DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on August 8th 2025, in which claims 17-36 are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/8/25 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 § 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.
Claims 20-22, 28-30 and 35-36 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.
Regarding claims 20, 28 and 35, they all recite a Markush group having four alternatives. This is fine, but the alternatives are all referred to as “min” and then explained in parenthesis (e.g. “min (the active BWP, the predetermined number of PRBs)”, and “min (the first active BWP, the predetermined number of PRBs)”). This renders the claims indefinite because it cannot be determined what the scope of these alternatives includes or does not include. The fact that the same term “min” is used to refer to four different alternatives is alone confusing. Furthermore, the claims from which these claims depend from, already recite that the bandwidth is based on predetermined number of physical resource blocks (PRBs). So, a dependent claim that again recites the same feature – bandwidth is based on … the predetermined number of PRBs – either fails to further limit the claim from which it depends on, or is unclear what additional features are being added by again reciting the same feature albeit in a different way. For at least these reasons, the claims are indefinite. Examiner suggests removing the common term “min” and plainly reciting the different alternative. Claims 21, 29 and 36 are rejected based on their dependency.
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) 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2022/0149922 A1.
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses a processor configured to, when executing instructions stored in a memory (device has processor and memory – Figs. 3, 24, paragraph 89) perform operations comprising:
determining to perform, for a user equipment (UE) (user equipment – Figs. 1-3 and 17, paragraph 66), a layer-1 (L1) measurement based on a synchronization signal block (SSB) (layer 1 measurement – see Figs. 7, 10 and paragraphs 133 and 157-158, 168-172; use SSB – paragraphs 135 and 176), wherein the UE is served by a cell (UE connected to base station which is cellular link – abstract, paragraphs 6, 81-82, Fig. 1) operating in a frequency band having a bandwidth (bandwidth is variable, e.g. 1.4MHz – 20MHz – paragraph 71) less than or equal to a predetermined bandwidth (measure bandwidth and compare to threshold – paragraph 210; also, the bandwidth ; and
in response to the determination, configuring for the L1 measurement, a bandwidth of a hypothetical physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (hypothetical PDCCH – paragraph 209) demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (use DMRS – paragraph 302) based on at least: one of an active bandwidth part (BWP), a bandwidth of a carrier frequency, an initial BWP, or a first active BWP (configure attributes/bandwidth and consider BWP and/or frequency – abstract, Figs. 7, 10, paragraphs 6, 129, 144 including Table 1, 170-171, 182 and 208-210).
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses the predetermined bandwidth is 5 Megahertz (bandwidth of 5 MHz – paragraphs 71 and 311).
Regarding claim 19, Wang discloses the bandwidth of the hypothetical PDCCH DMRS is further based on a predetermined number of physical resource blocks (PRBs) (configure based on PDCCH – paragraphs 183-186; hypothetical PDCCH – paragraph 209; use DMRS – paragraph 302; and configured based on number of PRBs – paragraphs 297-304 and Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses the bandwidth of the hypothetical PDCCH DMRS is calculated based on one of: min (the active BWP, the predetermined number of PRBs), min (the bandwidth of the carrier frequency, the predetermined number of PRBs) … or min (the first active BWP, the predetermined number of PRBs) (as explained above, Wang discloses configuring/determining bandwidth based on the BWP, frequency and PRBs – see abstract, Figs. 7, 10, paragraphs 6, 129, 144 including Table 1, 170-171, 182-186 and 208-210).
Regarding claim 21, Wang discloses the predetermined number of PRBs is 24 PRBs (narrow band is 6 PRBs, 4 narrow bands in the frequency is a wideband, 6x4=24 – see paragraphs 300-301).
Regarding claim 22, Wang discloses determining that the active BWP or the bandwidth of the carrier frequency is less than 20 PRBs (determine narrowband which is only 6 PRBs – paragraph 300); and in response to the determination, extending an evaluation period of determining an in sync or out-of-sync status of the UE with the cell by a scaling factor greater than or equal to 1 (this is merely the definition of “extend” – increase by a scaling factor greater than 1; also, this basically captures the abstract idea of waiting longer; it is well-known in the art to “wait longer” when a network or path is busy/congested, or has limited bandwidth; Wang discloses using synchronization signals to determine Insync/outofsync and whether a cell has failed – abstract, paragraphs 144, 211; Wang also teaches extending cycle length in the case of beam/link quality issues including failures – see paragraph 166).
Regarding claim 23, Wang discloses the frequency band is n8, n26, n28 or n100 (these are merely common 5G frequency bands, Wang teaches using 5G – paragraphs 4, 82; thus these frequency bands would be inherently disclosed by any reference teaching 5G).
Regarding claim 24, Wang discloses the bandwidth of the frequency band ranges from 3 MHz to 5 MHz (bandwidth is between 3 and 5 MHz – paragraphs 71 and 311).
Regarding claim 25, it is a method claim that corresponds to the system of claim 17; thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 26-32, they correspond to dependent claims 18-24 respectively; thus they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 33, it is a user equipment (device) claim that corresponds to the device of claim 17. Therefore it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 34-36, they correspond to dependent claims 19-21 respectively; thus they are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomic US 2023/0300676 A1 discloses the number of available PRBs depends on information including bandwidth and the configuration of the PDCCH (abstract, paragraph 67).
Chatterjee et al. US 11,695,529 B2 discloses providing configuration information for PDCCH including a number of PRB in a reduced bandwidth environment (abstract, claim 1).
Fu et al. US 2019/0141711 A1 discloses in 5G, resource scheduling includes the number of PRBs may be determined based on bandwidth frequency (abstract, paragraph 36).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D RECEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1975. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 9-5.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D RECEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
