DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on: 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 05/26/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15, 19, and 21-30 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 15, 22, and 28-30 have been amended.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 12, 14, 16-18, 20 have been cancelled.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are determined not to be persuasive.
With respect to claim 15, Applicant asserts that Swaminathan, Sang, and Edge, fail to disclose: “provid[ing] to a user, via a user interface, data indicating a result of the MPLMN scan,” “receiv[ing], from the user, user input comprising an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan,” and “selectively continu[ing] the MPLMN scan for a second set of frequency bands, comprising mmW frequency bands, in accordance with the user input associated with the result of MPLMN scan.” Applicant’s Remarks at p. 10.
However, a new ground of rejection has been applied to reject claim 15 under §103, based on Sinivaara combined with Swaminathan, Sang, and Edge. As such, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter for which Sinivaara is now relied upon to teach has effectively been rendered moot.
Swaminathan teaches/suggests that a user can initiate and then be provided with results of a partial MPLMN scan via a user interface (paras. [0115], [0136], and [0142]-[0143]; block 1104 of Fig. 11; and block 1206 of Fig. 12), which clearly reads on the contested limitation of “provide, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of the MPLMN scan.”
Swaminathan also fairly teaches/suggests that after having performed a partial MPLMN scan on a first set of frequency bands, i.e., bands associated with an acquisition database, as previously described, a user device can selectively continue/initiate performance of another MPLMN scan of a second set of frequency bands, i.e., of remaining frequency bands in accordance with input/feedback, based on a result of the partial MPLMN scan, i.e., when the BST search/scan does not yield any viable MPLMN results (paras. [0116]-[0118], [0136], and [0138]; block 812 of Fig. 8; block 910 of Fig. 9, 1308 of Fig. 13). This subject matter of Swaminathan, clearly reads on the contested claim feature of a user device “selectively continu[ing] the MPLMN scan for a second set of frequency bands.”
Swaminathan further describes a user of a UE using its user interface to initiate both full MPLMN scans and partial MPLMN frequency band scans, and that when a first partial MPLMN scan does not yield viable MPLMN scan results, a selection can be made to continue scanning remaining MPLMN frequencies (paras. [0062]-[0068], [0076], and [0136]-[0138]). However, Swaminathan does not specifically describe requiring direct user input to determine whether to continue its continued MPLMN scans (although it may be reasonably inferred from its other user input control) which are based on the viability of first, partial scan results.
As such, Sinivaara has been relied upon to more-explicitly teach the contested subject matter of receiving, from the user, user input comprising an indication of whether to continue a network frequency scan, based on results of an initial frequency scan. In this regard, Sinivaara described that its UE can notify a user of its first channel scan procedure result that there are no viable AP channels available (similar to Swaminathan’s first partial MPLMN (BST) scan that does not yield viable MPLMN scan results). Then, after such notification, the UE can wait for user input/feedback before continuing with any further scan procedures. Sinivaara further describes that a user can determine whether to continue a WLAN scan, presumably based on the UE-reported information, and optionally select via the user interface of the UE to: continue scanning, stop scanning, or select another AP option (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a.
In this regard, Sinivaara cures any possible deficiency of Swaminathan with respect to providing user input selection for continuing UE scanning operations, in a multi-step scan procedure. For all of the above reasons, Applicant’ arguments provided against the prior art combination, applied under §103 to reject independent claim 15, are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based upon the new grounds of rejection, including the combination of Sinivaara, applied in the instant Office Action.
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 10, Applicant asserts that Sang, Swaminathan, and Edge fail to disclose: “provid[ing], to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of the MPLMN scan,” and “receiv[ing], from the user, an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan.” Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 11-12. The Examiner notes that amended dependent claim 22, previously recited “wherein the user input comprises an indication to continue the MPLMN scan,” as opposed to “an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan,” which the Examiner notes changes claim scope (with respect to currently amended claim 1) from that previously presented.
Similar to that described above for independent claim 15, a new ground of rejection has been applied to reject each of independent claims 1, 6, and 10 under §103, based on Sinivaara combined with Sang, Swaminathan, and Edge. As such, Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter for which Sinivaara is now relied upon to teach has effectively been rendered moot. Applicant’s corresponding arguments provided for each of claims 1, 6, and 10, relating to argued deficiencies of Swaminathan are similar to those already addressed by the Examiner with respect to independent claim 15. Therefore, the Examiner refers Applicant to the corresponding explanations provided above for independent claim 15, as they likewise apply to the arguments posited for independent claims 1, 6, and 10.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’ arguments provided against the prior art combination, applied under §103 to reject independent claims 1, 6 and 10, are determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise been rendered moot based upon the new grounds of rejection, including the combination of Sinivaara, applied in the instant Office Action.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant only argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at p. 13. As such, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” “one of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 15, 19, 21, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2015/0056985 A1, Swaminathan et al. (hereinafter “Swaminathan-985”) in view of US PG Pub. 2017/0374703 A1, Sang et al. (hereinafter “Sang”), in further view of US PG Pub. 2014/0269491 A1, “Edge,” in still further view of US PG Pub. 2004/0137908 A1, Sinivaara et al. (hereinafter “Sinivaara”).
With respect to claim 15, Swaminathan-985 teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (UE 100 of Fig. 1), comprising:
one or more memories (UE memory 105 of Fig. 1); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one more memories (processor 104 coupled to memory 105 of Fig. 1 via bus 102), configured to:
perform a manual public land mobile network (MPLMN) scan of a first set of frequency bands in accordance with a user preference specifying a non-millimeter wave (mmW) preference or no preference (paras. [0062]-[0063], [0068], and [0088]-[0089]; Table 1 and 2 —a user of a UE can submit a request to scan across a plurality of sets of frequency bands in a manual PLMN scan, i.e., performing a partial PLMN scan of a set or subset of frequency bands —each set or subset of frequency bands can correspond to a different RAT, i.e., GSM: Bands U1 and U2 vs. LTE: Bands G1 and G2, etc.), the first set of frequency bands comprising:
non-mmW frequency bands (para. [0095]; and GSM: microwave Bands U1 and U2 of Tables 1 and 2 are non-mmW frequency bands);
provide, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of the MPLMN scan (paras. [0115], [0136], and [0142]-[0143]; block 1104 of Fig. 11; and block 1206 of Fig. 12 —a user can be provided with results of a partial MPLMN scan via a user interface); and
selectively continue the MPLMN scan, for a second set of frequency bands (paras. [0116]-[0117], [0136], and [0138]; block 812 of Fig. 8; block 910 of Fig. 9, 1308 of Fig. 13 —a user can select to perform a second MPLMN scan for a second set of frequency bands), in accordance with user input associated with the result of the MPLMN scan (paras. [0110]-[0116] —the second PLMN scan can be selectively initiated/continued by user preference — the terms “one of,” and “or” only require examination on the merits for a single alternative, as explained in the Claim Interpretation - Alternative Claim Language section, above).
However, Swaminathan-985 does not explicitly teach:
performing a second MPLMN scan for a second set of frequency bands comprising mmW frequency bands.
Sang does teach:
performing a second MPLMN scan for a second set of frequency bands comprising mmW frequency bands, subsequent to first MPLMN scan of a (paras. [0039], [0040], and [0042]-[0043]; and Architectural setup and Transitions of Fig. 8 —control plane (C-plane) RRC setup w/scanning of a mmW frequency band can occur when a high-mobility UE slows down and connection to a small mmW BS (SBS) becomes feasible/operational, i.e., block 806 of Fig. 8, subsequent to previously being setup and connected to a macro BS (MBS) operating in a non-mmW frequency band, i.e., block 801 of Fig. 8).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Swaminathan-985’s user-initiated first (i.e., a partial scan) and second frequency band scans based on UE mobility/location, with the sequential non-mmW frequency and mmW frequency band scans, taught by Sang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable scanning of both 5G NR and legacy microwave frequency bands in high-mobility and low-mobility scenarios to improve data throughput and better maintain connectively in changing network coverage environments, as recognized by Sang (paras. [0039]-[0040], and [0042]-[0043]; and Fig. 8).
Swaminathan-985 and Sang do not teach:
perform an acquisition database scan, the acquisition database scan comprising a scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE.
Edge does teach:
performing an acquisition database scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE (paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5 —a UE can perform a database scan of historical cells associated with the UE’s past and present locations).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Swaminathan-985 in view of Sang’s UE mobility/location based frequency scans, with scanning historical cells stored in an acquisition database to which a UE was previously connected at or near a particular UE location, taught by Edge.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a UE to scan for local cells to which the UE was previously, successfully connected in order to reduce scan time overhead, as recognized by Edge paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5).
However, Swaminathan-985, Sang, and Edge do not explicitly teach:
receive, from the user, user input comprising an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan;
Sinivaara does teach:
receiving, from the user, user input comprising an indication of whether to continue a WLAN network scan (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a —when a UE report of a first channel scan procedure result notifies a user that there are no viable AP channels scanned, a UE can wait for user input before continuing with any further scan procedures —a user can determine whether to continue a WLAN scan based on the UE reported information, and then can select via a user interface of the UE to: continue scanning, stop scanning, or select another AP option);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Swaminathan-985 in view of Sang and Edge’s MPLMN scan procedure where a determination is made whether to continue scanning frequency bands based on a mobility state, to include enabling a user to make a selection to continue a scan procedure based on a previous scan result/report, as taught by Sinivaara.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input/selection during a continuing network channel/frequency scan process, as recognized by Sinivaara (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 19, Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara teach the UE of claim 15.
However, Swaminathan-985 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6 GHz frequency bands.
Sang does teach:
wherein the non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6 GHz frequency bands.
(para. [0006] —frequency bands for Macro (microwave) cells are defined as being below 6 GHz, whereas frequency bands for small (mmW) 5G cells are defined as being above 10 GHz).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Swaminathan-985 with respect to claim 15, to further include the non-mmW frequency bands with sub-6 GHz frequency bands, taught by Sang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to define the non-mmW frequency bands to include sub-6 GHz frequency bands, as recognized by Sang (para. [0006]).
With respect to claim 21, Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara teaches:
The UE of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive the user input via an user interface of the UE (Swaminathan-985: paras. [0062]-[0063]; and UE user interface 112 of Fig. 1 —as depicted in block 1102 of Fig. 11, a user can initiate a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan using an interface of its UE).
With respect to claim 22, Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara teaches:
The UE of claim 15, wherein the indication indicates to continue the MPLMN scan (Swaminathan-985: paras. [0062]-[0064], [0107], and [0111]-[0112]; and UE user interface 112 of Fig. 1 —a user can initiate a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan with a first scan request, and then continue the MPLMN scan with a second scan request during the ongoing MPLMN scan).
With respect to claim 27, Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara teaches the UE of claim 15.
However, Swaminathan-985 does not explicitly teach:
wherein the location of the UE comprises a current location of the UE.
Edge does teach:
wherein the location of the UE comprises a current location of the UE (paras. [0054], [0057], [0063] and [0065] —a UEs current geographic location, i.e., latitude and longitude coordinates, can be cross-referenced to past UE locations in the scan history database 510 of Fig. 5)
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Swaminathan-985’s UE mobility/location based frequency scans, with scanning historical cells stored in an acquisition database to which a UE was previously connected at or near a current UE location, taught by Edge.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a UE to scan for local cells to which the UE was previously, successfully connected at or near its current location, in order to reduce scan time overhead, as recognized by Edge (paras. [0054], [0057], [0063] and [0065]; and 510 of Fig. 5).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara, in further view of US PG Pub 2021/0084576 A1, Zhu et al. (hereinafter “Zhu”).
With respect to claim 23, Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara teaches the UE of claim 15, capable of scanning both mmW and non-mmW frequency bands.
However, Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara does not explicitly teach:
wherein the non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6GHz frequency bands, although the Examiner notes that it is very well-known that 5G F1 (Sub-6GHz frequency band) is not considered a mmW band, whereas, for example 5G F2 is considered a mmW band.
However, Zhu explicitly teaches:
wherein non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6GHz frequency bands (para. [0013]).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Swaminathan-985, Sang, Edge and Sinivaara’s non-mmW frequency bands to include sub-6GHz frequency bands, as taught by Zhu.
The motivation for doing so would have been to define F1 as not being mmW, as recognized by Zhu (para. [0013]).
Claims 1, 2, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 24-26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sang in view of Swaminathan-985, in further view of Edge, in yet further view of Sinivaara.
With respect to claim 1, Sang teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (UE 201 of Fig. 2A), comprising:
one or more memories (UE memory 211 of Fig. 2A); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (processor 212 coupled to memory 211 of Fig. 2A), configured to:
determine that the UE is not camped on a millimeter wave (mmW) cell and no neighboring cells are mmW cells (paras. [0042]-[0043]; Fig. 7B, Scenario E, depicts UE1 in coverage of MacroBS cell (non-mmW), but not in coverage of SBS1 or SBS2 cells (mmW); and Fig. 8 —in step 801, the UE is not camped on mmW cell; then at step 802 the UE performs cell selection for a Macro (non-mmW) cell; further, at step 804 the UE determines that no Small (mmW) neighbor cells are available), or
that the UE is operating in a mobility state (para. [0043]; block 808 of Fig. 8 —In Fig. 7B, Scenario E, the UE is said to be operating in a high mobility state —the claim terms: “at least one of” and “or,” only require examination on the merits of a single, corresponding alternative limitation for the reasons explained in the Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language section, above);
forgo, in accordance with the determination
that the UE is not camped on the mmW cell and no neighboring cells are mmW cells or
that the UE is operating in a mobility state,
a public land mobile network (PLMN) scan of mmW frequency bands (paras. [0043]-[0044]; Figs. 2B, 7B#E PLMN and 8 —the UE, at step 802, selects to attach to the Macro (non-mmW) cell after determining that its radio signal quality is above a threshold value —the UE does not perform PLMN scans for any small (mmW) cells because none are indicated, as depicted in Fig. 7B, Scenario E, where the UE is out of coverage of the small (mmW) cells —also, upon determining a high mobility state at block 808, a scan of small mmW cells, block 809, is not performed; instead, microcell rach and rrc setup is performed at block 807); and
perform, in accordance with the determination that the UE is not camped on the mmW cell and no neighboring cells are mmW cells or that the UE is operating in the mobility state and in accordance with the foregone PLMN scan of mmW frequency bands for non-mmW cells (paras. [0043]-[0045]; and Architectural Setup and On-Demand Transition of Fig. 8 —the UE can decide to perform only a scan of the Macro (non-mmW) cell, when the UE is out of coverage of the small (mmW) cells or when the UE speeds up or when mmW frequency bands otherwise degrade, etc. as is clearly depicted in the Architectural Setup and On-Demand Transition diagram of Fig. 8).
However, Sang does not explicitly teach:
that the PLMN scan is a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan; and
provide data indicating a result of an MPLMN scan.
Swaminathan-985 does teach:
performing a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan (paras. [0062]-[0064]; See Title; blocks 802 and 804 of Fig. 8 —the PLMN scan can be a MPLMN scan to accommodate user input via a user interface).
providing, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of an MPLMN scan (paras. [0136] and [0142]-[0143]; block 1206 of Fig. 12; block 1308 of Fig. 13 —results of PLMN scans can be provided to a UE via a user interface).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang’s PLMN scan with manual PLMN scan functionality and providing results thereof via a user interface, as taught by Swaminathan-985.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input and provide results via a user interface during the scan process, as recognized by Swaminathan-985 (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0136], and [0142]-[0143]; block 1206 of Fig. 12; block 1308 of Fig. 13).
Sang and Swaminathan-985 do not teach:
perform an acquisition database scan, the acquisition database scan comprising a scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE.
Edge does teach:
performing an acquisition database scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE (paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5 —a UE can perform a database scan of historical cells associated with the UE’s past and present locations).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang in view of Swaminathan-985’s UE mobility/location based frequency scans, with scanning historical cells stored in an acquisition database to which a UE was previously connected at or near a particular UE location, taught by Edge.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a UE to scan for local cells to which the UE was previously, successfully connected in order to reduce scan time overhead, as recognized by Edge (paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5).
However, Sang, Swaminathan-985, and Edge do not explicitly teach:
receive, from the user, an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan;
Sinivaara does teach:
receiving, from the user, an indication of whether to continue a WLAN network scan (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a —when a UE report of a first channel scan procedure result notifies a user that there are no viable AP channels scanned, a UE can wait for user input before continuing with any further scan procedures —a user can determine whether to continue a WLAN scan based on the UE reported information, and then can select via a user interface of the UE to: continue scanning, stop scanning, or select another AP option);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang, Swaminathan-985, and Edge’s MPLMN scan procedure where a determination is made whether to continue scanning frequency bands based on a mobility state, to include enabling a user to make a selection to continue a scan procedure based on a previous scan result/report, as taught by Sinivaara.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input/selection during a continuing network channel/frequency scan process, as recognized by Sinivaara (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 2, Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6 GHz frequency bands (Sang: para. [0006] —frequency bands for Macro (microwave) cells are defined as being below 6 GHz, whereas frequency bands for small (mmW) 5G cells are defined as being above 10 GHz).
With respect to claim 6, Sang teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (UE 201 of Fig. 2A), comprising:
one or more memories (UE memory 211 of Fig. 2A); and
one or more processors, coupled to one or more memories (processor 212 coupled to memory 211 of Fig. 2A), configured to:
perform a public land mobile network (PLMN) scan of non-millimeter wave (mmW) frequency bands for non-mmW cells (para. [0043] —at step 801 the UE can perform a scan of the Macro cell when the UE is out of coverage of the small cells, as depicted in Fig. 7B, Scenario E);
determine, in accordance with performing the PLMN scan, that no non-mmW cells were identified by the PLMN scan (paras. [0042]-[0043]; Fig. 7B, Scenario E, depicts that the UE is not in coverage of SBS1 or SBS2 cells (mmW); At step 802 the UE performs cell selection for a macro cell; further, at step 804 the UE determines that no neighbor cells are available); and
forgo a second PLMN scan of mmW frequency bands for mmW cells in accordance with the determination that no non-mmW cells were identified by the MPLMN scan (para. [0043]; Figs. 2B and 7B#E depict a MPLMN —the UE, at step 802, selects to attach to the macro cell after determining that its radio signal quality is above a threshold value —the UE does not perform MPLMN scans for any small cells thereafter, because none are indicated as being within coverage).
However, Sang does not teach:
that the PLMN scan is a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan; and
provide, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of the MPLMN scan
Swaminathan-985 does teach:
perform a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan (paras. [0062]-[0064]; See Title; blocks 802 and 804 of Fig. 8 —the PLMN scan can be a MPLMN scan to accommodate user input via a user interface).
provide, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of an MPLMN scan (paras. [0136] and [0142]-[0143]; block 1206 of Fig. 12; block 1308 of Fig. 13 —results of PLMN scans can be provided to a UE via a user interface).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang’s PLMN scan with manual PLMN scan functionality and providing results thereof via a user interface, as taught by Swaminathan-985.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input and provide results via a user interface during the scan process, as recognized by Swaminathan-985 (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0136], and [0142]-[0143]; block 1206 of Fig. 12; block 1308 of Fig. 13).
Sang in view of Swaminathan-985 does not explicitly teach:
performing an acquisition database scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE.
Edge does teach:
performing an acquisition database scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE (paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5 —a UE can perform a database scan of historical cells associated with the UE’s past and present locations).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang in view of Swaminathan-985’s UE mobility/location based frequency scans, with scanning historical cells stored in an acquisition database to which a UE was previously connected at or near a particular UE location, taught by Edge.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a UE to scan for local cells to which the UE was previously, successfully connected in order to reduce scan time overhead, as recognized by Edge (paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5).
However, Sang, Swaminathan-985, and Edge do not explicitly teach:
receive, from the user, an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan;
Sinivaara does teach:
receiving, from the user, an indication of whether to continue a WLAN network scan (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a —when a UE report of a first channel scan procedure result notifies a user that there are no viable AP channels scanned, a UE can wait for user input before continuing with any further scan procedures —a user can determine whether to continue a WLAN scan based on the UE reported information, and then can select via a user interface of the UE to: continue scanning, stop scanning, or select another AP option);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang, Swaminathan-985, and Edge’s MPLMN scan procedure where a determination is made whether to continue scanning frequency bands based on a mobility state, to include enabling a user to make a selection to continue a scan procedure based on a previous scan result/report, as taught by Sinivaara.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input/selection during a continuing network channel/frequency scan process, as recognized by Sinivaara (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 7, Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara teaches:
The UE of claim 6, wherein the non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6 GHz frequency bands (Sang: para. [0006] —frequency bands for Macro (microwave) cells are defined as being below 6 GHz, whereas frequency bands for small (mmW) 5G cells are defined as being above 10 GHz).
With respect to claim 10, Sang teaches:
A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (UE 201 of Fig. 2A), comprising:
one or more memories (UE memory 211 of Fig. 2A); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (processor 212 coupled to memory 211 of Fig. 2A), configured to:
perform a public land mobile network (PLMN) scan of non-millimeter wave (mmW) frequency bands for non-mmW cells (para. [0043] —at step 801 the UE can perform a scan of a Macro (non-mmW) cell, to attempt to establish an anchor cell);
identify, in accordance with performing the PLMN scan, at least one non-mmW cell (paras. [0042]-[0043]; —at step 802, the UE can identify a Macro (non-mmW) cell and determine that it is below a radio signal quality threshold); and
continue the PLMN scan for one or more mmW cells that correspond to the at least one non-mmW cell in accordance with the identification of the non-mmW cell (paras. [0039]-[0040] and [0044]-[0045]; and Figs. 1 and 8 —at step 806, after determining the Macro (non-mmW) cell is below the requisite quality threshold, the UE can continue to scan for one or more Small (mmW) cells, i.e., as an option for its anchor cell —the Macro-assisted mmW cells are within the coverage/umbrella of an identified non-mmW Macro cell and are associated therewith, i.e., for purposes of handover, etc.).
However, Sang does not teach:
that the PLMN scan is a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan; and
provide, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of the MPLMN scan
Swaminathan-985 does teach:
perform a manual PLMN (MPLMN) scan (paras. [0062]-[0064]; See Title; blocks 802 and 804 of Fig. 8 —the PLMN scan can be a MPLMN scan to accommodate user input via a user interface).
provide, to a user via a user interface, data indicating a result of an MPLMN scan (paras. [0136] and [0142]-[0143]; block 1206 of Fig. 12; block 1308 of Fig. 13 —results of PLMN scans can be provided to a UE via a user interface).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang’s PLMN scan with manual PLMN scan functionality and providing results thereof via a user interface, as taught by Swaminathan-985.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input and provide results via a user interface during the scan process, as recognized by Swaminathan-985 (paras. [0062]-[0064], [0136], and [0142]-[0143]; block 1206 of Fig. 12; block 1308 of Fig. 13).
Sang and Swaminathan-985 do not teach:
perform an acquisition database scan, the acquisition database scan comprising a scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE.
Edge does teach:
performing an acquisition database scan of historical cells associated with a location of the UE (paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5 —a UE can perform a database scan of historical cells associated with the UE’s past and present locations).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang in view of Swaminathan-985’s UE mobility/location based frequency scans, with scanning historical cells stored in an acquisition database to which a UE was previously connected at or near a particular UE location, taught by Edge.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a UE to scan for local cells to which the UE was previously, successfully connected in order to reduce scan time overhead, as recognized by Edge paras. [0046]-[0047], [0054], [0057], and [0063]; and Scan History database 510 of Fig. 5).
However, Sang, Swaminathan-985, and Edge do not explicitly teach:
receive, from the user, an indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan;
Sinivaara does teach:
receiving, from the user, an indication of whether to continue a WLAN network scan (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a —when a UE report of a first channel scan procedure result notifies a user that there are no viable AP channels scanned, a UE can wait for user input before continuing with any further scan procedures —a user can determine whether to continue a WLAN scan based on the UE reported information, and then can select via a user interface of the UE to: continue scanning, stop scanning, or select another AP option);
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang, Swaminathan-985, and Edge’s MPLMN scan procedure where a determination is made whether to continue scanning frequency bands based on a mobility state, to include enabling a user to make a selection to continue a scan procedure based on a previous scan result/report, as taught by Sinivaara.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input/selection during a continuing network channel/frequency scan process, as recognized by Sinivaara (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 11, Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara teaches:
The UE of claim 10, wherein the non-mmW frequency bands include sub-6 GHz frequency bands (Sang: para. [0006] —frequency bands for Macro (microwave) cells are defined as being below 6 GHz, whereas frequency bands for small (mmW) 5G cells are defined as being above 10 GHz)..
With respect to claim 13, Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara teaches:
The UE of claim 10, wherein the one or more mmW cells correspond to the at least one non-mmW cell by being geographically co-located with the at least one non-mmW cell (Sang: As depicted in Fig. 7B #D-E, the Macro (non-mmW) BS coverage area encompasses that of the Small (mmW) BSs, which the Examiner interprets as the mmW and non-mmW cells being co-located).
With respect to claim 24, Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivarra teaches the UE of claim 1.
However, Sang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the location of the UE comprises a current location of the UE.
Edge does teach:
wherein the location of the UE comprises a current location of the UE (paras. [0054], [0057], [0063] and [0065] —a UEs current geographic location, i.e., latitude and longitude coordinates, can be cross-referenced to past UE locations in the scan history database 510 of Fig. 5)
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang’s UE mobility/location based frequency scans, with scanning historical cells stored in an acquisition database to which a UE was previously connected at or near a current UE location, taught by Edge.
The motivation for doing so would have been to enable a UE to scan for local cells to which the UE was previously, successfully connected at or near its current location, in order to reduce scan time overhead, as recognized by Edge (paras. [0054], [0057], [0063] and [0065]; and 510 of Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 25, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 24. As such, claim 25 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivarra, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 24.
With respect to claim 26, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 24. As such, claim 26 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivarra, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 24.
With respect to claim 28, Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivarra teaches the UE of claim 1.
However, Sang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication of whether to continue the MPLMN scan is based at least in part on the data indicating the result of the MPLMN scan.
Sinivarra does teach:
wherein an indication of whether to continue a WLAN network scan is based at least in part on data indicating the result of the WLAN scan (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a —when a UE report of a first channel scan procedure result notifies a user that there are no viable AP channels scanned, a UE can wait for user input before continuing with any further scan procedures —a user can determine whether to continue a WLAN scan based on the UE reported information, i.e., existence of viable AP/channel options, and then can select via a user interface of the UE to: continue scanning, stop scanning, or select another AP option).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang’s MPLMN scan procedure where a determination is made whether to continue scanning frequency bands based on a mobility state, to include enabling a user to make a selection to continue a scan procedure based on a previous scan result/report, as taught by Sinivaara.
The motivation for doing so would have been to allow for user input/selection during a continuing network channel/frequency scan process, as recognized by Sinivaara (paras. [0007] and [0087]-[0088]; and block 407-408 of Fig. 4a).
With respect to claim 29, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 28. As such, claim 29 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivarra, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 28.
With respect to claim 30, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 28. As such, claim 30 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sang, Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivarra, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 28.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sang in view of Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara, in further view of US PG Pub. 2018/0007563 A1, Zhang et al. (hereinafter “Zhang”).
With Respect to Claim 3, Sang in view of Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the mobility state is associated with the UE moving at a speed that satisfies a condition of the speed being either: low-speed or high-speed (Sang: paras. [0034] —the mobility module 232 of the UE 201 can determine a mobility state based on UE speed and movement amongst cells, and the UE can be determined to have-low mobility or high-mobility).
However, Sang in view of Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara does not explicitly teach:
a speed that satisfies a speed threshold.
Zhang does teach:
a speed that satisfies a speed threshold (para. [0034] and Fig. 5 —low mobility is defined as a speed that is below a speed threshold).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sang in view of Swaminathan-985, Edge, and Sinivaara’s low/high speed determination with a speed threshold determination, as taught by Zhang.
The motivation for doing so would have been to explicitly indicate a speed threshold to determine speed mobility classification being either low or high, as recognized by Zhang (para. [0034] and Fig. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm 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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights