DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Claims 25-44 are 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the MGs" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the MGs" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 recites the limitation "the MGs" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 26-31, 33-38, 40-44 are rejected for claiming dependency from above rejected claims respectively.
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.
Claims 25-28, 31-35, 38-42, 44, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Huang et al (WO2022146767A1), with US provisional filing date 1/4/2021.
Regarding claim 25, Huang discloses
an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: (UE, e.g. FIGs. 1A, 2 #101, comprising processor circuitry [0040-0044], provisional application pages 14
process, based on signaling from a network, a measurement gap (MG) configuration comprising multiple MGs (process RRC signaling from network comprising MeasGapConfig comprising multiple measurement gaps [0072-0075], FIG. 4, provisional application pages 2-3
determine a conflict exists between two of the MGs (determines overlap exists among GAP1 and GAP3 at T4 [0077], FIG. 4, provisional application pages 4-5
select one of the two MGs that have the conflict based on a priority of each of the MGs (UE selects MG associated with higher priority between two conflicting MGs [0084, 0074], provisional application pages 4-5
Claim 39 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 25
Regarding claim 32, Huang discloses
a user equipment (UE) comprising: (UE, e.g. FIGs. 1A, 2 #101, comprising
a transceiver configured to communicate with a network (network interface device, FIG. 2 #220 [0046], provisional application page 14
a processor configured to: (processor circuitry operable to [0040-0044], provisional application page 14
process, based on signaling from a network, a measurement gap (MG) configuration comprising multiple MGs (process RRC signaling from network comprising MeasGapConfig comprising multiple measurement gaps [0072-0075], FIG. 4, provisional application pages 2-3
determine a conflict exists between two of the MGs (determines overlap exists among GAP1 and GAP3 at T4 [0077], FIG. 4, provisional application pages 4-5
select one of the two MGs that have the conflict based on a priority of each of the MGs (UE selects MG associated with higher priority between two conflicting MGs [0084, 0074], provisional application pages 4-5
Regarding claims 26, 33, 40, Huang discloses “perform signal measurements during the one of the MGs that have the conflict” UE selects MG associated with higher priority between two conflicting MGs to perform measurements [0084, 0084, 0074], provisional application pages 2-5
Regarding claims 27, 34, 41, Huang discloses “drop an other one of the MGs that have the conflict that are not selected” dropping lower priority measurement [0084, 0085], provisional application pages 2-5
Regarding claims 28, 35, 42, Huang disclose “wherein the conflict comprises the two MGs partially or fully overlap” GAP1 and GAP3 partially or fully overlap [0075, 0074], provisional application pages 2-5
Regarding claims 31, 38, 44, Huang discloses “wherein the multiple MGs are configured on a per user equipment (UE) basis” such concurrent multiple measurement gap pattern may be based per-UE [0094], provisional application pages 2-5
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 (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 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.
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 30, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cui et al (USPN 20190342801)
Regarding claims 30, 37, Huang discloses whether the concurrent multiple measurement gap patterns can be defined as per-UE or per-FR capabilities [0094]
Huang does not expressly disclose “wherein the multiple MGs are configured on a per
frequency range (FR) basis for FRs with which the apparatus is configured”
Cui discloses MGs are configured on a per frequency range that UE operates [0044, 0067, 0072-0078]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the multiple MGs are configured on a per frequency range (FR) basis for FRs with which the apparatus is configured” as taught by Cui into Huang’s system with the motivation to enlarge a UE’s capabilities to measure per FR basis.
Claims 30, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of second_embodiment of Huang et al (WO2022146767A1), with US provisional filing date 1/4/2021.
Regarding claims 29, 36, 43, Huang discloses measurement gap instances are separated by a specific time interval [0098-0101], provisional application pages 4-5
Huang does not expressly disclose “wherein the conflict comprises a time period between the two MGs is less than a predetermined period of time”
Second_embodiment of Huang discloses “wherein the conflict comprises a time period between the two MGs is less than a predetermined period of time”(overlap exists among GAP1 and GAP3 at T4 [0077], FIG. 4, provisional application pages 4-5
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the conflict comprises a time period between the two MGs is less than a predetermined period of time” as taught by Second_embodiment of Huang into Huang’s system with the motivation to use “specific time interval separating MGs” to enable a concrete/mathematical calculation to determine if there is an overlap between MGs when MGs are separated by less than “specific time interval separating MGs”.
Claims 25, 32, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siomina et al (USPN 20210120513) in view of Zhang et al (WO 2017028046 A1), translation provided.
Regarding claim 25, Siomina discloses
an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: (wireless device/WD, FIG. 3 #22, comprising processor circuitry [0076-0077]
process, based on signaling from a network, a measurement gap (MG) configuration comprising multiple MGs (process configuration comprising multiple measurement gaps [0013, 0014, 0069]
determine a conflict exists between two of the MGs (at least one measurement gap within first measurement gap pattern overlaps with at least one measurement gap within the second measurement gap pattern [0017, 0065]
select one of the two MGs that have the conflict (selects MGP2 over MGP1 [0017, 0018]
Siomina does not expressly disclose select based on a priority of each of the MGs
Zhang discloses selecting one of the conflicting measurement gaps based on priority of each (pages 3-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “select based on a priority of each of the MGs” as taught by Zhang into Siomina’s system with the motivation to perform WSE Reset Request/Response of peripheral devices (Huang, paragraph [0086-0089], FIG. 7)
Claim 39 is rejected based on similar ground(s) provided in rejection of claim 25
Regarding claim 32, Siomina discloses
a user equipment (UE) comprising: (wireless device/WD, FIG. 3 #22, comprising [0076-0077]
a transceiver configured to communicate with a network (radio interface, FIG. 3 #82, operable to communicate with a network [0085]
a processor configured to (processing circuitry, FIG. 3 #84, operable to [0076-0078]
process, based on signaling from a network, a measurement gap (MG) configuration comprising multiple MGs (process configuration comprising multiple measurement gaps [0013, 0014, 0069]
determine a conflict exists between two of the MGs (at least one measurement gap within first measurement gap pattern overlaps with at least one measurement gap within the second measurement gap pattern [0017, 0065]
select one of the two MGs that have the conflict (selects MGP2 over MGP1 [0017, 0018]
Siomina does not expressly disclose select based on a priority of each of the MGs
Zhang discloses selecting one of the conflicting measurement gaps based on priority of each (pages 3-5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “select based on a priority of each of the MGs” as taught by Zhang into Siomina’s system with the motivation to perform WSE Reset Request/Response of peripheral devices (Huang, paragraph [0086-0089], FIG. 7)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yi et al (USPN 20190222478)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights