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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/1/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues Chen is generally directed to "a communications apparatus, and a storage medium, used for a terminal device." Chen, Abstract. At portions cited by the Office Action, Chen describes that "the terminal device performs cell selection based on the first information" including "determining whether a maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) a sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and a first threshold" and that "if the maximum transmit power of the terminal device is less than (or greater than or equal to) the sum . . .the first cell is determined as a camped cell." Id. [0144]. Chen also describes, in another implementation, that "if the maximum transmit power of the terminal device is greater than or equal to [an] uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the first cell, the first cell is determined as a camped cell." Id. [0148]. However, determining a camped cell based on comparing a maximum transmit power of a terminal device to a sum or an uplink transmit power threshold of that cell is not the same as "selecting a first cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on ... an upper power limit for the first cell being less than or equal to a threshold for cell selection that is associated with concurrent communication," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
However, as noted above, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Chen is relied upon to fill a deficiency in Balasubramanian and present that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an upper power limit for the cell being less than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the cell in accordance with the upper power limit for the cell for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection.
Applicant argues the Office Action has not shown that Ngai teaches or suggests all of the features of amended independent claim 1. Ngai discusses "providing transmission power limit back-off for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compliance." Ngai, Abstract. At portions cited by the Office Action, Ngai describes that "[a]n access terminal 106 may be multimode, capable of operating using different radio access technologies (RATs)." Id. [0054]. Ngai further states "[a] fixed value is always used to limit the maximum transmission power limit regardless of whether, for example, the device is in close proximity to a user's body, or whether certain features, such as hotspots, are currently enabled" and "[a]s such, there is a need for adjusting power transmission levels so as to provide flexibility given various operating modes." Id. [0072]. For example, Ngai adds, in another portion, that "dynamic transmission power limit may be supported for a variety of concurrent RAT transmissions" where "transformations and applicable LUTs for managing transmission power levels of one RAT based on priorities of transmissions for another RAT may be included for each of these combinations." Id. [0128] (emphasis added).
However, the features of Ngai have not been shown to teach or suggest "selecting a first cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on ... an upper power limit for the first cell being less than or equal to a threshold for cell selection that is associated with concurrent communication," much less "wherein the upper power limit being less than or equal to the threshold for cell selection enables the concurrent communication of the uplink transmission and the second communication," as recited in amended independent claim 1. For example, Ngai clarifies that "SAR compliance is achieved by determining a fixed maximum transmission power limit which may not be exceeded during the operation of the access terminal" and that "certain implementations described herein are directed to selecting a transmission power limit based on the detected operating mode of an access terminal." Id. [0072]-[0073] (emphasis added). Ngai also describes "transformations and applicable LUTs for managing transmission power levels of one RAT based on priorities of transmissions for another RAT." Id. [0128]. Notably, the features of Ngai relied on with respect to the rejections of claim 1 are related to achieving "SAR compliance" for RATs by "determining a fixed maximum transmission power limit," as well as "selecting a transmission power limit." The Office Action however fails to show that SAR compliance for RATs teaches or suggests "selecting a first cell" or anything to do with cell selection or thresholds for cell selection. That is, "SAR compliance [that] is achieved by determining a fixed maximum transmission power limit" and "adjusting power transmission levels," (Id. [0072]) have not been shown to teach or suggest "a threshold for cell selection that is associated with concurrent communication," much less "selecting a first cell .. based at least in part on ... [the] threshold for cell selection that is associated with concurrent communication," and "wherein the upper power limit being less than or equal to the threshold for cell selection enables the concurrent communication," as recited in amended independent claim 1.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ngai is relied up upon to fill the deficiencies of Balasubramanian, and Chen as evidence that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try thresholds associated with concurrent communication wherein the uplink transmission is concurrent with a second communication over a second cell that supports the second radio access technology, and wherein the upper power limit being less than or equal to the threshold enables the concurrent communication of the uplink transmission and the second communication providing transmission power limit back-off for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compliance as suggest by Ngai.
Applicant argues Ryoo also has not been shown to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1 alone or in any combination with Balasubramanian, Chen, and Ngai-nor does the Office Action indicate any relevance of Ryoo to at least the aforementioned features.
As noted by the Applicant above, Ryoo is irrelevant because Ryoo has not been relied upon for any teachings of anticipation or obviousness over Claim 1. Amended independent
Claims 19, 26, and 30 are not allowable for at least similar reasons.
Dependent claims 2-18, 20-25, and 27-29 each depend from one of independent claims 1, 19, and 26 and are therefore not allowable for at least the same reasons that independent claims 1, 19, and 26 are not allowable.
The Examiner respectfully submit that the Applicant has not presented a convincing argument as to why it would not have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effect filing date to combine to teachings above to arrive at the claimed invention. The Applicant’s amendment does not overcome an obvious outcome based on a PHOSITA seeking to optimize cell selection. For example, Ngai specifically suggest dynamic transmission power limit management may be provided for multiple RAT types. For example, implementations described herein may be used in conjunction with RAT types such as 1x, DO, GSM (and EDGE/GPRS), WCDMA/UMTS (and HSPA/HSPA+), LTE (FDD and TDD), TD-SCDMA, WLAN, and the like. Furthermore, as described above with reference to FIGS. 14-18, dynamic transmission power limit may be supported for a variety of concurrent RAT transmissions. For example, concurrent transmissions of 1x+DO, 1x+LTE, 1x WLAN, DO+WLAN, GSM+WLAN, WCDMA/UMTS+WLAN, LTE+WLAN, TD-SCDMA+WLAN, 1x+DO+WLAN, 1x+LTE+WLAN, GSM+LTE, GSM+LTE+WLAN, 1x+GSM, DO+GSM, GSM+GSM, GSM+WCDMA/UMTS, GSM+TD-SCDMA, and the like may be supported. As such, transformations and applicable LUTs for managing transmission power levels of one RAT based on priorities of transmissions for another RAT may be included for each of these combinations.” – Paragraph 0128. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
To advance prosecution toward allowance the Examiner respectfully suggest noting function and or active steps in the claim that interrelate functional details that describe unique features. In other words, the written disclosure and claims appear to primarily focus on power control (i.e., controlling transmission limits), dual connectivity and cell selection. The noted features are notoriously well known in the art and therefore even when claimed together the claims would present obvious combinations unless the claims suggested some level of specificity. As an example (example only to provide clarity not necessarily allowability since the Examiner has not searched features that were not claimed or specified in way shape or form ) of specificity, the written disclosure supports [0100] At arrow 370, UE 315 may transmit uplink information (e.g., uplink control information, such as CQI and HARQ feedback) to base station 305 over the selected primary cell. UE 315 may allocate an amount of power to the transmission that is in accordance with the upper uplink power limit set by the primary cell e.g., if the upper uplink power limit is set at 18 dBm, UE 315 may transmit the uplink information over the primary cell at a power level that is less than or equal to 18 dBm. In some examples, UE 315 transmits higher priority uplink information (e.g., channel state information (CSI) and/or HARQ feedback) over the primary cell than over the secondary cell.
Therefore, the claims are rejected as follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-15, 18-21, 24-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0150450 A1, hereinafter, ‘Balasubramanian’ in view of Chen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0266809, hereinafter, ‘Chen’ and further in view of Ngai et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2012/0270592 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ngai’.
Consider Claims 1, 19, 26 and 30, Balasubramanian teaches a method for wireless communication, comprising: receiving, at a user equipment (UE) (e.g., see at least figure 7 architecture of device 115 )that supports concurrent communications using a first radio access technology and a second radio access technology (e.g., this is met based on the teachings of at least 0046-0048- “The wireless communications system 100 may include base stations 105 of different types (e.g., macro or small cell base stations). Each of the base stations 105 may be configured to communicate using one or more communication technologies, and there may be overlapping geographic coverage areas 110 for different technologies”), a plurality of indications indicating upper power limits for uplink transmissions over a plurality of cells that support the first radio access technology(e.g., this is net based on at least the teachings of 0057 -0059 – “the UE 115 may receive one or more system information block (SIBs)… Decoding SIB1 may enable the UE 115 to receive SIB2. SIB2 may contain RRC configuration information related to … power control…”); selecting a first cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on a selection criteria being satisfied by the first cell; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the first cell(e.g., this is met based on at least 0038 – “parameters associated with cell selection criteria used by a UE to determine whether to connect to a cell may be signaled by the network through system information messages”, 0059 –“This offset may also be derived from SIB1. P.sub.comp may be the maximum of P.sub.Emax−P.sub.Umax or 0, where P.sub.Emax is the maximum power allowed in the cell and P.sub.Umax is the maximum transmit power of the UE 115. Thus, a UE 115 may receive several cells (e.g., from different PLMNs) and may select a cell after reading SIB1, determining if the cell belongs to its home PLMN, and applying the above criteria (or any other cell selection criteria” and transmitting an uplink transmission over the first cell – this is met based on at least 0058- “a UE 115 may also perform a cell selection procedure to establishing a connection with a base station 105. For example, a UE 115 may camp on a cell of a base station 105 after verifying that specific criteria have been fulfilled”).
However, Balasubramanian does not specifically teach an upper power limit for the first cell being less than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the cell in accordance with the upper power limit for the cell (i.e., the problem to be solved is determining the most suitable cells based on power constraints and optimizing cell (re)selection).
In analogous art, Chen teaches in at least 0128-0129 – “The network device sends system information to the terminal device. The system information includes first information”- 0144 – “the first information may include: determining whether a maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) a sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and a first threshold… Optionally, if the maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) the sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and the first threshold, the first cell is determined as a camped cell.” 0148 -0149– “it is assumed that P_max is the maximum transmit power of the terminal device, and P_threshold is the uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the first cell. For example, if P_max≥P_threshold, the first cell is determined as the camped cell. Otherwise, the first cell is abandoned”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an upper power limit for the cell being less than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the cell in accordance with the upper power limit for the cell for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection.
However, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen does not specifically teach thresholds associated with concurrent communication wherein the uplink transmission is concurrent with a second communication over a second cell that supports the second radio access technology, and wherein the upper power limit being less than or equal to the threshold enables the concurrent communication of the uplink transmission and the second communication.
In analogous art, Ngai teaches “access terminal 106 may be multimode, capable of operating using different radio access technologies (RATs) such as radio access technologies defined by standards such as cdma2000 1x, 1x-EV-DO, LTE, eHRPD and the like. An access terminal 106 may perform a plurality of tasks across various communication systems using different radio access technologies.” -0054… “dynamic transmission power limit management may be provided for multiple RAT types. For example, implementations described herein may be used in conjunction with RAT types such as 1x, DO, GSM (and EDGE/GPRS), WCDMA/UMTS (and HSPA/HSPA+), LTE (FDD and TDD), TD-SCDMA, WLAN, and the like. Furthermore, as described above with reference to FIGS. 14-18, dynamic transmission power limit may be supported for a variety of concurrent RAT transmissions. For example, concurrent transmissions of 1x+DO, 1x+LTE, 1x WLAN, DO+WLAN, GSM+WLAN, WCDMA/UMTS+WLAN, LTE+WLAN, TD-SCDMA+WLAN, 1x+DO+WLAN, 1x+LTE+WLAN, GSM+LTE, GSM+LTE+WLAN, 1x+GSM, DO+GSM, GSM+GSM, GSM+WCDMA/UMTS, GSM+TD-SCDMA, and the like may be supported. As such, transformations and applicable LUTs for managing transmission power levels of one RAT based on priorities of transmissions for another RAT may be included for each of these combinations.” – Paragraph 0128
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try thresholds associated with concurrent communication wherein the uplink transmission is concurrent with a second communication over a second cell that supports the second radio access technology, and wherein the upper power limit being less than or equal to the threshold enables the concurrent communication of the uplink transmission and the second communication providing transmission power limit back-off for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) compliance as suggest by Ngai. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claims 2, 20 and 27, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: estimating an amount of power to support uplink transmissions over a second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and determining the threshold based at least in part on the amount of power.
In analogous art, Chen teaches estimating an amount of power to support uplink transmissions over a second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and determining the threshold based at least in part on the amount of power (e.g., this is met based on at least 0157-0174- that teaches “a minimum received signal power corresponding to a second cell…”and “…an uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the second cell” -0159).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try cell selection based on power requirements and thresholds comprising: estimating an amount of power to support uplink transmissions over a second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and determining the threshold based at least in part on the amount of power for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claims 3, 21 and 28, Balasubramanian teaches claimed invention except wherein a second upper power limit for the second cell is based at least in part on the threshold and the upper power limit for the cell, the method further comprising: transmitting, concurrently with the uplink transmission over the cell, a second uplink transmission over the second cell in accordance with the second upper power limit.
In analogous art, Chen teaches wherein a second upper power limit for the second cell is based at least in part on the threshold and the upper power limit for the cell, the method further comprising: transmitting, concurrently with the uplink transmission over the cell, a second uplink transmission over the second cell in accordance with the second upper power limit (e.g., see at least 157-174 – “…an uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the second cell”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein a second upper power limit for the second cell is based at least in part on the threshold and the upper power limit for the cell, the method further comprising: transmitting, concurrently with the uplink transmission over the cell, a second uplink transmission over the second cell in accordance with the second upper power limit for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claims 11, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: receiving, from a base station, an indication of the threshold based at least in part on supporting concurrent communications using the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology (e.g., see first information indicated by the cell in 0131 and 0139).
In analogous art, Chen teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: receiving, from a base station, an indication of the threshold based at least in part on supporting concurrent communications using the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology (e.g., see first information indicated by the cell in 0131 and 0139).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try receiving, from a base station, an indication of the threshold based at least in part on supporting concurrent communications using the first radio access technology and the second radio access technology for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claim 12, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention except wherein selecting the cell comprises: selecting the cell based at least in part on determining that the upper power limit for the cell is the lowest of a plurality of upper power limits for the plurality of cells.
In analogous art, Chen teaches in at least 0128-0129 – “The network device sends system information to the terminal device. The system information includes first information”- 0144 – “the first information may include: determining whether a maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) a sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and a first threshold… Optionally, if the maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) the sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and the first threshold, the first cell is determined as a camped cell.” 0148 -0149– “it is assumed that P_max is the maximum transmit power of the terminal device, and P_threshold is the uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the first cell. For example, if P_max≥P_threshold, the first cell is determined as the camped cell. Otherwise, the first cell is abandoned”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an upper power limit for the cell being less than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the cell in accordance with the upper power limit for the cell for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection.
Consider Claims 13, 24 and 29, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention except storing an indication of a subset of the plurality of cells having upper power limits that are below the threshold, the subset of the plurality of cells comprising the cell; and identifying the cell is included in the subset of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the indication, wherein the cell is selected based at least in part on the identifying.
In analogous art, Chen teaches “a type of the cell selection includes initial cell selection and cell selection based on stored information” ...in at least 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try storing an indication of a subset of the plurality of cells having upper power limits that are below the threshold, the subset of the plurality of cells comprising the cell; and identifying the cell is included in the subset of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the indication, wherein the cell is selected based at least in part on the identifying. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claims 14 and 25, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention further comprising: activating a second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and modifying, based at least in part on activating the second cell, a procedure for selecting cells to be based at least in part on a threshold(e.g., this is met based on the teachings of at least 0046-0048- “The wireless communications system 100 may include base stations 105 of different types (e.g., macro or small cell base stations). Each of the base stations 105 may be configured to communicate using one or more communication technologies, and there may be overlapping geographic coverage areas 110 for different technologies”).
Consider Claims 15, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention further comprising: receiving a plurality of system information messages comprising the plurality of indications, wherein the plurality of system information messages comprise one or more of a system information block (SIB) 1 message, a SIB 3 message, a SIB 5 message, or a SIB 6 messages (e.g., see SIBs in at least 0057-0059). The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claim 18, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the UE is operating in an idle mode and cells that supports the second radio access technology are absent for selection by the UE (i.e., this is met based on camping noted in at least 0058).
Claim(s) 4-10, 16-17, 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0150450 A1, hereinafter, ‘Balasubramanian’ in view of Chen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0266809, hereinafter, ‘Chen’ and further in view of Ngai et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2012/0270592 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ngai’ and further in view of Ryoo et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2014/0329551 A1, hereinafter, ‘Ryoo’.
Consider Claims 4 and 22, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen teaches the claimed invention except wherein estimating the amount of power to support uplink transmissions over the second cell comprises: estimating a first amount of power based at least in part on identifying a first amount of uplink information for transmission over the second cell; or estimating a second amount of power based at least in part on identifying a second amount of uplink information for transmission over the second cell, wherein the second amount of power is greater than the first amount of power based at least in part on the second amount of uplink information being greater than the first amount of uplink information.
In analogous art, Ryoo teaches in at least 0013 - “…adjusting uplink transmission power distributed to each BS to which a UE is being connected based on a data amount of an uplink buffer for a relevant BS in a wireless communication system where the UE supports a transmission link for a plurality of BSs simultaneously”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein estimating the amount of power to support uplink transmissions over the second cell comprises: estimating a first amount of power based at least in part on identifying a first amount of uplink information for transmission over the second cell; or estimating a second amount of power based at least in part on identifying a second amount of uplink information for transmission over the second cell, wherein the second amount of power is greater than the first amount of power based at least in part on the second amount of uplink information being greater than the first amount of uplink information for the purpose of controlling uplink power. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider claim 5, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention except wherein determining the threshold comprises: determining a first threshold based at least in part on the first amount of power; or determining a second threshold based at least in part on the second amount of power, the second threshold being lower than the first threshold.
In analogous art, Chen teaches determining the threshold comprises: determining a first threshold based at least in part on the first amount of power; or determining a second threshold based at least in part on the second amount of power, the second threshold being lower than the first threshold(i.e., selection based on thresholds/power constraints ) (e.g., this is met based on the first threshold noted in at least 0013 and a second threshold noted in at least 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein determining the threshold comprises: determining a first threshold based at least in part on the first amount of power; or determining a second threshold based at least in part on the second amount of power, the second threshold being lower than the first threshold for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claims 6 and 23, Balasubramanian teaches the claimed invention except further comprising: selecting, prior to selecting the cell of the plurality of cells, a third cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the selection criteria being satisfied, wherein a third upper power limit for the third cell is greater than the upper power limit for the cell; determining, based at least in part on the third upper power limit for the third cell, a second upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and selecting, during a reselection procedure, the cell of the plurality of cells having the upper power limit that is less than the third upper power limit based at least in part on the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell exceeding the second upper power limit.
In analogous art, Chen teaches selecting, prior to selecting the cell of the plurality of cells, a third cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the selection criteria being satisfied(i.e., this is met based on sorting candidate cells - 0093), wherein a third upper power limit for the third cell is greater than the upper power limit for the cell; determining, based at least in part on the third upper power limit for the third cell, a second upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and selecting, during a reselection procedure, the cell of the plurality of cells having the upper power limit amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell i.e., this is met based on the cell reselection process sorting -0093 and considering candidates based on power constraints further noted in the sections cited above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try selecting, prior to selecting the cell of the plurality of cells, a third cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the selection criteria being satisfied, wherein a third upper power limit for the third cell is greater than the upper power limit for the cell; determining, based at least in part on the third upper power limit for the third cell, a second upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and selecting, during a reselection procedure, the cell of the plurality of cells having the upper power limit
However, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen does not specifically teach wherein the specific power constraint is the upper power limit that is less than an upper power limit based at least in part on the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell exceeding the second upper power limit (i.e., in considering a cell for reselection, constraining the power so it does not exceed a total power needed to transmit simultaneously).
In analogous art, Ryoo teaches wherein the specific power constraint is the upper power limit that is less than an upper power limit based at least in part on the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell exceeding the second upper power limit (i.e., in considering a cell for reselection, constraining the power so it does not exceed a total power needed to transmit simultaneously)(e.g., this is met based on at least 0075, 0089 and figure 3b ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try further comprising: selecting, prior to selecting the cell of the plurality of cells, a third cell of the plurality of cells based at least in part on the selection criteria being satisfied, wherein a third upper power limit for the third cell is greater than the upper power limit for the cell; determining, based at least in part on the third upper power limit for the third cell, a second upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the second cell that supports the second radio access technology; and selecting, during a reselection procedure, the cell of the plurality of cells having the upper power limit that is less than the third upper power limit based at least in part on the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell exceeding the second upper power limit for the purpose of power control.
Consider Claims 7, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen teaches the claimed invention further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the i.e., constrained under a power threshold) (e.g., this is met based on the teachings of at least 0046-0048- “The wireless communications system 100 may include base stations 105 of different types (e.g., macro or small cell base stations). Each of the base stations 105 may be configured to communicate using one or more communication technologies, and there may be overlapping geographic coverage areas 110 for different technologies”… based on at least 0038 – “parameters associated with cell selection criteria used by a UE to determine whether to connect to a cell may be signaled by the network through system information messages”, 0059 –“This offset may also be derived from SIB1. P.sub.comp may be the maximum of P.sub.Emax−P.sub.Umax or 0, where P.sub.Emax is the maximum power allowed in the cell and P.sub.Umax is the maximum transmit power of the UE 115. Thus, a UE 115 may receive several cells (e.g., from different PLMNs) and may select a cell after reading SIB1, determining if the cell belongs to its home PLMN, and applying the above criteria (or any other cell selection criteria”).
However, Balasubramanian does not specifically teach an upper power limit for the cell being less than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the cell in accordance with the upper power limit for the cell (i.e., the problem to be solved is determining the most suitable cells based on power constraints and optimizing cell (re)selection).
Chen teaches in at least 0128-0129 – “The network device sends system information to the terminal device. The system information includes first information”- 0144 – “the first information may include: determining whether a maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) a sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and a first threshold… Optionally, if the maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) the sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and the first threshold, the first cell is determined as a camped cell.” 0148 -0149– “it is assumed that P_max is the maximum transmit power of the terminal device, and P_threshold is the uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the first cell. For example, if P_max≥P_threshold, the first cell is determined as the camped cell. Otherwise, the first cell is abandoned”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try an upper power limit for the cell being less than or equal to a threshold; and transmitting an uplink transmission over the cell in accordance with the upper power limit for the cell for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection.
However, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen does not specifically teaches the claimed invention further comprising: wherein the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell meets is less than or equal to the fourth upper a power limit(i.e., constraint) (i.e., in considering a cell for reselection, constraining the power so it does not exceed a total power needed to transmit simultaneously).
In analogous art, Ryoo teaches the claimed invention further comprising: wherein the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell meets is less than or equal to an upper a power limit(i.e., constrained under a power threshold) (i.e., in considering a cell for reselection, constraining the power so it does not exceed a total power needed to transmit simultaneously)(e.g., this is met based on at least 0075, 0089 and figure 3b ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try teaches the claimed invention further comprising: determining, based at least in part on the upper power limit for the cell, a fourth upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the second cell that supports the second radio access technology, wherein the estimated amount of power for supporting uplink transmissions over the second cell meets is less than or equal to the fourth upper a power limit(i.e., constrained under a power threshold) for the purpose of power control.
Consider Claims 8, Balasubramanian teaches wherein a first signal quality for the cell is less than a second signal quality for the second cell (e.g., this is met based on cell selection noted in 0057-0059).
Consider Claims 9, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the cell is included in a primary cell group and the second cell is included in a secondary cell group(e.g., this is met based on the fundamental of cell selection – 0057-0059 when considered within the context of different RATs/vplmn - 0043).
Consider Claims 10, Balasubramanian teaches further comprising: determining a second amount of power available for uplink transmissions over the second cell based at least in part on the upper power limit for the cell; and modifying, based at least in part on the amount of power exceeding the second amount of power by a third amount, a procedure for selecting cells i.e., this is met based on at least the selection criteria noted in at least 0006 “…modify cell selection criteria based on the identified asymmetry which includes power consideration.)
However, Balasubramanian does not specifically teach a procedure for selecting cells i.e., the problem to be solved is determining the most suitable cells based on power constraints and optimizing cell (re)selection).
Chen teaches in at least 0128-0129 – “The network device sends system information to the terminal device. The system information includes first information”- 0144 – “the first information may include: determining whether a maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) a sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and a first threshold… Optionally, if the maximum transmit power of the terminal device is not less than (or greater than or equal to) the sum of the minimum received signal power corresponding to the first cell and the first threshold, the first cell is determined as a camped cell.” 0148 -0149– “it is assumed that P_max is the maximum transmit power of the terminal device, and P_threshold is the uplink transmit power threshold corresponding to the first cell. For example, if P_max≥P_threshold, the first cell is determined as the camped cell. Otherwise, the first cell is abandoned”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try determining a second amount of power available for uplink transmissions over the second cell based at least in part on the upper power limit for the cell; and modifying, based at least in part on the amount of power exceeding the second amount of power by a third amount, a procedure for selecting cells to be based at least in part on the threshold for the purpose of optimizing cell (re)selection. The Examiner further notes that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the claimed features in conjunction with cell selection to maintain QoS(Quality of Service) or QoE (Quality of Experience) during mobility and or signaling fluctuations due to radio wave characteristic behavior even in the case of concurrent connections.
Consider Claims 16, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen teaches the claimed invention except wherein a second upper power limit for uplink transmissions over a second plurality of cells that support the second radio access technology is based at least in part on the upper power limit for the cell.
In analogous art, Ryoo teaches in at least 0098 “a method for distributing in advance maximum transmission power of a UE to a plurality of BSs that are being connected to the UE…see also equation in figure 5B , Pmax equation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try wherein a second upper power limit for uplink transmissions over a second plurality of cells that support the second radio access technology is based at least in part on the upper power limit for the cell for the purpose of power control.
Consider Claims 17, Balasubramanian as modified by Chen teaches the claimed invention except wherein the second upper power limit decreases when the upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the plurality of cells that support the first radio access technology increases, and wherein the second upper power limit increases when the upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the plurality of cells decreases.
In analogous art, Ryoo teaches in at least 0098 “a method for distributing in advance maximum transmission power of a UE to a plurality of BSs that are being connected to the UE…see also equation in figure 5B , Pmax equation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try wherein the second upper power limit decreases when the upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the plurality of cells that support the first radio access technology increases, and wherein the second upper power limit increases when the upper power limit for uplink transmissions over the plurality of cells decreases for the purpose of power control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20120082046 A1 teaches a determination is made of a first power available for transmitting a first signal using a first radio access technology while simultaneously transmitting a second signal using a second radio access technology different from the first radio access technology.
US 20190045456 A teaches A user equipment for performing multi-RAT concurrent transmission according to an embodiment of the present invention receives, from a base station, information on subframe sets and power management parameters to be applied to each of the subframe sets, sets the maximum transmission power of each of a first RAT signal and a second RAT signal using the power management parameters, and transmits at least one of the first RAT signal and the second RAT signal based on the set maximum transmission power. The subframe sets may include a first subframe set in which only transmission of the first RAT signal is allowed and a second subframe set in which multi-RAT concurrent transmission is allowed, and the power management parameters may include a parameter for limiting the maximum transmission power of the second RAT signal to be transmitted concurrently with the first RAT signal in the second subframe set.
US 20080280615 A1 teaches 0060 - when there is a sudden rise in transmitted power threshold, or an increase in gradient of power control reaches a maximum value, trigger for handoff should occur.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights