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 .
Claims 1-20 are subject under examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
4. 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, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (US 20220361059 A1) in view of Lei (US 20220104094 A1).
Regarding claim 1, HE teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a neighbor cell information from a first radio access technology (RAT) (See para 0087 “the neighbor cell may transmit information to advertise whether access by RedCap UEs is supported or unsupported when there is a change from supporting to not supporting access by RedCap UEs or a change from not supporting to supporting access by RedCap UEs”);
determining, by the processor, whether a neighbor cell of the neighbor cell information supports reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE) (See para 0006 “receiving system information that indicates whether one or more neighbor cells support access by UEs in a reduced capability (RedCap) category”);
performing, by the processor, a measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell supports the RedCap UE (See para 0012 “means for performing one or more RRM measurements on one or more neighbor cells that are identified as supporting access by UEs in the RedCap category based at least in part on the system information.”); and
skipping, by the processor, the measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell does not support the RedCap UE (See para 0088 “the UE may identify any neighbor cells that do not support access by RedCap UEs based on the system information received from the serving cell and refrain from performing RRM measurements on such neighbor cells.”)
HE doesn’t teach indicating, by the processor, to a network, via a feature set bit, that the apparatus supports RedCap only in the first RAT or another RAT, wherein the UE determines whether to perform the measurement based on the feature set bit.
Lei (US 20220104094 A1) teaches indicating, by the processor, to a network, via a feature set bit, that the apparatus supports RedCap only in the first RAT or another RAT, wherein the UE determines whether to perform the measurement based on the feature set bit (see para 0005 “The broadcast message may include a reduced-bandwidth (RB) synchronization signal block (SSB) (RB-SSB) for reduced-capability UEs. The broadcast message may include an indication as to whether or not reduced-capability UEs are able to access a cell supported by the base station.”; see para 0123 “the UE 115-a may determine whether reduced-capability UEs 115 are able to access the first cell based on one or more bit field values included within the broadcast message 215”)[ bit field indicating redcap UEs are able to access cell supported by BS is interpreted as bit field indicating support of redcap UEs by BS and since indication indicted whether redcap UEs are able to access cell implicitly teaches UE determines to perform measurement based on bit field because measurement will happen only when the bit indicates the redcap UE is able to access; in case bit indicates redcap UE cannot access the cell, there will no measurement]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine indicating via a feature set bit that the apparatus supports RedCap only in the first RAT or another RAT, wherein the UE determines whether to perform the measurement based on the feature set bit in the system of CHOI. The motivation is to improve energy efficiency. (Lei: see 0142)
Regarding claim 11, HE teaches An apparatus, comprising: a transceiver which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network node; and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver such that, during operation, the processor performs operations comprising: receiving, via the transceiver, a neighbor cell information from a first radio access technology (RAT) See para 0087 “the neighbor cell may transmit information to advertise whether access by RedCap UEs is supported or unsupported when there is a change from supporting to not supporting access by RedCap UEs or a change from not supporting to supporting access by RedCap UEs”);
determining whether a neighbor cell of the neighbor cell information supports reduced capability (RedCap) user equipment (UE) See para 0006 “receiving system information that indicates whether one or more neighbor cells support access by UEs in a reduced capability (RedCap) category”);;
performing, via the transceiver, a measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell supports the RedCap UE(See para 0012 “means for performing one or more RRM measurements on one or more neighbor cells that are identified as supporting access by UEs in the RedCap category based at least in part on the system information.”); and
skipping the measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell does not support the RedCap UE. (See para 0088 “the UE may identify any neighbor cells that do not support access by RedCap UEs based on the system information received from the serving cell and refrain from performing RRM measurements on such neighbor cells.”)
HE doesn’t teach indicating, by the processor, to a network, via a feature set bit, that the apparatus supports RedCap only in the first RAT or another RAT, wherein the UE determines whether to perform the measurement based on the feature set bit.
Lei (US 20220104094 A1) teaches indicating, by the processor, to a network, via a feature set bit, that the apparatus supports RedCap only in the first RAT or another RAT, wherein the UE determines whether to perform the measurement based on the feature set bit (see para 0005 “The broadcast message may include a reduced-bandwidth (RB) synchronization signal block (SSB) (RB-SSB) for reduced-capability UEs. The broadcast message may include an indication as to whether or not reduced-capability UEs are able to access a cell supported by the base station.”; see para 0123 “the UE 115-a may determine whether reduced-capability UEs 115 are able to access the first cell based on one or more bit field values included within the broadcast message 215”)[ bit field indicating redcap UEs are able to access cell supported by BS is interpreted as bit field indicating support of redcap UEs by BS and since indication indicted whether redcap UEs are able to access cell implicitly teaches UE determines to perform measurement based on bit field because measurement will happen only when the bit indicates the redcap UE is able to access; in case bit indicates redcap UE cannot access the cell, there will no measurement]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine indicating via a feature set bit that the apparatus supports RedCap only in the first RAT or another RAT, wherein the UE determines whether to perform the measurement based on the feature set bit in the system of CHOI. The motivation is to improve energy efficiency. (Lei: see 0142)
Regarding claim 6, 16, HE teaches receiving, by the processor, a neighbor cell list in an idle or inactive mode see para 0090 “For example, in the RRC idle or inactive mode, the UE may identify a set of neighbor cells in the system information received from the serving cell (e.g., in SIB2, SIB3, or SIB4)”);
determining, by the processor, whether a target cell of the neighbor cell list supports the RedCap UE according to a database (see para 0088 “ In other words, when the UE performs RRM measurements in the RRC idle mode or the RRC inactive mode, the system information that indicates whether the neighbor cells support or do not support access by RedCap UEs may enable the UE to measure only one or more neighbor cells that support access by RedCap UEs”) ; and
performing, by the processor, a cell reselection to the target cell in an event that the target cell supports the RedCap (See para 0081 “a source cell (e.g., the source base station) may decide whether and/or when to facilitate a handover for the UE to a new serving cell (e.g., a target cell provided by the neighbor base station) based on the measurement report provided by the UE.” See para 0012 “means for performing one or more RRM measurements on one or more neighbor cells that are identified as supporting access by UEs in the RedCap category based at least in part on the system information.”))
Regarding claim 7, 17, HE teaches receiving, by the processor, a measurement configuration in a connected mode (See para 0089 “when the UE is in an RRC connected or active mode, the serving cell may transmit a measurement configuration that identifies one or more neighbor cells on which the UE is to perform RRM measurements”);
determining, by the processor, whether a target cell of the measurement configuration supports the RedCap UE according to a database (See para 0012 “means for performing one or more RRM measurements on one or more neighbor cells that are identified as supporting access by UEs in the RedCap category based at least in part on the system information.”); and
performing, by the processor, a handover to the target cell in an event that the target cell supports the RedCap (See para 0081 “a source cell (e.g., the source base station) may decide whether and/or when to facilitate a handover for the UE to a new serving cell (e.g., a target cell provided by the neighbor base station) based on the measurement report provided by the UE.”; see para 0083 “inefficiencies (e.g., increased handover latency and/or signaling overhead) may occur if a source cell were to initiate a handover for a RedCap UE to a target cell that does not support access by RedCap UEs. For example, the target cell that does not support access by RedCap UEs may reject the handover request from the source cell”)[ it is implicit if handover request is rejects when the target cell that does not support access by RedCap UEs, then the handover is accepted with the target cell support access by redcap UEs”)
6. Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (US 20220361059 A1) in view of Lei (US 20220104094 A1) and further in view of LI (WO-2022257074-A1)
Regarding claim 2, 12, Modified HE doesn’t teach the determining comprises determining whether the neighbor cell supports the RedCap according to a database.
LI teaches wherein the determining comprises determining whether the neighbor cell supports the RedCap according to a database. (see page 9 3rd para “The network device configures different whitelist cell lists for different terminal characteristics. In this case, the cell information may be, for example, as shown in Table 1, or an expression similar to Table 1”; see page 10 second para “ the network device is configured with at least one whitelist cell list and/or at least one blacklist cell list for RedCap terminals in SIB3”; see page 8 line 8 “In some embodiments, the whitelist cell list may include identification information of at least one neighboring cell”)[ table including the whitelist cell list is interpreted as database]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine determining whether the neighbor cell supports the RedCap according to a database in the system of Modified HE. The motivation is to improve the effect of cell reselection (LI: see last line of page 7)
Regarding claim 3, 13, Modified HE doesn’t teach the database comprises at least one of a RedCap unavailable list, a RedCap available list and a RedCap availability database.
LI teaches wherein the database comprises at least one of a RedCap unavailable list, a RedCap available list and a RedCap availability database. (see table 6; “the whitelist cell list information and blacklist cell list information corresponding to the inter-frequency point 1 in the cell information can be shown in Table 6, for example, or expressions similar to Table 6, such as correspondence and mapping Wait.
Table 6
terminal characteristics White list cell list Blacklist cell list
Terminal Characteristics 1’ White list cell list 1' Blacklist cell list 1'
Terminal Features 2' White list cell list 2’ Blacklist cell list 2’
… … …
terminal characteristics m' White list cell list m’ Blacklist cell list m”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine determining whether the neighbor cell supports the RedCap according to a database in the system of Modified HE. The motivation is to improve the effect of cell reselection (LI: see last line of page 7)
Regarding claim 4,14, HE teaches receiving, by the processor, a system information block (SIB) from a second RAT (See para 0080 “the source base station may transmit a system information block (SIB) that indicates a set of neighbor cells associated with the source base station”);
determining, by the processor, whether the neighbor cell supports the RedCap UE according to the SIB (See para 0012 “means for performing one or more RRM measurements on one or more neighbor cells that are identified as supporting access by UEs in the RedCap category based at least in part on the system information.”);; and
Modified HE doesn’t teach storing, by the processor, a determination result in the database.
Li teaches storing, by the processor, a determination result in the database. see page 10 second para “ the network device is configured with at least one whitelist cell list and/or at least one blacklist cell list for RedCap terminals in SIB3”; see page 8 line 8 “In some embodiments, the whitelist cell list may include identification information of at least one neighboring cell”)[ table including the whitelist cell list is interpreted as database]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine storing a determination result in the database in the system of Modified HE. The motivation is to improve the effect of cell reselection (LI: see last line of page 7)
Regarding claim 5, 15, HE teaches wherein the first RAT comprises a Long- Term Evolution (LTE) or 4G network, and wherein second RAT comprises a New Radio (NR) or 5G network. (see para 0027 “While aspects may be described herein using terminology commonly associated with a 5G or New Radio (NR) radio access technology (RAT), aspects of the present disclosure can be applied to other RATs, such as a 3G RAT, a 4G RAT, and/or a RAT subsequent to 5G (e.g., 6G).[0028] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating an example of a wireless network 100, in accordance with the present disclosure. The wireless network 100 may be or may include elements of a 5G (e.g., NR) network and/or a 4G (e.g., Long Term Evolution (LTE)) “)
Regarding claim 10, 20, Modified HE doesn’t teach the database is maintained in a cloud or provided by a service provider.
LI teaches wherein the database is maintained in a cloud or provided by a service provider. (See page 7 last 3rd para “The network device can broadcast at most one whitelist and one blacklist”) [ network device is interpreted as service provider since network device also provide service ]
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine wherein the database is maintained in a cloud or provided by a service provide in the system of Modified HE. The motivation is to improve the effect of cell reselection (LI: see last line of page 7)
7. Claim(s) 8, 9, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HE (US 20220361059 A1) in view of Lei (US 20220104094 A1) in view of LI (WO-2022257074-A1) and further in view of Jovanovic(US 8606275 B2).
Regarding claims 8, 18, Modified HE doesn’t teach determining, by the processor, whether the neighbor cell is in the database; and performing, by the processor, a measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell is not in the database.
Jovanovic(US 8606275 B2) teaches determining, by the processor, whether the neighbor cell is in the database; and performing, by the processor, a measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell is not in the database (see col 8 lines 12-15“In step 520, it is determined that one or more of the reported pilot signals is a missing neighbor not comprised in a current neighbor list of the mobile station.”)
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine performing a measurement on the neighbor cell in an event that the neighbor cell is not in the database in the system of Modified HE. The motivation is to update neighbor list (Jovanovic: see col 5 lines 26)
Regarding claims 9, 19, Modified HE doesn’t teach updating, by the processor, the database in an event that the neighbor cell is not in the database, or a capability of the neighbor cell is not correct.
Jovanovic teaches updating, by the processor, the database in an event that the neighbor cell is not in the database, or a capability of the neighbor cell is not correct (col 5 lines 20-25“a Network Controller (NC) may identify the Target BS candidate while the call is in progress, enabling the NC to improve or save the call while in progress, and also enabling the NC to provide updates to a Neighbor List (NL) so the NL may improve or save future calls in the same area that may experience a missing pilot signal.”; see col 9 lines 1-3“the current neighbor that was previously misidentified can be detected and updated”).
Thus it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine updating the database in an event that the neighbor cell is not in the database, or a capability of the neighbor cell is not correct in the system of Modified HE. The motivation is to update neighbor list (Jovanovic: see col 5 lines 26).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMIT KAUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5665. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, NOEL BEHARRY can be reached at 5712705630. 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.
/PAMIT KAUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2416