DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on December 31, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 1, 4, 11, 14, 17, 18 and 24 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-24 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement submitted on October 14, 2025.
Response to Arguments
6. The applicant's arguments filed on December 31, 2025 regarding claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-14, 16-18 and 21-24 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. There are two separate requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). MPEP § 2171. The first is subjective and requires that the claims must set forth the subject matter that the Applicants regard as their invention. Id. The second is objective and requires that the claims must particularly point out and distinctively define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant (i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art). Id.
10. Claims 8 and 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the claims recites “…lowering a priority of the highest-ranking cell for a period of time”.
Claim 8 depends on claim 4 and it is unclear whether “a priority of the highest-ranking cell for a period of time” in claim 8 is referring back to “a priority of the highest-ranking cell… for a period of time” of claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, the claims recites “…lower a priority of the highest-ranking cell for a period of time”.
Claim 18 depends on claim 14 and it is unclear whether “a priority of the highest-ranking cell for a period of time” in claim 18 is referring back to “a priority of the highest-ranking cell… for a period of time” of claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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 of this title, 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.
12. 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 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.
13. Claims 1, 8. 4, 11, 14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (WO 2020/067758 A1), hereinafter “Kim” in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0057002 A1), hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method for wireless communications (Table 5, Fig.9, cell reselection by determining candidates for reselection on unlicensed frequency in a wireless communication system), comprising:
transmitting, by a communication node, information about multiple measurement resources to a mobile device (paragraphs [0100]-[0103], suitable cell based on RRC_IDLE or RRC_INACTIVE state measurements and cell selection criteria),
wherein the information indicates, for each of the multiple measurement resources (paragraphs [0100]-[0103], priorities of different NR frequencies or inter-RAT frequencies provided to the UE in the system information, in the RRCRelease message), a frequency at which a measurement to be performed (paragraphs [0137], [0139], [0271], [0279], frequency f1 which has the highest frequency priority), and
wherein the information is configured to cause the mobile device to perform operations including:
performing, during a cell selection (paragraphs [0100]-[0103], regular search for a better cell when camped on a cell), measurements on multiple cells under one frequency (Table 5, paragraphs [0137], [0139], [0271], [0279], 'cell a', 'cell b', 'cell c' and 'cell d', on an unlicensed frequency f1 which has the highest frequency priority) using the multiple measurement resources to obtain multiple measurement results (paragraphs [0137], [0139], [0271], [0279], Table 5 shows an example of cell qualities for cells on unlicensed frequency f1);
determining one or more final results (paragraphs [0178]-[0181], [0183]-0185], [0279], [0283]-[0284], R values for serving and neighboring cells) based on the multiple measurement results (paragraphs [0183]-0185], [0279], [0283]-[0284], ranking of all cells that fulfil the cell selection criterion S);
ranking the multiple measurement results (paragraphs [0178]-[0181], [0184]-[0185], [0266], cell reselection to the cell ranked as the best cell) to determine a highest-ranking cell (paragraphs [0178]-[0181], [0184]-[0185], [0266], cell reselection to the highest ranked cell);
determining that the highest-ranking cell is not suitable for a selection due to the highest-ranking cell (paragraphs [0238], [0242]-[0244], [0247]-[0248], when a cell is accessible and suitable for a wireless device, the wireless device may consider the cell as a candidate for reselection; if a cell is not accessible and/or not suitable, the wireless device does not consider the cell as a candidate for reselection) belonging to another public land mobile network (PLMN) different from a PLMN that the mobile device has registered (paragraphs [0238], [0242]-[0244], [0247]-[0248], a wireless device may not camp on cell which does not considered as a candidate for reselection).
Kim does not explicitly disclose “in response to the determining that the highest-ranking cell is not suitable, lowering a priority of the highest-ranking cell and one or more other cells that operate at a same frequency for a predefined amount of time”.
However, Lee from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses in response to the determining that the highest-ranking cell is not suitable (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0075], [0080], according to a specific condition when a cell is reselected and remaining cells can be configured as the candidate cell(s) for the cell selection/reselection), lowering a priority of the highest-ranking cell and one or more other cells (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0075], [0080], if a highest ranked cell or a best cell on the frequency of high priority is not appropriate) that operate at a same frequency for a predefined amount of time (Fig. 7, paragraphs [0075], [0080], UE does not consider the cell on the frequency as a candidate for the cell reselection until maximum 300 seconds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “in response to the determining that the highest-ranking cell is not suitable, lowering a priority of the highest-ranking cell and one or more other cells that operate at a same frequency for a predefined amount of time” as taught by Lee, in the system of Kim, so that it would provide a method of performing a cell reselection, which is performed by a user equipment in a wireless communication system, includes the steps of setting a prioritized frequency to perform the cell reselection, configuring one or more candidate cells from which a specific cell is excluded and if a frequency of the specific cell is identical to the prioritized frequency, reselecting a different cell on the frequency of the specific cell among the one or more candidate cells (Lee, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1 (from perspective of receiving).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Lee disclose the method according to claim 4.
Lee further discloses lowering a priority of the highest-ranking cell for a predefined amount of time (paragraphs [0075], [0080], if a highest ranked cell or a best cell on the frequency of high priority is not appropriate, the UE does not consider the cell on the frequency as a candidate for the cell reselection until maximum 300 seconds; user equipment excludes a cell according to a specific condition when a cell is reselected and remaining cells can be configured as the candidate cell(s) for the cell selection/reselection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “lowering a priority of the highest-ranking cell for a predefined amount of time” as taught by Lee, in the system of Kim, so that it would provide a method of performing a cell reselection, which is performed by a user equipment in a wireless communication system, includes the steps of setting a prioritized frequency to perform the cell reselection, configuring one or more candidate cells from which a specific cell is excluded and if a frequency of the specific cell is identical to the prioritized frequency, reselecting a different cell on the frequency of the specific cell among the one or more candidate cells (Lee, paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses determining the one or more final results (paragraphs [0178]-[0181], [0184]-[0185], [0283], [0284], UE shall perform ranking of all cells that fulfil the cell selection criterion S, which is described above; the cells shall be ranked according to the R criteria specified above by deriving Qmeas,n and Qmeas,s and calculating the R values using averaged RSRP results) comprises: determining, by the mobile device, a common result based on measurement results associated with a corresponding characteristic indicated by the communication node, wherein the common result comprises at least one of: a frequency common result, a cell common result, or a bandwidth part common result, and wherein the corresponding characteristic comprises at least one of: a frequency, a cell identity, or a bandwidth part identity (paragraphs [0178]-[0181], [0184]-[0185], [0283], [0284], for example, there are 'cell a', 'cell b', 'cell c' and 'cell d', on an unlicensed frequency f1 which has the highest frequency priority. Table 5 shows an example of cell qualities for cells on unlicensed frequency f1 ).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 8.
14. Claims 2-3, 6, 12-13, 16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (WO 2020/067758 A1), hereinafter “Kim” in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0057002 A1), hereinafter “Lee” in view of RYOO et al. (US 2018/0192426 A1), hereinafter “Ryoo”.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Lee disclose the method according to claim 1.
While Kim in view of Lee implicitly refer to “at least one measurement resource is associated with a corresponding measurement object”, Ryoo from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses at least one measurement resource is associated with a corresponding measurement object (paragraphs [0336], [0356], quality values measured for measurement object reflected to the triggering conditions bundled with the measurement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “at least one measurement resource is associated with a corresponding measurement object” as taught by Ryoo, in the combined system of Kim and Lee, so that it would provide a method for supporting quality of service of data transmission when a base station where a terminal is located is changed in consideration of mobility of the terminal (Ryoo, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Lee disclose the method according to claim 1.
While Kim in view of Lee implicitly refer to “each of the multiple measurement resources is associated with a corresponding measurement identity that includes at least one of a channel identity, a resource identity, a bandwidth part identity, or a cell identity”, Ryoo from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses each of the multiple measurement resources is associated with a corresponding measurement identity that includes at least one of a channel identity, a resource identity, a bandwidth part identity, or a cell identity (paragraphs [0336], [0356], measured carrier-specific, RS-specific, UE group-specific, UE-specific, BW-specific or numerology-specific base station quality values measured for the measurement object are reflected to the triggering conditions bundled with the measurement ID).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “each of the multiple measurement resources is associated with a corresponding measurement identity that includes at least one of a channel identity, a resource identity, a bandwidth part identity, or a cell identity” as taught by Ryoo, in the combined system of Kim and Lee, so that it would provide a method for supporting quality of service of data transmission when a base station where a terminal is located is changed in consideration of mobility of the terminal (Ryoo, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 21, Kim in view of Lee disclose the method according to claim 1.
Kim discloses the mobile device is further configured to determine a common result based on measurement results associated with a corresponding characteristic indicated by the communication node (paragraphs [0178]-[0181], [0184]-[0185], [0279[, [0283], [0284], UE shall perform ranking of all cells that fulfil the cell selection criterion S, which is described above; the cells shall be ranked according to the R criteria specified above by deriving Qmeas,n and Qmeas,s and calculating the R values using averaged RSRP results), the common result comprising a frequency common result associated with a same frequency identity or a cell common result associated with a same cell identity (Table. 5, paragraph [0279], [0280], 'cell a', 'cell b', 'cell c' and 'cell d', on an unlicensed frequency f1 which has the highest frequency priority; Table 5 shows an example of cell qualities for cells on unlicensed frequency f1).
Neither Kim nor Lee explicitly discloses “the mobile device is configured to select a subset of the multiple measurement resources based on a capability of the mobile device”.
However, Ryoo from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the mobile device is configured to select a subset (Fig. 19, paragraphs [0314], [0317], [0404], [0405], RRM resource determined based on the measurement object or the sub-object) of the multiple measurement resources (Fig. 19, paragraphs [0314], [0317], [0404], [0405], according to the numerology set and the priority/weight by L1, RRC (L3) or MAC (L2)) based on a capability of the mobile device (paragraphs [0314], [0317], [0404], [0405], selection determined according to at least one of whether to use the service/slice, whether to use the numerology, whether to satisfy TC, whether to detect the RS, and whether to support according to the UE capability).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the mobile device is configured to select a subset of the multiple measurement resources based on a capability of the mobile device” as taught by Ryoo, in the combined system of Kim and Lee, so that it would provide a method for supporting quality of service of data transmission when a base station where a terminal is located is changed in consideration of mobility of the terminal (Ryoo, paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 21.
Citations of Pertinent Prior Art
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Geng et al. (US 2020/0120592 A1) entitled: "Communication Method And Apparatus"
• Siomina et al. (US 2013/0203419 A1) entitled: "Method, Apparatus And Computer Program For Cell Identification"
• WANG et al. (US 2022/0183061 A1) entitled: "Transmitting And Receiving An Indication"
Conclusion
16. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights