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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's submission of amendment, dated on 12/30/2025. This communication is considered fully responsive and sets forth below:
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 ,13-14, 22-25 and 27-28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 ,15- 21 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik et al WO 2020/167206 A1 in view of Schmidt et al. US20150031308A1
Regarding claims 1,15,29 and 30, Malik et al WO 2020/167206 A1 discloses
1. An apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories(figure 8, and pages 32-33, UE includes processing circuitry, memory including random access memory (RAM), wherein Processing circuitry executes machine instructions stored as machine-readable computer programs in the memory), configured to: 15. A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) ( figure 18, page 46, lines 8-17; a method 1400 by a wireless device 210,), comprising: 29. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE) (figure 8, and pages 32-33, UE includes processing circuitry, memory including random access memory (RAM) , wherein Processing circuitry executes machine instructions stored as machine-readable computer programs in the memory, cause the UE to: 30. An apparatus for wireless communication (page 46, lines 8-17; a method 1400 by a wireless device 210), comprising: receive, from a network entity, a logged measurement configuration that defines an event for event triggered measurement logging (figure 18, page 46, lines 8-17; At step 1410, the wireless device 210 receives, from a base station 260, a configuration for logging a MDT measurement. The configuration includes an event-driven logging configuration) wherein the event corresponds to a radio access technology (RAT)-specific coverage hole (page 13, lines 4-8 ) Detection of a coverage hole in a Radio Access Technology (RAT) such as NR ) or a frequency specific coverage hole (figure 18, page 46, lines 8-17; the event-driven logging configuration identifies at least one event for triggering when to log the at least one measurement , for example the at least one event for triggering when to log the at least one measurement includes detection of a coverage hole in a camped frequency; and perform, based at least in part on the logged measurement configuration, measurement logging based at least in part on an occurrence of the event corresponding to the RAT-specific coverage hole or the frequency specific coverage hole and based at least in part on a second event corresponding to the RAT-specific coverage hole or the frequency specific coverage hole, wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, being available for cell reselection (figure 18, page 46, lines 8-17 : At step 1420, the wireless device 210 performs at least one measurement associated with an event configured in the event-driven logging configuration. At step 1430, the wireless device 210 determines that at least one condition associated with the event-driven logging configuration has been satisfied. In response to determining that the at least one condition has been satisfied, wireless device 210 performs logging of the at least one measurement at step 1440), Wherein (page 12-13, lines 13-30 :a wireless device, which may include a user equipment (UE), is configured with certain configured events during which the UE performs storing of measurements associated to a logging MDT configuration; wherein the configured events' definition could include one or more of (but not limited to) the following types of events , Detection of a coverage hole in the camped frequency, where the UE determines a coverage hole in the camped frequency , for example , (page 13,lines 31-32) last Detection that the camped cell quality (in terms of RSRP and/or RSRQ) is below certain threshold (i.e. first event )and the UE did not find any other suitable cells, wherein the UE declares out of coverage) (i.e. second event).
Malik does not explicitly disclose wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection
Schmidt et al. US20150031308A1 discloses wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection [0033] discloses the combine events ( first event and second event): coverage hole is an area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving and neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service and wherein the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell.( i.e.
first event : area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service;
second event: area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service, wherein the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection, as taught by Schmidt, in order to perform MDT measurements at selected trigger event (Schmidt, [0050]).
Regarding claims 2 and 16, the combination Malik and Schmidt discloses all the features with respect to claims1 and 15, respectively. Malik further discloses wherein the RAT-specific coverage hole is a New Radio coverage hole (page 13, lines 4-8) Detection of a coverage hole in a Radio Access Technology (RAT) such as NR ) or a Long Term Evolution coverage hole
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the combination Malik and Schmidt discloses all the features with respect to claims1and 15, respectively. Malik further discloses wherein the one or more processors, to perform the measurement logging, are configured to: perform the measurement logging for a RAT associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole when the UE is camped on the RAT (figure 18, page 46, lines 8-17 : At step 1420, the wireless device 210 performs at least one measurement associated with an event configured in the event-driven logging configuration. At step 1430, the wireless device 210 determines that at least one condition associated with the event-driven logging configuration has been satisfied. In response to determining that the at least one condition has been satisfied, wireless device 210 performs logging of the at least one measurement at step 1440), Wherein (page 12, lines 13-30 :a wireless device, which may include a user equipment (UE), is configured with certain configured events during which the UE performs storing of measurements associated to a logging MDT configuration; wherein the configured events' definition could include one or more of (but not limited to) the following types of events . 3.Detection of a coverage hole in a Radio Access Technology (RAT) such as NR, when a UE performs cell reselection from NR to another RAT such as E-UTRAN or UTRAN or Global System for Mobile (GSM), the UE performs the measurement logging; perform the measurement logging for a first RAT associated with the RAT- specific coverage hole when the UE is camped on a second RAT; or perform the measurement logging for the RAT associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole irrespective of whether the UE is camped on the RAT or another RAT.
Regarding claims 4 and 18; the combination Malik and Schmidt discloses all the features with respect to claims1and 15, respectively.
Malik des not explicitly disclose wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells.
Schmidt et al. US20150031308A1 discloses wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells [0033] discloses coverage hole is an area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving and neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service (i.e. wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein: wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells, as taught by Schmidt, in order to perform MDT measurements at selected trigger event (Schmidt, [0050]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, the combination of Malik and Schmidt discloses all the features with respect to claims 4 and 18, respectively. Malik des not explicitly discloses wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is a second event, and wherein the logged measurement configuration extends a first event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold to incorporate the second event associated with the cell quality not satisfying the threshold for the serving cell and neighboring cells and no RAT-specific suitable being available for cell reselection, and wherein the first event and the second event are combined to form a single event.
Schmidt further discloses wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is a second event, and wherein the logged measurement configuration extends a first event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold to incorporate the second event associated with the cell quality not satisfying the threshold for the serving cell and neighboring cells and no RAT-specific suitable being available for cell reselection, and wherein the first event and the second event are combined to form a single event[0033] discloses the combine events ( first event and second event): coverage hole is an area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving and neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service (i.e. wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells ) and a coverage hole is an area in which the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell (i.e. no RAT-specific suitable cell is available for cell reselection)(i.e. second event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is a second event, and wherein the logged measurement configuration extends a first event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold to incorporate the second event associated with the cell quality not satisfying the threshold for the serving cell and neighboring cells and no RAT-specific suitable being available for cell reselection, and wherein the first event and the second event are combined to form a single event, as taught by Schmidt, in order to perform MDT measurements at selected trigger event (Schmidt, [0050]).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination of Malik and Schmidt discloses all the features with respect to claims 4 and 18, respectively. Malik des not explicitly disclose wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is the second event and an event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold is a first event, and wherein measurement logging associated with the second event is performed when the first event does not occur.
Schmidt further discloses wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is the second event and an event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold is a first event, and wherein measurement logging associated with the second event is performed when the first event does not occur. [0033] discloses coverage hole is an area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving and neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service (i.e. wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells ) and a coverage hole is an area in which the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell (i.e. no RAT-specific suitable cell is available for cell reselection)(i.e. second event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is the second event and an event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold is a first event, and wherein measurement logging associated with the second event is performed when the first event does not occur, as taught by Schmidt, in order to perform MDT measurements at selected trigger event (Schmidt, [0050]).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, the combination of Malik and Schmidt discloses all the features with respect to claims 4 and 18, respectively. Malik des not explicitly disclose wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is the second event and occurs when a first event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold does not occur.
Schmidt further discloses wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is the second event and occurs when a first event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold does not occur[0033] discloses coverage hole is an area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving and neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service (i.e. wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole occurs when a cell quality does not satisfy a threshold for a serving cell and neighboring cells ) and a coverage hole is an area in which the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell (i.e. no RAT-specific suitable cell is available for cell reselection)(i.e. second event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein the event associated with the RAT-specific coverage hole is the second event and occurs when a first event associated with a camped cell radio quality not satisfying a threshold does not occur, as taught by Schmidt, in order to perform MDT measurements at selected trigger event (Schmidt, [0050]).
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malik in view of Schmidt in view of Pradeepa et al WO2021145805A1 .
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Malik discloses all the features with respect to claims 1 and 15, respectively. Malik does not disclose wherein: the event associated with the frequency specific coverage hole occurs when a specific frequency does not satisfy a threshold or is absent; or
the event associated with the frequency specific coverage hole occurs when a measurement on a list of frequencies does not satisfy a threshold or
no suitable cell operating on a configured frequency or
the list of frequencies is found.
Pradeepa et al WO2021145805A1 discloses wherein: the event associated with the frequency specific coverage hole occurs when a specific frequency does not satisfy a threshold or is absent[0110] discloses the logged measurement report includes a received signal measurement for a first frequency and an indication of a coverage hole for a second frequency, wherein Claim 25 discloses wherein the coverage hole is identified for the second frequency responsive to the communication device failing to detect a synchronization block on the second frequency ; or
the event associated with the frequency specific coverage hole occurs when a measurement on a list of frequencies does not satisfy a threshold or
no suitable cell operating on a configured frequency or
the list of frequencies is found.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein: the event associated with the frequency specific coverage hole occurs when a specific frequency does not satisfy a threshold or is absent, as taught by Pradeepa, in order to identify the coverage hole (Pradeepa [0110]).
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s argument:
Applicant argued that the references cited do not disclose "perform, based at least in part on the logged measurement configuration, measurement logging based at least in part on an occurrence of the event corresponding to the RAT-specific coverage hole or the frequency specific coverage hole and based at least in part on a second event corresponding to the RATspecific coverage hole or the frequency specific coverage hole, wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection "as cited in claim 1.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
while the primary reference Malik discloses the limitation “perform, based at least in part on the logged measurement configuration, measurement logging based at least in part on an occurrence of the event corresponding to the RAT-specific coverage hole or the frequency specific coverage hole and based at least in part on a second event corresponding to the RATspecific coverage hole or the frequency specific coverage hole, wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, of this application in (figure 18, page 46, lines 8-17 ) and (page 12-13, lines 13-30) disclose wherein a user equipment (UE) is configured with events during which the UE performs storing of measurements associated to a logging MDT configuration, wherein the configured events comprise Detection of a coverage hole in the camped frequency, where the UE determines a coverage hole in the camped frequency, for example, (page 13,lines 31-32) Detection that the camped cell quality (in terms of RSRP and/or RSRQ) is below certain threshold (i.e. first event )and the UE did not find any other suitable cells, wherein the UE declares out of coverage) (i.e. second event).
Malik does not explicitly disclose wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection
Schmidt et al. US20150031308A1 discloses wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection [0033] discloses the combine events ( first event and second event): coverage hole is an area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving and neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service and wherein the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell.( i.e.
first event : area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of a serving, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service;
second event: area where a signal to noise ratio (SNR) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of neighboring cells, such as 3GPP LTE cells, is below a threshold level to maintain basic service, wherein the signal strength of a cellular network experienced by a user equipment (UE) is insufficient to maintain connectivity and there is no coverage from an alternative 3GPP LTE cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Malik, by incorporating wherein the event or the second event also corresponds to no RAT-specific cells, satisfying a measurement threshold, being available for cell reselection, as taught by Schmidt, in order to perform MDT measurements at selected trigger event (Schmidt, [0050]).
Based on the fact, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the prior art cited does not teach the limitation of the independent claim 1, as argued by applicants. The other Independent Claims, recite features analogous to those of Claim 1, the cited passages teach the other independent claims, as well. Furthermore, the cited passages teach dependent claims, as well.
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 ABDELTIF AJID whose telephone number is (571)272-7749. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -5 pm.
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, Joseph Avellino can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/ABDELTIF AJID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights