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 .
This Office Action is in response to communications filed on 06/29/2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending and rejected. Claims 1,8 and 9 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/22/2026 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 § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim Soeng Hun et al (KR 20230169672 A, Published 2023-12-18) (hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system), the method comprising:
receiving a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message from a base station (see para. [0008] discloses the receive RRC Reconfiguration message from a base station), wherein the RRC message comprises:
information indicating whether measurement gap (MG) cancellation related information is included for a specific set of Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats (see para. [0323];[0324] discloses UE set BWP based on RRC Reconfiguration message, activates Type2 Gap; after activating Type2Gap the UE may need to perform gap switching, (deactivate currently active Type2Gap) for example if the UE receives UL grant on DCI format 0_1 or 0_2); and
MG configuration information for configuring MGs (see para. [0091-0092] discloses MeasGapConfig to configure different types of gaps, including field for gapFR1 and gapFR2);
receiving a specific DCI format, wherein the MG cancellation related information is set to a value indicating MG cancellation (see para. [0323];[0324] discloses UE set BWP based on RRC Reconfiguration message, activates Type2 Gap; after activating Type2Gap the UE may need to perform gap switching, (deactivate currently active Type2Gap) for example if the UE receives UL grant on DCI format 0_1 or 0_2) containing a BWP indicator field, UE determine gap switching is necessary);
determining a specific MG based on a Frequency Range (FR) to which a serving cell associated with the specific DCI format belongs (see para. [0299]-[0300] disclose only one Type1Gap or one Type4Gap can be configured and used as FR1-gap; Only one Type1Gap or one Type4Gap can be configured as FR2-gap; Only one Type1Gap or one Type4Gap can be configured and used as a UE-gap at the same time); and
cancelling the determined specific MG (see para. [0291] discloses for each configured FR1, FR2, and UE-specific measurement gap, if the measurement gap is configured by GapConfig2, the UE considers the measurement gap to be deactivated).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses a method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system), wherein the specific set of DCI formats includes at least two DCI formats for uplink scheduling and at least two DCI formats for downlink scheduling (see para. [0324];[0328] discloses UE receives an uplink grant on a PDCCH (DCI format 0_1 or 0_2) containing a bandwidth part indicator field indicating a UL BWP; DL assignment on PDCCH (DCI format 1_1 or 1_2)).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses a method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system).
Kim fails to disclose but Li discloses wherein a per-FR1 MG and a per-FR2 MG are configured according to the MG configuration information (see Fig. 6 C, para. [0070] discloses per-FR gap and concurrent MG patterns, the UE may be configured with multiple patterns for each FR).
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system) wherein:
the specific MG is at least one MG occurring after a specific time point (see Fig. 1f (1f-15 SFN=522, subframe #0), and the specific time point is determined based on:
a time at which the specific DCI format is received (see para. [0090] discloses pattern of aperiodic gap is controlled by offset parameter, gap repetition parameter and gap length); and
a predefined time offset (see para. [0089] discloses pattern of periodic gaps is controlled by offset parameter).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses a terminal in a wireless communication system (see para. [0941] discloses block diagram of the terminal), the terminal comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit and receive signals (see para. [0943] discloses transceiver (transmitter and receiver)), and
a controller configured to control the transceiver (see para. [0943] discloses control unit, controlling overall operations for example transmit and receive signals through the transceiver) to:
receive a Radio Resource Control (RRC) message from a base station (see para. [0008] discloses the receive RRC Reconfiguration message from a base station), wherein the RRC message comprises:
information indicating whether measurement gap (MG) cancellation related information is included for a specific set of Downlink Control Information (DCI) formats (see para. [0323];[0324] discloses UE set BWP based on RRC Reconfiguration message, activates Type2 Gap; after activating Type2Gap the UE may need to perform gap switching, (deactivate currently active Type2Gap) for example if the UE receives UL grant on DCI format 0_1 or 0_2); and
MG configuration information for configuring MGs (see para. [0091]-[0092] discloses MeasGapConfig to configure different types of gaps, including field for gapFR1 and gapFR2);
receive a specific DCI format, wherein the MG cancellation related information is set to a value indicating MG cancellation (see para. [0323];[0324] discloses UE set BWP based on RRC Reconfiguration message, activates Type2 Gap; after activating Type2Gap the UE may need to perform gap switching, (deactivate currently active Type2Gap) for example if the UE receives UL grant on DCI format 0_1 or 0_2) containing a BWP indicator field, UE determine gap switching is necessary);
determine a specific MG based on a Frequency Range (FR) to which a serving cell associated with the specific DCI format belongs (see para. [0299]-[0300] disclose only one Type1Gap or one Type4Gap can be configured and used as FR1-gap; Only one Type1Gap or one Type4Gap can be configured as FR2-gap; Only one Type1Gap or one Type4Gap can be configured and used as a UE-gap at the same time); and
cancel the determined specific MG (see para. [0291] discloses for each configured FR1, FR2, and UE-specific measurement gap, if the measurement gap is configured by GapConfig2, the UE considers the measurement gap to be deactivated).
PNG
media_image2.png
261
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Soeng Hun et al (KR 20230169672 A, published 2023-12-18) (hereinafter “Kim”) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Li et al (US 20240236735 A1, Published 2024-07-11) (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system), wherein:
the MG cancellation is not applied to a positioning measurement gap and a pre-configured measurement gap (see para. [0515] discloses A/D field indicates activation/deactivation of Positioning Measurement Gap (Type7Gap)); and the
Kim fails to disclose but Li discloses MG cancellation is applied to a configured measurement gap among concurrent measurement gaps (see Fig. 5 (504) discloses MG cancellation information indicate the particular MG of the multiple concurrent MG patterns shall be cancelled).
Kim and Li are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and measurement gaps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the concurrent gaps as described by Li.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving efficiency on gap operations.
Claim 5, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim Soeng Hun et al (KR 20230169672 A) (hereinafter “Kim”) as applied to claim 1and 4 above, in view of Kazmi et al (WO 2024096788 A1, Published 2024-05-10).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses a method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system)
Kim fails to discloses but Kazmi discloses wherein:
the per-FR1 MG is cancelled based on the specific DCI format in case that the serving cell associated with the specific DCI format is on FR1 (see lines (769-776) discloses the indication or message may be an implicit message to skip the MO (Measurement occasion, Gap) for the measurement, per example one DCI used for scheduling data. Can be a rule if the WD (UE) receives certain type/format of the DCI the MO may not perform the measurement); and
the per-FR2 MG is cancelled based on the specific DCI format in case that the serving cell associated with the specific DCI format is on FR2 (see lines (769-776) discloses the indication or message may be an implicit message to skip the MO (Measurement occasion, Gap) for the measurement, per example one DCI used for scheduling data. Can be a rule if the WD (UE) receives certain type/format of the DCI the MO may not perform the measurement).
Kim and Kazmi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and measurement gaps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the cancellation as described by Kazmi.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving efficiency on gap operations.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses a method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system).
Kim fails to disclose but Kazmi discloses further comprising:
performing a specific operation for an MG in case that the MG is activated and has not been cancelled by the specific DCI format (see lines (727-733) discloses during a MO (Measurement opportunity, measurement gap) the WD (UE) cannot receive or transmit any signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, etc.) in the serving cell, except for those used for measurement).
Kim and Kazmi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and measurement gaps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the operation as described by Kazmi.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving efficiency on gap operations
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a method (see para. [0001] discloses method and devices for setting or activating gaps in wireless communication system).
Kim fails to disclose but Kazmi discloses wherein the specific operation comprises: refraining from:
transmission of Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) feedback, Scheduling Request (SR), and Channel State Information (CSI) (see lines (727-733) discloses during a MO (measurement gap) the WD (UE) cannot receive or transmit any signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, etc.) in the serving cell, except for those used for measurement), and
reporting of a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) (see lines (727-733) discloses during a MO (measurement gap) the WD (UE) cannot receive or transmit any signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, etc.) in the serving cell, except for those used for measurement); and
performing:
transmission of Msg3 on an Uplink Shared Channel (UL-SCH) (see lines (727-733) discloses during a MO (measurement gap) the WD (UE) cannot receive or transmit any signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, etc.) in the serving cell, except for those used for measurement), and
monitoring of a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) in case that a random access response is expected (see lines (727-733) discloses during a MO (measurement gap) the WD (UE) cannot receive or transmit any signals (e.g., PDSCH, PUSCH, etc.) in the serving cell, except for those used for measurement).
Kim and Kazmi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of wireless communication methods, apparatus and measurement gaps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim to include the operation as described by Kazmi.
The motivation to combine both references would come from improving efficiency on gap operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner interprets the claim in light of the specification and during examination the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
In pages 1 and 2 of the remarks, regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 for independent claim 1, Applicant argues that the claim RRC configuration is absent from Kim, and that in Kim the RRCReconfiguration message configures the association between BWP and gaps, as such this message is for association of gaps with BWP (which gap becomes active with a BWP), and the association BWP and gap. This, does not explicitly within the RRC message, pre-configure whether MG cancellation information is included for a specific set of DCI formats.
The examiner interprets the claim in light of the specification and during examination the claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
The limitation does not indicate that MG cancellation information needs to be explicit in the RRC message. Based on BRI, Kim teaches an RRC message, this RRC message includes related information for gap cancellation (deactivation of Type2Gap), even if this information is associated with BWP.
In page 2 of the remarks, regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 for independent claim 1, Applicant argues that the cited paragraphs [0323]-[0324] of Kim, describe UE behavior upon receiving a UL grant containing a BWP indicator field, and does not describe and RRC-level configuration that explicitly informs the UE whether MG cancellation related information is included for a specific set of DCI formats; that static BWP-gap mapping is different from the claimed RRC configuration and therefore the examiner’s citation is inapposite.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on BRI, the cited paragraphs provide the specific DCI format (with the indicator) that determines the MG cancellation (switching of Gap, therefore cancellation of one Gap). The limitation does not disclose that the information is RRC explicit information or that the information excludes the use of an indicator. Although it is performed through the indicator, the MG cancellation related information reads on the claim.
In pages 2-4 of the remarks, regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 for independent claim 1, Applicant argues that the nature of the DCI information is different, and the limitation presupposes that the DCI format, pre-configured by the RRC message, carries information whose purpose is to indicate MG cancellation, and that in Kim the formats carry and indicator field to indicate a BWP to be activated, and the gap state change in Kim is a consequence of BWP switching. Also, Applicant argues, that upon reception of the DCI format, the UE actively determines which specific MG to cancel by identifying the FR of the DCI-associated serving cell, and that the cited paragraphs [0299]-[0300] of Kim do not disclose a UE behavior with dynamic, DCI-triggered, FR-selective MG determination, and paragraphs [0291] for cancelling limitation, not a dynamic cancellation operation triggered by a received DCI.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on BRI, the limitation does not condition the gap cancellation to be a dynamic operation.
The limitation states that determining a specific MG is based on a frequency range, Kim discloses the determination and use of the gap based on the frequency range FR1 or FR2 (this determination is for one gap, since only one gap is configured at the time). The serving cell associated with the DCI format is implicit in the communication between the serving cell and the UE.
As previously indicated, Kim provides a DCI specific format, and cancellation information set to a value (through the BWP indicator field), for a gap cancellation.
In pages 2-4 of the remarks, regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 for claim 2, 4, 6 and 9, that incorporate the limitations of claim 1, Applicant argues that are not anticipated by Kim due to the reasons previously mentioned for claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
In addition, Applicant argues that paragraphs [0089]-[0090] of Kim do not disclose the mechanism of determining a specific time point for MG cancellation, in claim 6, and that the claimed time point is computed dynamically at DCI reception, which is distinct from a static pattern gap.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no mention in the limitation that the time is computed dynamically.
In pages 4-5 of the remarks, regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 3, 5, 7 and 8, Applicant argues that the combination of Kim + Li, and Kim + Kazmi fails to supply the missing claim 1 limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above.
In page 5 of the remarks, regarding claim 3, Applicant questions the motivation to combine provided by the Examiner. Applicant states that “improving efficiency on gap operation” is a conclusory statement that does not articulate the motivation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Section 2144 of MPEP reads “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination”. Therefore, improving efficiency on gap operation, indicates an advantage or expect beneficial result on the combination of the references under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS whose telephone number is (571)-272-5710. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Nishant Divecha, can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/LUIS GUILLERMO LEMA LEMOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights