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
This amendment is in response to the communication filed 10/31/2025.the amendment has been entered and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10-11, 21, 24, 25-31, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela et al. “Koskela” US2021/0409982 in view of Ryoo et al. “Ryoo” US 2018/0192426.
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 26, Koskela teaches a medium (Paragraph 88), a measurement information reporting method and apparatus comprising a processor and memory (Figures 8/9 and paragraphs 71 and 76) configured to:
receive, by a terminal, a broadcast message (UE receives information on what to measure in a broadcast; Paragraph 31) from a network device, wherein the broadcast message comprises configuration information (the UE receives information from the network with which carriers are to be measured during RRC; Paragraph 61 and Figure 2); and
Wherein the configuration information includes an index value of the configuration information and the index value distinguishes a plurality of sets of configuration information (there is an index value (#N) that is associated with carriers and the measurements with respect to carriers; Paragraphs 55-57, see also Figure 5 which shows a plurality of cells with a plurality of different information/configurations for cells);
Wherein the configuration information includes a determining parameter used by the terminal to determine whether the measurement needs to be collected (the terminal receives configuration information of the measurements to perform and this information includes a validity area which indicates the geographical area within which the configuration of carriers are to be measured; Paragraph 61. Further, Figure 4 paragraph 47 teaches the network sending configuration information to the terminal which includes whether or not the carrier is to be measured during RRC inactive mode or not);
the determining parameter includes a service type, slice type, slice list, terminal type, or terminal selection factor applicable to the configuration information (the terminal receives configuration information of the measurements to perform and this information includes a validity area which indicates the geographical area within which the configuration of carriers are to be measured; Paragraph 61. Further, Figure 4 paragraph 47 teaches the network sending configuration information to the terminal which includes whether or not the carrier is to be measured during RRC inactive mode or not. This is viewed as the terminal selection factor applicable to the configuration information);
determining, based on the determining parameters and a status of the terminal, the measurement information needs to be collected (based on the validity area and mode required by the UE, the UE performs the measurements; Paragraph 61. Figure 6 steps 602, 604, and 606 show a UE determines what carriers are to be measured in an inactive mode, and performs the measurements before providing them to the network; Paragraph 60); and
sending, by the terminal, the measurement information to the network device on (the terminal provides the results of the measurement to the base station; Paragraphs 60-61, see also Figure 6 step 604).
Koskela does not expressly disclose the configuration information includes a common channel resource which is used to transmit the measurement information and a channel slice mapped to an index; however, Ryoo teaches a common resource used with respect to measurement information as well as a channel slice being mapped to an index value (The terminal requests service/slice information and there is a common resource corresponding to cell-specific RS; Paragraph 482. The UE obtains slice mapping information from the network. This information is used for performing measurement of resources of cells; Paragraph 483. Paragraphs 497-498 disclose measurements are made through common resources. The mapping information is with respect to measurements for numerologies with services; Paragraph 26. Thus the slice numerology information is mapped to service information which is viewed as the index information).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Koskela to include sending/receiving measurement information on a common resource as well as slice information mapped to the index as taught by Ryoo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can obtain slice mapping information with respect to services and perform measurements of the resource on the target cell as taught by Ryoo; Paragraph 483.
Regarding claims 4, 24, and 27, Koskela teaches the status parameter of the terminal, that the measurement information needs to be collected wherein the status parameter includes a location of the terminal, service performed, or capability (the terminal receives configuration information of the measurements to perform and this information includes a validity area (i.e. determining parameter) which indicates the geographical area within which the configuration of carriers are to be measured; Paragraph 61. Further there may be one or multiple validity values for the carriers; Paragraph 58 and Figure 5. If the UE moves out of the area it may not be able to perform the measurement, thus the UE status parameter would indicate that the UE is within the measurement range (validity area) and thus capable of measuring).
Regarding claims 5, 25, and 28, Koskela teaches the configuration information includes a measurement item which includes at least one of cell quality, beam quality, RLF information, setup failure, UL delay and signal strength (the configuration receives from the network includes carriers to be measured (i.e. measurement item); Paragraph 61. The measured information can include signal strength, quality, etc.; Paragraph 39).
Regarding claims 6 and 29, Koskela teaches the configuration includes a trigger condition, interval of sending or quantity of times for sending the measurement information (Paragraph 61 teaches the configuration includes a validity duration/timer (i.e. trigger) for how long and what carriers to measure).
Regarding claims 7 and 30, while Koskela teaches random access configuration in paragraph 47, Koskela does not expressly disclose the common channel resource is a random access resource or PUSCH resource. Ryoo teaches a common resource with respect to RACH or PUSCH (The terminal requests service/slice information and there is a common resource corresponding to cell-specific RS; Paragraph 482. The UE is performing random access (Figure 31); Paragraph 492. Therefore, the resource would be used during this random access procedure and thus viewed as a random access resource).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Koskela to include the common resource is a random access resource as taught by Ryoo.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the terminal can properly perform measurements as well as random access procedures; Paragraph 492.
Regrading claims 8 and 31, Koskela teaches the measurement information includes signal strength; Paragraph 39.
Regarding claims 10 and 33, Koskela teaches the configuration includes a key (Paragraph 61. As the term “key” is not defined to mean anything, anything in the configuration information which causes a measurement to be performed can equate to “a key”. This information can include the carriers to be measured).
Regarding claim 11, Koskela teaches the measurement information includes the key (Paragraph 61. As the term “key” is not defined to mean anything, anything in the measurement information which causes a measurement to be performed can equate to “a key”. This information can include the carriers which have been measured).
Claim(s) 9 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskela in view of Ryoo and further in view of Kovacs et al. “Kovacs” US 2022/0335337.
Regarding claims 9 and 32, the prior art does not expressly disclose configuration information includes ML models/algorithms; however, Kovacs teaches that a network node provides the user with configuration information with respect to ML information; Paragraph 160. The machine learning enables the user to send measurement/condition information to the network node; Paragraph 159).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include ML models in the configuration information as taught by Kovacs.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the user can use ML techniques to report back measurement/condition information as taught by Kovacs; Paragraph 159.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the independent claims, Applicant argues Koskela does not use the parameter to determine whether the measurement information needs to be collected or including a service type, slice type, etc because Koskela is limited to validity area/duration.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment to the claims merely removed the option of “an area range” from previous claim 3. Koskela is not limited in scope to just the area being a parameter. As shown in the newly formed rejection, Koskela teaches in Figure 4 and paragraph 47, the network sending configuration information to the terminal which includes whether or not the carrier is to be measured during RRC inactive mode or not. This is viewed as the terminal selection factor applicable to the configuration information. Further, based on the validity area and mode required by the UE, the UE performs the measurements; Paragraph 61. Figure 6 steps 602, 604, and 606 shows a UE determines what carriers are to be measured in an inactive mode, and performs the measurements before providing them to the network; Paragraph 60. Thus one can see the UE determines, based on the parameter and status of the terminal, that the measurement information needs to be collected as claimed. Therefore, the claims stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
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 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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights