the measurement configuration of Liu to include a bitmap for the reasons of assisting in determining whether or not a failure has occurred in the reception of an SSB (Liu [0037]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Kim discloses timing information may be included for SSB determination (Kim: [0288-0289] with Table 5), but Kim does not expressly disclose the measurement configuration is implemented by an SSB measurement timing configuration (SMTC).
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence Liu. Liu is similarly concerned with determining the reception of SSB (Liu: [0006-0007]). Liu discloses the measurement configuration is implemented by an SSB measurement timing configuration (SMTC) (Liu: [0095] – explicitly stated. See also [0114].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the measurement configuration of Kim in view of the measurement configuration of Liu to include an SMTC for the reasons of assisting in determining whether or not a failure has occurred in the reception of an SSB (Liu [0037]).
Claims 10-11, dependent upon claim 9, recite similar features as claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 2-3. Please see above rejections of claims 2-3.
Claims 18-19, dependent upon claim 17, recite similar features as claims 2-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 2-3. Please see above rejections of claims 2-3.
16. Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0195453 A1 to Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the measurement configuration is implemented by a predetermined threshold for consolidation of L1 measurements per RS index.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Zhang. Zhang is similarly concerned with beam measurement (Zhang: [0007]). Zhang discloses a measurement configuration is implemented by a predetermined threshold for consolidation of L1 measurements per RS index (Zhang: [0069-0076] – corresponds to determining an L1 measurement value (absThreshSS-BlocksConsolidation value) based on an SSB, which is equivalent to a predetermined threshold for consolidation of L1 measurements per RS index.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the measurement configuration of Kim in view of the measurement configuration of Zhang to include a threshold for consolidation of L1 measurements for the reasons of improving the efficiency of wireless communication network techniques through measured beam quality (Zhang: [0005], [0007]).
Claim 12, dependent upon claim 9, recites similar features as claim 9, and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 9. Please see above rejection of claim 9.
17. Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0300888 A1 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, discloses selecting an SSB for measurement when a user device exits an RRC_CONNECTED state (Kim: [0334-0335]), but does not expressly disclose wherein the measurement configuration is applied in an RRC CONNECTED mode to perform measurement on a serving and/or neighbor cell.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Lee. Lee is similarly concerned with measuring SSBs (Lee: [0005-0010]). Lee discloses the measurement configuration is applied in an RRC CONNECTED mode to perform measurement on a serving and/or neighbor cell (Lee: [0114-0116] – “If the information is related to measurement, the network (e.g., BS) may indicate an SSB set to be measured within a measurement period, when the UE is in RRC connected mode.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the measurement configuration for measuring SSBs of Kim in view of the measurement configuration of Lee to measure SSBs in an RRC Connected state for the reasons of improving efficiencies with identifying RACH resources for a RACH preamble (Lee: [0128]).
Claim 14, dependent upon claim 9, recites similar features as claim 6 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 6. Please see above rejection of claim 6.
Conclusion
18. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 August 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights