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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 11/20/2024.
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2024 and 11/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Intel (3GPP TSG-RAN4 Meeting #87, 7.10.8.1, R4-1806340) in view of Noh (Pub. No.: US 2022/0256458 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Intel teaches
…that a delay time based on at least one of a number of samples used in the measurement or a scaling factor indicating an overlap between a resource for the CSI-RS and a measurement gap is included in a measurement time (Intel 2.2: “the total measurement delay is [Y3] x [N3] x SMTC_period, Y3 is the sample number for SSB measurement and N3 is the Rx beam number; one attempt means channel condition is good enough to use Y3=1, but the Rx beam number N3 still need to be reflected as an actual value rather than N3=1. The SSB index acquisition time could be 1 due to enough good channel condition. Since we propose 8 as Rx beam number in SSB based measurement requirement, here for HO requirement we propose Tloops = [8*SMTC period] ms (time refinement can be included in the measurement period)”, number of samples (Y3) used for measurement delay which is included in a measurement period (measurement time)),
wherein, if the resource for the CSI-RS partially overlaps a periodicity of the measurement gap, the controller determines that the scaling factor indicating the overlap between the resource for the CSI-RS and the measurement gap is a value based on a periodicity of the resource for the CSI-RS and the periodicity of the measurement gap (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Intel does not appear to explicitly teach a terminal comprising a receiver that receives a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in a downlink and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS.
However, Noh, in the analogous art of wireless communications for a UE and utilizing a delay time, teaches
A terminal (Noh [0022] and [0328]: terminal) comprising:
a receiver that receives a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in a downlink (Noh [0328]: terminal receiver; Noh [0028-0029] and [0037]: receiving CSI-RS in the downlink); and
a controller that determines (Noh [0332]: terminal having a controller), in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS (Noh [0215] and [0029]: higher layer signaling, measurement on a CSI-RS resource)…
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Intel to incorporate the teachings of Noh and utilize a terminal comprising a receiver that receives a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in a downlink and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS. Doing so would improve the method as CSI-RS based measurements are more refined and flexible than SSB based measurements and utilizing CSI-RS can reflect downlink quality better than SSB.
Regarding claim 2, Intel modified by Noh teaches
The terminal according to claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein, if the resource for the CSI-RS does not overlap a periodicity of the measurement gap, the controller determines that the scaling factor indicating the overlap between the resource for the CSI-RS and the measurement gap is one (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Regarding claim 3, Intel modified by Noh teaches
The terminal according to claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein, if a synchronization signal associated with the CSI-RS is already detected, the controller determines to reduce the delay time (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Regarding claim 4, Intel modified by Noh teaches
The terminal according to claim 1 (the limitations of parent claim 1 as indicated above), wherein, if a cell specified for the measurement is different from a visited cell, the controller determines that the delay time includes a time for processing a Synchronization signal Block (SSB) (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Regarding claim 5, Intel teaches
…that a delay time based on at least one of a number of samples used in the measurement or a scaling factor indicating an overlap between a resource for the CSI-RS and a measurement gap is included in a measurement time (Intel 2.2: “the total measurement delay is [Y3] x [N3] x SMTC_period, Y3 is the sample number for SSB measurement and N3 is the Rx beam number; one attempt means channel condition is good enough to use Y3=1, but the Rx beam number N3 still need to be reflected as an actual value rather than N3=1. The SSB index acquisition time could be 1 due to enough good channel condition. Since we propose 8 as Rx beam number in SSB based measurement requirement, here for HO requirement we propose Tloops = [8*SMTC period] ms (time refinement can be included in the measurement period)”, number of samples (Y3) used for measurement delay which is included in a measurement period (measurement time)),
wherein, if the resource for the CSI-RS partially overlaps a periodicity of the measurement gap, the controller determines that the scaling factor indicating the overlap between the resource for the CSI-RS and the measurement gap is a value based on a periodicity of the resource for the CSI-RS and the periodicity of the measurement gap (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Intel does not appear to explicitly teach a base station comprising: a transmitter that transmits a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) to a terminal; and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS.
However, Noh, in the analogous art of wireless communications for a UE and base station and utilizing a delay time, teaches
A base station (Noh [0006] and [0023]: base station) comprising:
a transmitter that transmits a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) to a terminal (Noh [0334]: base station transmitter; Noh [0028-0029], [0214], and [0037]: BS transmitting CSI-RS to terminal); and
a controller that determines (Noh [0054] and [0338]: base station controller), in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS (Noh [0215] and [0029]: higher layer signaling, measurement on a CSI-RS resource),
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Intel to incorporate the teachings of Noh and utilize a base station comprising: a transmitter that transmits a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) to a terminal; and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS. Doing so would improve the method as CSI-RS based measurements are more refined and flexible than SSB based measurements and utilizing CSI-RS can reflect downlink quality better than SSB.
Regarding claim 6, Intel teaches
…that a delay time based on at least one of a number of samples used in the measurement or a scaling factor indicating an overlap between a resource for the CSI-RS and a measurement gap is included in a measurement time (Intel 2.2: “the total measurement delay is [Y3] x [N3] x SMTC_period, Y3 is the sample number for SSB measurement and N3 is the Rx beam number; one attempt means channel condition is good enough to use Y3=1, but the Rx beam number N3 still need to be reflected as an actual value rather than N3=1. The SSB index acquisition time could be 1 due to enough good channel condition. Since we propose 8 as Rx beam number in SSB based measurement requirement, here for HO requirement we propose Tloops = [8*SMTC period] ms (time refinement can be included in the measurement period)”, number of samples (Y3) used for measurement delay which is included in a measurement period (measurement time)); and
if the resource for the CSI-RS partially overlaps a periodicity of the measurement gap, determining that the scaling factor indicating the overlap between the resource for the CSI-RS and the measurement gap is a value based on a periodicity of the resource for the CSI-RS and the periodicity of the measurement gap (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Intel does not appear to explicitly teach a communication method executed by a terminal, the method comprising: receiving a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in a downlink; determining, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS.
However, Noh, in the analogous art of wireless communications for a UE and base station and utilizing a delay time, teaches
A communication method executed by a terminal (Noh [0006] and [0328]: communication method by a terminal), the method comprising:
receiving a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in a downlink (Noh [0328]: terminal receiver; Noh [0028-0029] and [0037]: receiving CSI-RS in the downlink);
determining, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS (Noh [0215] and [0029]: higher layer signaling, measurement on a CSI-RS resource; Noh [0332]: terminal having a controller),
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Intel to incorporate the teachings of Noh and utilize a communication method executed by a terminal, the method comprising: receiving a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) in a downlink; determining, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS. Doing so would improve the method as CSI-RS based measurements are more refined and flexible than SSB based measurements and utilizing CSI-RS can reflect downlink quality better than SSB.
Regarding claim 7, Intel teaches
…that a delay time based on at least one of a number of samples used in the measurement or a scaling factor indicating an overlap between a resource for the CSI-RS and a measurement gap is included in a measurement time (Intel 2.2: “the total measurement delay is [Y3] x [N3] x SMTC_period, Y3 is the sample number for SSB measurement and N3 is the Rx beam number; one attempt means channel condition is good enough to use Y3=1, but the Rx beam number N3 still need to be reflected as an actual value rather than N3=1. The SSB index acquisition time could be 1 due to enough good channel condition. Since we propose 8 as Rx beam number in SSB based measurement requirement, here for HO requirement we propose Tloops = [8*SMTC period] ms (time refinement can be included in the measurement period)”, number of samples (Y3) used for measurement delay which is included in a measurement period (measurement time)), and
…that a delay time based on at least one of a number of samples used in the measurement or a scaling factor indicating an overlap between a resource for the CSI-RS and a measurement gap is included in a measurement time (Intel 2.2: “the total measurement delay is [Y3] x [N3] x SMTC_period, Y3 is the sample number for SSB measurement and N3 is the Rx beam number; one attempt means channel condition is good enough to use Y3=1, but the Rx beam number N3 still need to be reflected as an actual value rather than N3=1. The SSB index acquisition time could be 1 due to enough good channel condition. Since we propose 8 as Rx beam number in SSB based measurement requirement, here for HO requirement we propose Tloops = [8*SMTC period] ms (time refinement can be included in the measurement period)”, number of samples (Y3) used for measurement delay which is included in a measurement period (measurement time)),
wherein, if the resource for the CSI-RS partially overlaps a periodicity of the measurement gap, the controller of the terminal determines that the scaling factor indicating the overlap between the resource for the CSI-RS and the measurement gap is a value based on a periodicity of the resource for the CSI-RS and the periodicity of the measurement gap (The ex parte Schulhauser appeal (appeal 2013-007847) and eMPEP 2111.04 states that if the condition for performing a contingent step (in this case an if statement) is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. Examiner is taking the claim interpretation that “if” condition is not satisfied and performance recited by the step is not carried out. Applicant may amend to require the limitation by replacing “if” with “in the case” as that would indicate the condition is satisfied.).
Intel does not appear to explicitly teach a communication system comprising: a base station; and a terminal, wherein the base station includes: a transmitter that transmits a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) to a terminal; and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS… wherein the terminal includes: a receiver that receives a channel state information reference CSI-RS from the base station; and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS.
However, Noh, in the analogous art of wireless communications for a UE and base station and utilizing a delay time, teaches
A communication system (Noh [0001-0002]: communication system) comprising:
a base station (Noh [0006] and [0023]: base station); and
a terminal (Noh [0022] and [0328]: terminal), wherein the base station includes:
a transmitter that transmits a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) to a terminal (Noh [0334]: base station transmitter; Noh [0028-0029], [0214], and [0037]: BS transmitting CSI-RS to terminal); and
a controller that determines (Noh [0054] and [0338]: base station controller), in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS (Noh [0215] and [0029]: higher layer signaling, measurement on a CSI-RS resource),…
… wherein the terminal includes:
a receiver that receives a channel state information reference CSI-RS from the base station (Noh [0328]: terminal receiver; Noh [0028-0029] and [0037]: receiving CSI-RS in the downlink); and
a controller that determines (Noh [0332]: terminal having a controller), in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS (Noh [0215] and [0029]: higher layer signaling, measurement on a CSI-RS resource),
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Intel to incorporate the teachings of Noh and utilize a communication system comprising: a base station; and a terminal, wherein the base station includes: a transmitter that transmits a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) to a terminal; and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS… wherein the terminal includes: a receiver that receives a channel state information reference CSI-RS from the base station; and a controller that determines, in a higher layer measurement based on the CSI-RS. Doing so would improve the method as CSI-RS based measurements are more refined and flexible than SSB based measurements and utilizing CSI-RS can reflect downlink quality better than SSB.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Park (Pub. No.: US 2022/0399921 A1) discloses higher layer measurement based on CSI-RS and timing delay.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL E CERLANEK whose telephone number is (703)756-1309. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571)270-7191. 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.
/R.E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2412 /CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights