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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaikkonen et al. (US 2022/0007293; hereinafter Kaikkonen) in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0105643; Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kaikkonen teaches a method for indicating cell measurement, comprising: receiving an evaluation parameter of a low-speed mobility criterion sent by a network device (Paragraph [0025]; [0101] Describes receiving mobility parameters from the network, where the network indicates the user equipment to be in “low mobility”. Paragraph [0099] Shows the network device sending specific threshold parameters for mobility evaluation),
wherein the evaluation parameter of the low-speed mobility criterion comprises: a first duration and a change threshold value of a reference signal received signal strength (Paragraphs [0102]; [0104] describes using a timer duration and threshold values applied to signal measurements),
wherein the first duration is an evaluation duration of the reference signal received signal strength change (Paragraphs [0128]; [0131] describes by showing continuous evaluation of mobility parameters during timer periods, which inherently involves monitoring signal strength changes over the evaluation duration);
evaluating a mobility state of a terminal device according to the evaluation parameter, a measurement result of a serving cell, and a condition of the low-speed mobility criterion (Paragraphs [0126]-[0127] describes mobility state determination (determined to be low or stationary) using evaluation parameters (timer and threshold conditions)),
Kaikkonen doesn’t teach comprising: in response to the measurement result continuously satisfying (SrxlevRef-Srxlev) < SsearchDeltaP in the first duration, determining that the mobility state of the terminal device is in low-speed mobility, wherein SrxlevRef is a reference value of the reference signal received signal strength, Srxlev is a measurement value of the reference signal received signal strength of the serving cell, and SsearchDeltaP is a change threshold value of the reference signal received signal strength;
However, in analogous art Kim teaches comprising: in response to the measurement result continuously satisfying (SrxlevRef-Srxlev) < SsearchDeltaP in the first duration, determining that the mobility state of the terminal device is in low-speed mobility (Paragraphs [0125]; [0146]-[0151]; [0163]; [0271] describes use formula (SrxlevRef-Srxlev) < SsearchDeltaP) check if it is satisfied continuously over the period TSearchDeltap (first duration) when satisfied, determine the UE is in “ a low-speed state”),
wherein SrxlevRef is a reference value of the reference signal received signal strength, Srxlev is a measurement value of the reference signal received signal strength of the serving cell, and SsearchDeltaP is a change threshold value of the reference signal received signal strength (Paragraphs [0132]-[0133]; [0254] describes that SrxlevRef stores a reference point based on Srxlev (signal strength) or reference value of the reference signal received signal strength. Paragraphs [0108]-[0109]; [0131]; [0253] describes that Srxlev is calculated from RSRP, which is a measurement value of the reference signal received signal strength. Paragraphs [0139]; [0143]; [0253] describes that SsearchDeltaP is the threshold for detecting changes in signal strength );
Kaikkonen teaches reporting the mobility state of the terminal device to the network device for the network device to determine a cell measurement state (Paragraph [0136] describes reporting requirements how the user equipment sends mobility-related information to the network using various communication protocols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kaikkonen to incorporate the teachings of Kim to provide enhanced mobility state determination with defined continuous evaluation parameters for relaxed RRM measurement. Doing so would improve power saving efficiency while maintaining strong mobility performance (Kim, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Kaikkonen in view of Kim, Kaikkonen teaches wherein the reference signal received signal strength is represented by at least one of the following signals: Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) or Reference Signal received Quality (RSRQ) (Paragraph [0138] describes “RSRP” and “RSRQ” as signal quality metrics used in threshold-based evaluations for measurement decisions).
Regarding claim 5, Kaikkonen in view of Kim, Kaikkonen teaches wherein the condition of the low-speed mobility criterion comprises at least one of: an entry condition of the low-speed mobility criterion; or, a departure condition of the low-speed mobility criterion (Paragraph [0128] describes the entry condition by describing the specific criteria that must be satisfied for the device to enter the low mobility state).
Regarding claim 7, Kaikkonen in view of Kim, Kim teaches wherein an initial value of the SrxlevRef is a current measurement value of the reference signal received signal strength when the terminal device receives the evaluation parameter of the low-speed mobility criterion sent by the network device (Paragraphs [0132]-[0137]; [0259] discloses that when the UE receives configuration parameters (evaluation parameters) through either dedicated signaling or system information, this triggers conditions under which SrxlevRef is initialized to the current measurement value of signal strength).
Regarding claim 8, Kaikkonen in view of Kim, Kim teaches further comprising: updating the SrxlevRef to the current measurement value of the reference signal received signal strength when an entry condition of the low-speed mobility criterion is not satisfied; or, updating the SrxlevRef to the current measurement value of the reference signal received signal strength when a departure condition of the low-speed mobility criterion is satisfied (Paragraphs [0136]-[0137];[0163]-[0167]; [0196]-[0198] describes when criterion to enter/maintain low-speed mobility fails update SrxlevRef).
Regarding claim 20, Kaikkonen in view of Kim, Kaikkonen teaches a network device comprising: a processor, a memory, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable by the processor, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, a method for indicating cell measurement of claim 10 is implemented (Paragraph [0029] describes that the memory stores software modules (computer program) that are executed by the processor to implement the described functions).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 respectively.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 respectively.
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 respectively.
Claims 16 and 23 are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 respectively.
Claim 24 is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights