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 1-11,14-18, and 20 are pending.
Claims 12,13, and 19 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 24,2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11,14-18, and 20 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9,10,11,14-17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “comprising reselection success rate and signal stability”. Applicants’ remarks disclose the amended limitation is supported by the specification originally filed, which describes Par. 0103 Accordingly, At operation 250, in some embodiments, first and second signals are received at the UE. Receiving the first and second signals includes receiving first and second cell 114 signals at UE 112 as discussed above. However, paragraph fails to mention success rate and signal stability. Support for the amendment is must be required in the specification. Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from rejected base claim.
Claim 10 has been amended to recite “comprising reselection success rate and signal stability”. Applicants’ remarks disclose the amended limitation is supported by the specification originally filed, which describes Par. 0103 Accordingly, At operation 250, in some embodiments, first and second signals are received at the UE. Receiving the first and second signals includes receiving first and second cell 114 signals at UE 112 as discussed above. However, paragraph fails to mention success rate and signal stability. Support for the amendment is must be required in the specification. Dependent claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected as depending from rejected base claim.
Claim 18 has been amended to recite “comprising reselection success rate and signal stability”. Applicants’ remarks disclose the amended limitation is supported by the specification originally filed, which describes Par. 0103 Accordingly, At operation 250, in some embodiments, first and second signals are received at the UE. Receiving the first and second signals includes receiving first and second cell 114 signals at UE 112 as discussed above. However, paragraph fails to mention success rate and signal stability. Support for the amendment is must be required in the specification. Dependent claim 20 is rejected as depending from rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9,10,11,14-17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites comprising reselection success rate and signal stability.
It is unclear what “success rate and signal stability” is based on it not being supported by the specification being indicated as “wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy”. More information is required in the specification to explain the claim. Dependent claims 2-9 are rejected as depending from rejected base claim.
Claim 10 recites comprising reselection success rate and signal stability.
It is unclear what “success rate and signal stability” is based on it not being supported by the specification being indicated as “wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy”. More information is required in the specification to explain the claim. Dependent claims 11 and 14-17 are rejected as depending from rejected base claim.
Claim 18 recites comprising reselection success rate and signal stability.
It is unclear what “success rate and signal stability” is based on it not being supported by the specification being indicated as “wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy”. More information is required in the specification to explain the claim. Dependent claim 20 is rejected as depending from rejected base claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4,7,8,11-13,16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Kilpatrick et al, US 20150036663 A1., in view of Serravalle et al, US 20100317349 A1, and in further view of Zhang et al, US 20220264411 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kilpatrick discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising (FIG. 11,13 [0046]user equipment/mobile device 115):
a memory having non-transitory instructions stored therein (Fig. 11, 13 [0122-0123] mobile device 115 includes processor 1110 may be configured to execute computer-readable program code stored by the memory 1115);
and a processor coupled to the memory, and being configured to execute the instructions, thereby causing the UE to:receive a cell reselection policy from a network ([0060] Based on the historical information, the mobile device 115-a and/or a current serving base station can predict a next location of the mobile device 115-a, using the predicted next location to inform the reselection targets. For example, when the mobile device 115-a approaches position 2, the first base station 105-a may determine, from the current location and speed of the mobile device 115-a in relation to stored historic data related to mobility patterns of the mobile device 115-a, that the mobile device 115-a is likely traveling along path 205.),
wherein the cell reselection policy comprises a cell ([0060-0061] When the mobile device 115-a approaches position 2, the first base station 105-a may determine, from the current location and speed of the mobile device 115-a in relation to stored historic data related to mobility patterns of the mobile device 115-a, that the mobile device 115-a is likely traveling along path 205. The first base station 105-a may determine that the mobile device 115-a is moving more into the coverage area of the third base station 105-c than the second base station 105-b.):
while camped on a first cell and operating in an idle mode: receive a first reference signal from the first cell and a second reference signal from a second cell ([0051], [0056], [0072], [0109] when mobile device 115 is camped on a network during idle mode, signal strength measurements from a neighboring cells [first and second cell] are used to identify reselection target, wherein the signal strength measurements are made by receiving reference signals from neighboring cells [first and second reference signals]),
and apply the cell reselection policy to the first and second reference signals, thereby determining whether to remain camped on the first cell ([0051], [0056], [0072], [0079], [0109] the network instructs the mobile device to make measurements of neighboring cells based on a predicted next target for handover or cell reselection [reselection policy], wherein the measurements are made by the mobile device by using reference signals while camped on a first serving cell [apply reselection policy to reference signals] and wherein the prediction to perform handover or cell reselection to a target cell is made based on whether current serving cell is congested to determine whether mobile device should remain camped on network or perform handover or cell resection to less congested cell);
and based on the determination, either remain camped on the first cell or perform a cell reselection to the second cell ([0051] while mobile device 115 is camped on a serving cell, prediction behavior to perform handover or cell reselection for the mobile device to a target cell is determined based on congestion on current serving cell to instruct mobile device to reselect another cell or remain on current serving cell ).
Kilpatrick does not disclose reselection criterion based on mobility history information (MHI) of a plurality of UEs other than the UE,
However, Serravalle does disclose reselection criterion based on mobility history information (MHI) of a plurality of UEs other than the UE ([0017] [0057] The user communications device may check whether it is in a high mobility state (which may arise if, for example, the user is in a moving vehicle) before providing the cell history data and may only send the history data if it is not a high mobility state. The base station may consider history or other data from other UEs in the same cell when providing the cell selection/reselection parameter data.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kilpatrick with reselection criterion based on mobility history information (MHI) of a plurality of UEs other than the UE as taught by Serravalle. The motivation for doing so would be to improve both UE and Network performances in terms of UE battery consumption and paging failure rate. (Serravalle, [0059])
Kilpatrick and Serravalle does not disclose wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as the UE;
However, Zhang does disclose wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as the UE([0072] [0076] For another example, the terminal device moves at a higher speed, so that the terminal device can be handed over to a cell with a larger coverage area, to maximally reduce a quantity of handover times. For another example, the base station may determine, based on the mobility history information of the terminal device, whether the terminal device performs ping-pong handover, that is, whether a terminal device at edges of two cells is handed over from one cell to the other cell and then handed over from the other cell to the cell. In this way, an appropriate measurement parameter of the terminal device is set. In some implementations, a more appropriate target cell can be configured for the terminal device, to improve a success rate of cell handover performed by the terminal device. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kilpatrick with wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as the UE as taught by Serravalle. The motivation for doing so would be to improve a success rate of performing cell handover by the terminal device. (Zhang, [0012])
Regarding claim 2, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the cell reselection criterion comprises a reference signal power threshold level ([0156] The mobile device 115 may measure neighboring cells to identify a reselection target based on a pre-defined threshold for the serving cell signal strength [power threshold level]),
and the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the UE to determine whether to remain camped on the first cell based on a comparison ofthe second reference signal to the reference signal power threshold level ([0051] [0056] the mobile device measures signal strength ofa neighboring cell [second reference signal] to determine whether to remain camped on a congested serving cell or reselect a target cell based on signal strength threshold).
Regarding claim 3, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the UE to further apply the cell reselection policy by using a machine learning algorithm to modify the cell reselection policy received from the network ([0056], [0059]a base station [network] instructs the mobile device 115 to measure signal strengths for candidate cells to use for handover and cell reselection [reselection policy], wherein the mobile device implements a learning algorithm [machine learning algorithm] to modify the mobility parameters [modified cell reselection policy] including reselection thresholds used for cell reselection),
and using the modified cell reselection policy to determine whether to remain camped on the first cell ([0051] While mobile device 115 is camped on a serving cell, prediction behavior to perform handover or cell reselection for the mobile device to a target cell is determined based on congestion on current serving cell to instruct mobile device to reselect another cell or remain on current serving cell.).
Regarding claim 4, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the UE to modify the cell reselection policy by applying the machine learning algorithm to MHI of the UE ([0056], [0059] A base station [network] instructs the mobile device 115 to measure signal strengths for candidate cells to use for handover and cell reselection [reselection policy], wherein the mobile device implements a learning algorithm [machine learning algorithm] to modify the mobility parameters [modified cell reselection policy] including reselection thresholds used for cell reselection).
Regarding claim 7, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further cause the UE to transmit MHI to the network ([0068] The network entity receives mobility pattern data from the mobile device using the mobile device profile information), wherein the MI comprises: UE locations of cell reselection occurrences, discovered cell radio conditions, UE speed, and UE mode and visited cell history information, and/or performance statistics of the cell reselection policy ([0060] Mobility patterns for the mobile device are determined based on current location [UE locations], speed and history of mobility patterns).
Regarding claim 8, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to further cause the UE to, while remaining camped in the first cell, transmit the MHI by: switching from operating in the idle mode to operating in a connected mode ([0068], [0082], [0109] The mobile device switches from idle mode to connected mode, wherein the mobile device communicates with the network during connected mode and wherein the communication includes transmitting mobility data using mobile profile information.);
while operating in the connected mode, transmitting the MHI to the network; and after transmitting the MHI, returning to operating in the idle mode ([0068], [0082], [0109] The mobile device switches from idle mode and connected mode, wherein while in connected mode the mobile device transmits user plane data including mobility information to the network. ).
Claims 10,11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Kilpatrick et al, US 20150036663 A1., in view of Zhang et al, US 20220264411 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Kilpatrick discloses an apparatus, comprising:a memory having non-transitory instructions stored therein Fig. 11, 13 [0122-0123] mobile device 115 includes processor 1110 may be configured to execute computer-readable program code stored by the memory 1115);
and a processor coupled to the memory, and being configured to execute the instructions, thereby causing the apparatus to:receive mobility history information (MHI) from each user equipment (UE) of a plurality of first UEs([0060] Based on the historical information, the mobile device 115-a and/or a current serving base station can predict a next location of the mobile device 115-a, using the predicted next location to inform the reselection targets. For example, when the mobile device 115-a approaches position 2, the first base station 105-a may determine, from the current location and speed of the mobile device 115-a in relation to stored historic data related to mobility patterns of the mobile device 115-a, that the mobile device 115-a is likely traveling along path 205.);
generate a cell reselection policy comprising a cell reselection criterion based on the received MHI([0051], [0060] [0061], [0068], [0079] The base station uses historical mobility data as well as current location and speed of mobile device 115 to instruct the mobile device on which target base station to select for handover or cell reselection [cell reselection policy], wherein the cell reselection is performed when the mobile device is in idle mode and camped on a serving cell; ),
and transmit the cell reselection policy to the second UE(Fig. 1 [0042], [0061], [0068], [0079], [0081], [0169], [0171], [0174] The base station 105 is configured to manage a plurality of mobile devices 115, wherein the base station instructs any of the plurality of the mobile devices 115; ).
Kilpatrick does not disclose wherein the received MHI from the each UE of a plurality of first UEs comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of first UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as a second UE;
However, Zhang does disclose wherein the received MHI from the each UE of a plurality of first UEs comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of first UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as a second UE([0072] [0076] For another example, the terminal device moves at a higher speed, so that the terminal device can be handed over to a cell with a larger coverage area, to maximally reduce a quantity of handover times. For another example, the base station may determine, based on the mobility history information of the terminal device, whether the terminal device performs ping-pong handover, that is, whether a terminal device at edges of two cells is handed over from one cell to the other cell and then handed over from the other cell to the cell. In this way, an appropriate measurement parameter of the terminal device is set. In some implementations, a more appropriate target cell can be configured for the terminal device, to improve a success rate of cell handover performed by the terminal device. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kilpatrick with wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as the UE as taught by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would be to improve a success rate of performing cell handover by the terminal device. (Zhang, [0012])
Regarding claim 11, Kilpatrick discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the cell reselection policy by applying a machine learning algorithm to the received MHI ([0056], [0059] A base station [network] instructs the mobile device 115 to measure signal strengths for candidate cells to use for handover and cell reselection [reselection policy], wherein the mobile device or base station [apparatus] implements a learning algorithm [machine learning algorithm] to modify the mobility parameters [modified cell reselection policy] including reselection thresholds used for cell reselection).
Regarding claim 16, Kilpatrick discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the cell reselection criterion comprising a reference signal power threshold level based on the received MHI ([0155]-[0156] The mobile device 115 may measure neighboring cells to identify a reselection target based on mobility history data and a pre defined threshold for the serving cell signal strength [power threshold level]).
Regarding claim 17, Kilpatrick discloses the apparatus wherein the apparatus comprises a radio node of a telecommunications network ([0042] Fig. 1 Base station 105 includes a WWAN radio [radio node]).
Claims 5,6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Kilpatrick et al, US 20150036663 A1., in view of Serravalle et al, US 20100317349 A1, and in further view of Ekemark et al, US 20140004862 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the UE to determine whether to remain camped on the first cell based on the first and second reference signals ([0051], [0056], [0071], [0072], [0109] When mobile device 115 is camped on a network during idle mode, signal strength measurements from a neighboring cells [first and second cell] are used to identify reselection target, wherein the signal strength measurements are made by receiving reference signals from neighboring cells [first and second reference signals]).
Kilpatrick and Serravalle do not disclose reference signals being intra-frequency signals
However, Ekemark does disclose wireless communication systems ([0001] radio communications system) reference signals being intra-frequency signals ([0066], [0107], [0112]-[0113] Cell reselection using inter-frequency and intra-frequency signals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless communication system of Kilpatrick and Serravalle by performing inter-frequency and intra-frequency signals, as taught by Ekemark. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance optimization of performing cell reselection by using parameters based on adaptive criterions. (Ekemark, [0112])
Regarding claim 6, Kilpatrick discloses the UE wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the UE to determine whether to remain camped on the first cell based on the first and second reference signals being inter-frequency signals ([0051], [0056], [0071], [0072], [0109] When mobile device 115 is camped on a network during idle mode, signal strength measurements from a neighboring cells [first and second cell] are used to identify reselection target, wherein the signal strength measurements are made by receiving reference signals from neighboring cells [first and second reference signals]).
Kilpatrick and Serravalle do not disclose reference signals being inter-frequency signals.
However, Ekemark does disclose reference signals being inter-frequency signals ([0066], [0107], [0112]-[0113]Ce/ reselection using inter-frequency and intra-frequency signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless communication system of Kilpatrick and Serravalle by performing inter-frequency and intra-frequency signals as taught by Ekemark. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance optimization of performing cell reselection by using parameters based on adaptive criterions. (Ekemark, [0112]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Kilpatrick et al, US 20150036663 A1., in view of Zhang et al, US 20220264411 A1., and in further view of Ekemark et al, US 20140004862 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Kilpatrick and Zhang do not disclose the apparatus wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the cell reselection policy further based on a capability of the second UE.
However, Ekemark does disclose wireless communications systems ([0001] radio communications system) the apparatus wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the cell reselection policy further based on a capability of the second UE([0014]-[0015], [0057]-[0058], [0103] Cell reselection is based on whether UE is capable of E-UTRAN communication [capability of UE]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless communication system of Kilpatrick and Zhang by the apparatus wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the cell reselection policy further based on a capability of the second UE as taught by Ekemark. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance flexibility in enabling user devices to prioritize selection of cells based on a range of network parameters configured for the device ([0015], Ekemark).
Regarding claim 15, Kilpatrick discloses the apparatus wherein the instructions are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to generate the cell reselection criterion based on reference signals ([0051], [0056], [0071], [0072], [0109] When mobile device 115 is camped on a network during idle mode, signal strength measurements from a neighboring cells. [first and second cell] are used to identify reselection target, wherein the signal strength measurements are made by receiving reference signals from neighboring cells [first and second reference signals]).
Kilpatrick and Zhang do not disclose one or both of intra-frequency reference signals or inter-frequency reference signals.
However, Ekemark does disclose one or both of intra-frequency reference signals or inter frequency reference signals ([0066], [0107], [0112]-[0113] Cell reselection using inter-frequency and intra-frequency signals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless communication system of Kilpatrick and Zhang by performing inter-frequency and intra-frequency signals as taught by Ekemark. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance flexibility in enabling user devices to prioritize selection of cells based on a range of network parameters configured for the device ([0015], Ekemark).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as Kilpatrick et al, US 20150036663 A1., in further view of Ekemark et al, US 20140004862 A1, and in further view of Zhang et al, US 20220264411 A1.
Regarding claim 18, Kilpatrick discloses a method comprising: using a network device to: receive mobility history information (MHI) from each user equipment (UE) of a plurality of first UEs (Fig. 1[0042], [0068], [0081] A base station 105 [network device] and a plurality of mobile devices 115 are configured in the network, wherein the base station receives mobility pattern data from the mobile devices 115 using the mobile device profile information collected by a network entity.),
apply a first machine learning algorithm to the received MHI to generate an idle mode cell reselection policy comprising a cell reselection criterion based on the received MHI ([0051], [0060] [0061], [0068], [0079] The base station uses historical mobility data as well as current location and speed of mobile device 115 to instruct the mobile device on which target base station to select for handover or cell reselection [cell reselection policy], wherein the cell reselection is performed when the mobile device is in idle mode and camped on a serving cell; ),
and transmit the idle mode cell reselection policy to the second UE (Fig. 1 [0042], [0061], [0068], [0079], [0081], [0169], [0171], [0174] The base station 105 is configured to manage a plurality of mobile devices 115, wherein the base station instructs any of the plurality of the mobile devices 115; );
and using the second UE to:receive the idle mode cell reselection policy ([0061], [0079] First base station instructs mobile device 115 to select a target base station [network] as a handover or cell reselection to target cell (receive reselection policy from network]),
receive first and second reference signals from respective first and second cells while in an idle mode ([0051], [0056], [0072], [0109] When mobile device 115 is camped on a network during idle mode, signal strength measurements from a neighboring cells [first and second cell] are used to identify reselection target, wherein the signal strength measurements are made by receiving reference signals from neighboring cells [first and second reference signals]),
and based on applying the idle mode cell reselection policy to the first and second reference signals ([0051], [0056], [0072], [0079], [0109] The network instructs the mobile device to make measurements of neighboring cells based on a predicted next target for handover or cell reselection [reselection policy], wherein the measurements are made by the mobile device by using reference signals while camped on a first serving cell[apply reselection policy to reference signals] and wherein the prediction to perform handover or cell reselection to a target cell is made based on whether current serving cell is congested to determine whether mobile device should remain camped on network or perform handover or cell resection to less congested cell),
Kilpatrick does not disclose either remain in the idle mode camped on the first cell or switch out of the idle mode and perform a cell reselection so as to camp on the second cell.
However, Ekemark does disclose wireless communication systems ([0001] radio communications system) either remain in the idle mode camped on the first cell or switch out of the idle mode and perform a cell reselection so as to camp on the second cell ([0028], [0049], [0107], [0111]-[0112], [0116], [0118]-[0120] The UE device remains camped in idle mode on a first cell or switches to connected mode [out of idle mode] to perform cell reselection for camping on a second cell based on coverage parameters in order to allow the UE to remain camped on best cell).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the wireless communication system of Kilpatrick by either remain in the idle mode camped on the first cell or switch out of the idle mode and perform a cell reselection so as to camp on the second cell as taught by Ekemark. The motivation for doing so would be to enhance flexibility in enabling user devices to prioritize selection of cells based on a range of network parameters configured for the device ([0015], Ekemark).
Kilpatrick and Ekemark do not disclose wherein the received MHI from each UE of the plurality of first UEs comprises performance statistics of a corresponding cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of first UEs when using the corresponding cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as a second UE,
However, Zhang does disclose wherein the received MHI from each UE of the plurality of first UEs comprises performance statistics of a corresponding cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of first UEs when using the corresponding cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as a second UE([0072] [0076] For another example, the terminal device moves at a higher speed, so that the terminal device can be handed over to a cell with a larger coverage area, to maximally reduce a quantity of handover times. For another example, the base station may determine, based on the mobility history information of the terminal device, whether the terminal device performs ping-pong handover, that is, whether a terminal device at edges of two cells is handed over from one cell to the other cell and then handed over from the other cell to the cell. In this way, an appropriate measurement parameter of the terminal device is set. In some implementations, a more appropriate target cell can be configured for the terminal device, to improve a success rate of cell handover performed by the terminal device. );
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kilpatrick and Ekemark with wherein the MHI of the plurality of UEs other than the UE comprises performance statistics of the cell reselection policy comprising reselection success rate and signal stability score of the plurality of UEs when using the cell reselection policy in the same geographic area as the UE as taught by Zhang. The motivation for doing so would be to improve a success rate of performing cell handover by the terminal device. (Zhang, [0012])
Regarding claim 20, Kilpatrick discloses the method wherein the using the second UE to receive the idle mode cell reselection policy comprises modifying the idle mode cell reselection policy by applying a second machine learning algorithm to MHI of the second UE (Fig. 1 [0042], [0061], [0068], [0079], [0081], [0109],[0169], [0171], [0174] The base station 105 is configured to manage a plurality of mobile devices 115, wherein the base station instructs any of the plurality of the mobile devices 115. Wherein the base station receives mobility pattern data from the mobile devices 115 using the mobile device profile information collected by a network entity).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYA TEON NELSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1942. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30.
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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/RYA TEON NELSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419