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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statements filed on February 25, 2026. U.S. patent applications, foreign patents, and non-patent literature documents have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12, 18-19, 21, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sevindik and Syed (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0213862), herein referred to as “Sevendik”, in view of Balakrishnan et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2017/0078934), herein referred to as “Balakrishnan”. The Balakrishman reference was provided in the information disclosure statement dated November 20, 2024.
Regarding Claim 1,
Sevendik discloses: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; a transceiver; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more memories and the transceiver, the one or more memories and the one or more processors configured to
determine that a plurality of threshold criteria are satisfied, the plurality of threshold criteria including an uplink grant rate associated with a cell satisfying a grant rate threshold and a power headroom associated with the cell satisfying a power headroom threshold
[0077] In step 260, the SAS 204 determines whether the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated based on the determined CBSD 202 traffic type and/or the reported average uplink bit error and/or the average UE power headroom value. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that a CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated when the CBSD 202 traffic type changes. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated when the determined CBSD 202 traffic type is uplink dominated traffic and the CBSD 202 average uplink bit error rate is greater than an uplink bit error rate threshold and/or CBSD 202 average UE power headroom is greater than a power headroom threshold. In some embodiments, the CBSD 202 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated based on interference, co-channel and/or adjacent channel interference determinations the SAS 204 has made during the reported time period.
Note: The CBSD represents the cell that connects the UE, and the uplink bit error rate is being interpreted as the grant rate (as the uplink bit error rate as bit error per unit time). Both the uplink rate and PHR are above a threshold.
measure one or more measurement values associated with the cell
[0066] In step 232, the CBSD 202 generates the CBSD traffic type report message 234 and transmits the message 234 to the SAS 204. The CBSD traffic type report message 234 includes an indication as to whether the traffic type being serviced by the CBSD 202 over the specified duration of time or time period is downlink dominated traffic, uplink dominated traffic or balanced downlink and uplink traffic. In some embodiments, the message 234 also includes the traffic measurements made during the time period as well as the starting time and ending time of the time period so that the SAS 204 can compare the traffic types against the traffic types reported by other CBSDs when making channel re-assignments.
Sevendik does not disclose the following limitations of this claim: transmit, via the transceiver, a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
However, Balakrishman discloses: transmit, via the transceiver, a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
[0084] At 804, the UE may measure a quality of a downlink channel between the UE and the first base station and also perform an analysis of the data stream (e.g., the UE may determine a DL portion of the data stream and a UL portion of the data stream) between the UE and the first base station. The UE may measure various qualities that correspond to the DL channel between the UE and the first base station, including, for example, a block error rate (BLER) and/or a power headroom of the UE. The UE may perform these measurements a number of times (e.g., at set intervals and/or over a given time period).
[0085] At 806, the UE may determine, based on the data stream analysis whether a DL portion of the data stream exceeds a given threshold. The data stream analysis may be determined based on the type(s) of application(s) running on the UE. If the DL portion of the data stream exceeds the threshold, then, at 808, the UE may compare the measured quality of the downlink channel to a predetermined threshold. For example, the UE may determine whether the quality falls below a certain standard (e.g., whether the BLER of the DL channel exceeds an allowable BLER or whether the power headroom is less than a given threshold for a certain time period).
[0086] If the measurement of the quality of the DL channel falls below this threshold, then the UE may determine that it should switch to another cell in the network.
Note: “Based in part” here refers to the fact that the error rate exceeds a threshold but the PHR is below a threshold. The “adjustment” is the UE switching to another cell.
Sevendik and Balakrishman are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik to include the concept of a measurement report associated with a component carrier the adjusted measurement values as taught by Balakrishman so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 3,
Sevendik does not explicitly disclose all of the limitations of Claim 3.
However, Balakrishnan discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the plurality of threshold criteria are satisfied for a threshold period of time
[0085] At 806, the UE may determine, based on the data stream analysis whether a DL portion of the data stream exceeds a given threshold. The data stream analysis may be determined based on the type(s) of application(s) running on the UE. If the DL portion of the data stream exceeds the threshold, then, at 808, the UE may compare the measured quality of the downlink channel to a predetermined threshold. For example, the UE may determine whether the quality falls below a certain standard (e.g., whether the BLER of the DL channel exceeds an allowable BLER or whether the power headroom is less than a given threshold for a certain time period).
wherein the one or more processors, when transmitting the measurement report the one or more adjusted measurement values, are configured to: transmit, via the transceiver, the measurement report comprising the one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the plurality of one or more threshold criteria being satisfied for the threshold period of time.
[0084] At 804, the UE may measure a quality of a downlink channel between the UE and the first base station and also perform an analysis of the data stream (e.g., the UE may determine a DL portion of the data stream and a UL portion of the data stream) between the UE and the first base station. The UE may measure various qualities that correspond to the DL channel between the UE and the first base station, including, for example, a block error rate (BLER) and/or a power headroom of the UE. The UE may perform these measurements a number of times (e.g., at set intervals and/or over a given time period).
[0085] At 806, the UE may determine, based on the data stream analysis whether a DL portion of the data stream exceeds a given threshold. The data stream analysis may be determined based on the type(s) of application(s) running on the UE. If the DL portion of the data stream exceeds the threshold, then, at 808, the UE may compare the measured quality of the downlink channel to a predetermined threshold. For example, the UE may determine whether the quality falls below a certain standard (e.g., whether the BLER of the DL channel exceeds an allowable BLER or whether the power headroom is less than a given threshold for a certain time period).
Sevendik and Balakrishnan are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik to include the concepts of a threshold being satisfied for a period of time transmitting the adjusted values based on the period of time as taught by Balakrishnan so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 9,
Sevendik discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the cell is least one of a serving cell or a neighbor cell.
[0045] FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary CBRS network communications system 100 having an architecture implemented in accordance with the present invention. The CBRS communications network system 100 includes a plurality of Citizens Broadband Radio Service Devices (CBSDs) including CBSD 1 102, a CBSD 2 104.
Note: CBSDs are interpreted as cells, and CBSD 1 and 2 are neighbors.
Regarding Claim 10,
Sevendik discloses: A method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising: determining that a plurality of threshold criteria are satisfied, the plurality of threshold criteria including an uplink grant rate associated with a cell satisfying a grant rate threshold and a power headroom associated with the cell satisfying a power headroom threshold
[0077] In step 260, the SAS 204 determines whether the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated based on the determined CBSD 202 traffic type and/or the reported average uplink bit error and/or the average UE power headroom value. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that a CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated when the CBSD 202 traffic type changes. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated when the determined CBSD 202 traffic type is uplink dominated traffic and the CBSD 202 average uplink bit error rate is greater than an uplink bit error rate threshold and/or CBSD 202 average UE power headroom is greater than a power headroom threshold. In some embodiments, the CBSD 202 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated based on interference, co-channel and/or adjacent channel interference determinations the SAS 204 has made during the reported time period.
Note: The CBSD represents the cell that connects the UE, and the uplink bit error rate is being interpreted as the grant rate (as the uplink bit error rate as bit error per unit time). Both the uplink rate and PHR are above a threshold.
measure one or more measurement values associated with the cell; and
[0066] In step 232, the CBSD 202 generates the CBSD traffic type report message 234 and transmits the message 234 to the SAS 204. The CBSD traffic type report message 234 includes an indication as to whether the traffic type being serviced by the CBSD 202 over the specified duration of time or time period is downlink dominated traffic, uplink dominated traffic or balanced downlink and uplink traffic. In some embodiments, the message 234 also includes the traffic measurements made during the time period as well as the starting time and ending time of the time period so that the SAS 204 can compare the traffic types against the traffic types reported by other CBSDs when making channel re-assignments.
Sevendik does not disclose the following limitations of this claim: transmitting a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
However, Balakrishman discloses: transmitting a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
[0084] At 804, the UE may measure a quality of a downlink channel between the UE and the first base station and also perform an analysis of the data stream (e.g., the UE may determine a DL portion of the data stream and a UL portion of the data stream) between the UE and the first base station. The UE may measure various qualities that correspond to the DL channel between the UE and the first base station, including, for example, a block error rate (BLER) and/or a power headroom of the UE. The UE may perform these measurements a number of times (e.g., at set intervals and/or over a given time period).
[0085] At 806, the UE may determine, based on the data stream analysis whether a DL portion of the data stream exceeds a given threshold. The data stream analysis may be determined based on the type(s) of application(s) running on the UE. If the DL portion of the data stream exceeds the threshold, then, at 808, the UE may compare the measured quality of the downlink channel to a predetermined threshold. For example, the UE may determine whether the quality falls below a certain standard (e.g., whether the BLER of the DL channel exceeds an allowable BLER or whether the power headroom is less than a given threshold for a certain time period).
[0086] If the measurement of the quality of the DL channel falls below this threshold, then the UE may determine that it should switch to another cell in the network.
Note: “Based in part” here refers to the fact that the error rate exceeds a threshold but the PHR is below a threshold. The “adjustment” is the UE switching to another cell.
Sevendik and Balakrishman are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik to include the concept of a measurement report associated with a component carrier the adjusted measurement values as taught by Balakrishman so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 19,
Sevendik discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), instruct the UE to:
determine that a plurality of threshold criteria are satisfied, the plurality of threshold criteria including an uplink grant rate associated with a cell satisfying a grant rate threshold and a power headroom associated with the cell satisfying a power headroom threshold
[0077] In step 260, the SAS 204 determines whether the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated based on the determined CBSD 202 traffic type and/or the reported average uplink bit error and/or the average UE power headroom value. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that a CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated when the CBSD 202 traffic type changes. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated when the determined CBSD 202 traffic type is uplink dominated traffic and the CBSD 202 average uplink bit error rate is greater than an uplink bit error rate threshold and/or CBSD 202 average UE power headroom is greater than a power headroom threshold. In some embodiments, the CBSD 202 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated based on interference, co-channel and/or adjacent channel interference determinations the SAS 204 has made during the reported time period.
Note: The CBSD represents the cell that connects the UE, and the uplink bit error rate is being interpreted as the grant rate (as the uplink bit error rate as bit error per unit time). Both the uplink rate and PHR are above a threshold.
measure one or more measurement values associated with the cell
[0066] In step 232, the CBSD 202 generates the CBSD traffic type report message 234 and transmits the message 234 to the SAS 204. The CBSD traffic type report message 234 includes an indication as to whether the traffic type being serviced by the CBSD 202 over the specified duration of time or time period is downlink dominated traffic, uplink dominated traffic or balanced downlink and uplink traffic. In some embodiments, the message 234 also includes the traffic measurements made during the time period as well as the starting time and ending time of the time period so that the SAS 204 can compare the traffic types against the traffic types reported by other CBSDs when making channel re-assignments.
Sevendik does not disclose the following limitations of this claim: transmit, via the transceiver, a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
However, Balakrishman discloses: transmit, via the transceiver, a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
[0084] At 804, the UE may measure a quality of a downlink channel between the UE and the first base station and also perform an analysis of the data stream (e.g., the UE may determine a DL portion of the data stream and a UL portion of the data stream) between the UE and the first base station. The UE may measure various qualities that correspond to the DL channel between the UE and the first base station, including, for example, a block error rate (BLER) and/or a power headroom of the UE. The UE may perform these measurements a number of times (e.g., at set intervals and/or over a given time period).
[0085] At 806, the UE may determine, based on the data stream analysis whether a DL portion of the data stream exceeds a given threshold. The data stream analysis may be determined based on the type(s) of application(s) running on the UE. If the DL portion of the data stream exceeds the threshold, then, at 808, the UE may compare the measured quality of the downlink channel to a predetermined threshold. For example, the UE may determine whether the quality falls below a certain standard (e.g., whether the BLER of the DL channel exceeds an allowable BLER or whether the power headroom is less than a given threshold for a certain time period).
[0086] If the measurement of the quality of the DL channel falls below this threshold, then the UE may determine that it should switch to another cell in the network.
Note: “Based in part” here refers to the fact that the error rate exceeds a threshold but the PHR is below a threshold. The “adjustment” is the UE switching to another cell.
Sevendik and Balakrishman are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik to include the concept of a measurement report associated with a component carrier the adjusted measurement values as taught by Balakrishman so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 21,
Claim 21 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Regarding Claim 27,
Claim 27 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 9.
Regarding Claim 28,
Sevendik discloses: An apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
means for determining that a plurality of threshold criteria are satisfied, wherein the plurality of threshold criteria including an uplink grant rate associated with a cell satisfying a grant rate threshold and a power headroom associated with the cell satisfying a power headroom threshold
[0077] In step 260, the SAS 204 determines whether the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated based on the determined CBSD 202 traffic type and/or the reported average uplink bit error and/or the average UE power headroom value. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that a CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated when the CBSD 202 traffic type changes. In some embodiments, the SAS 204 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment should be updated when the determined CBSD 202 traffic type is uplink dominated traffic and the CBSD 202 average uplink bit error rate is greater than an uplink bit error rate threshold and/or CBSD 202 average UE power headroom is greater than a power headroom threshold. In some embodiments, the CBSD 202 determines that the CBSD 202 channel assignment is to be updated based on interference, co-channel and/or adjacent channel interference determinations the SAS 204 has made during the reported time period.
Note: The CBSD represents the cell that connects the UE, and the uplink bit error rate is being interpreted as the grant rate (as the uplink bit error rate as bit error per unit time). Both the uplink rate and PHR are above a threshold.
Sevendik does not disclose the following limitations of this claim: means for transmitting a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
However, Balakrishman discloses: means for transmitting a measurement report associated with the component carrier of the cell comprising one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on the determination of the plurality of criteria threshold criteria.
[0084] At 804, the UE may measure a quality of a downlink channel between the UE and the first base station and also perform an analysis of the data stream (e.g., the UE may determine a DL portion of the data stream and a UL portion of the data stream) between the UE and the first base station. The UE may measure various qualities that correspond to the DL channel between the UE and the first base station, including, for example, a block error rate (BLER) and/or a power headroom of the UE. The UE may perform these measurements a number of times (e.g., at set intervals and/or over a given time period).
[0085] At 806, the UE may determine, based on the data stream analysis whether a DL portion of the data stream exceeds a given threshold. The data stream analysis may be determined based on the type(s) of application(s) running on the UE. If the DL portion of the data stream exceeds the threshold, then, at 808, the UE may compare the measured quality of the downlink channel to a predetermined threshold. For example, the UE may determine whether the quality falls below a certain standard (e.g., whether the BLER of the DL channel exceeds an allowable BLER or whether the power headroom is less than a given threshold for a certain time period).
[0086] If the measurement of the quality of the DL channel falls below this threshold, then the UE may determine that it should switch to another cell in the network.
Note: “Based in part” here refers to the fact that the error rate exceeds a threshold but the PHR is below a threshold. The “adjustment” is the UE switching to another cell.
Sevendik and Balakrishman are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik to include the concept of a measurement report associated with a component carrier the adjusted measurement values as taught by Balakrishman so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 30,
Claim 30 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 3.
Claims 4, 13, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan, held further in view of Niu and Zhao (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2020/0305148), herein referred to as “Niu”.
Regarding Claim 4,
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 4.
However, Niu discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: classify that a service cell is a first type of cell based at least in part on the uplink grant rate associated with the service cell satisfying the grant rate threshold and the power headroom associated with the serving cell satisfying the power headroom threshold and further based at least in part on either a buffer size associated with the serving cell satisfying a buffer size threshold or a packed data convergence protocol discard rate satisfying a discard rate threshold; and a reference signal received power value satisfying a reference signal received power threshold.
[0066] Referring to FIG. 2, the method 200 continues with operation 207 in which an UL transmission resource is further selected by the BS 102 according to the PHR received from the UE 104, in accordance with various embodiments. The at least one PH value in a PHR is reported from the UE 104 to the BS 102. The BS 102 can determine the PH value for individual serving cells with only one PHR, e.g., PHR format with carrier/cell index as described in FIGS. 3A-B and PHR format with predefined orders as described in FIGS. 3C-G. In some embodiments, the BS 102 determines the PH value based on the real PUSCH transmissions or a PUSCH reference format. In some embodiments, the BS 102 can obtain the PHR according to the MAC header. Furthermore, to assist the scheduler, the BS 102 can configure the UE 104 to report buffer status reports (BSRs), wherein the BSR can indicate the amount of data the user equipment has available for transmission.
[0067] The method 200 continues with operation 209 in which a scheduling is performed by the BS 102 and thereafter indicated to the UE 102, in accordance with various embodiments. The scheduler allocates uplink resources according to the at least one PH value of the at least one UL transmission resource in a serving cell, in order to avoid exceed the UE maximum transmission power. The method 200 continues with operation 201 in which a RRC (radio resource control) message is transmitted by the BS 102 to the UE104, in accordance with various embodiments. Typically, a PHR from a UE 104 to a BS 102 can be triggered to constantly monitor the PH values of a UL transmission resource. For example, when the path loss on the DL carrier associated with an UL carrier becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, or when a predetermined time period has elapsed (i.e., a periodic PHR timer), the PHR is triggered. Specifically, a PHR is triggered when the path loss of the downlink carrier associated with an uplink carrier becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value. The periodic PHR timer is a timer for triggering PHR periodically. Therefore, according to certain embodiments, the PHR in operation 205 and the UL carrier selection in operation 207 are repeated periodically.
Note: “Uplink resources” is being interpreted as the uplink grant rate.
[0069] The UE 104 may perform a Random Access Channel (RACH) Procedure in an idle state or in a connected state. In this case, the UE 104 may transmit a specific sequence through a Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) as a preamble, and receive a response message of the preamble through the PDCCH and the PDSCH corresponding thereto. In the case of contention-based RACH, a contention resolution procedure may be further performed. In some embodiments, when the UE 104 is in an idle state, the UE 104 can get the information about multiple transmission resources and PRACH through the system information from the BS 102. The UE 104 then selects an UL transmission resource based on measured RSRP (reference symbol received power) value, and then triggers a random access process. Similarly, when the UE 104 is in a connected state, the random access process is also necessary. Especially for the contention random access process, this is because unlike under the idle state, the UE 104 in a connected state has previously obtained information about the at least one UL transmission resource.
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan and Niu are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan to include the concepts of associating cells with an uplink grant rate and power headroom thresholds, a buffer size based on a threshold, and an RSRP threshold as taught by Niu so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Regarding Claim 22,
Claim 22 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 4.
Claims 5, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sevendik and Niu, held further in view of Kanamarlapudi et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2015/0043337), herein referred to as “Kanamarlapudi”. The Kanamarlapudi reference was provided in the information disclosure statement dated May 25, 2023.
Regarding Claim 5,
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan and Niu does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 5.
However, Kanamarlapudi discloses: The UE of claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: classify the serving cell as a second type of cell based at least in part on a determination that the serving cell is the first type of cell for the threshold period of time
[0064] FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating a method 900 of determining an amount of uplink data available for transmission at an RLC layer based on information provided by a modem of a UE in accordance with an aspect of the disclosure. By way of example and not limitation, the method 900 may be performed by the UE 502 at the block 706. The UE 502 may be transmitting uplink data to a network (e.g., RAN 300), and the uplink data may be the application data 513 (e.g., media streaming data, audio/video data, etc.). The uplink data may be buffered or enqueued at the RLC layer of the UE. For example, the uplink data may be stored in the RLC layer uplink queue 517. The amount of uplink data available for transmission at the uplink queue 517 may be referred to as a Buffer Occupancy. At the UE, RLC services provided at the RLC layer can calculate the average Buffer Occupancy (UL_BO.sub.av) (average amount of uplink data in the queue) based on the instantaneous amount of data available for transmission at the queue 517 over a certain period T of time (block 902).
[0065] At the UE, the MAC layer EUL logic knows the serving network grant at every TTI level. That is, the MAC layer knows when data can be sent in the uplink (UL) direction per TTI. Therefore, the MAC layer can calculate an average grant based UL data rate (UL_Grant.sub.av) (average amount of uplink data rate) based on the instantaneous uplink data rate over the same period T of time (block 904). However, the UE may transmit uplink data at a rate lower that the average grant based UL data rate (UL_Grant.sub.av) due to other factors such as transmitter headroom limitations and/or radio environment, etc.
and wherein the one or more processors, when transmitting the measurement report comprising the one or more adjusted measurement values, are configured to:
transmit, via the transceiver, the measurement report comprising the one or more adjusted measurement values based at least in part on classifying the serving cell as the second type of cell.
[0064] FIG. 9 is a flow chart illustrating a method 900 of determining an amount of uplink data available for transmission at an RLC layer based on information provided by a modem of a UE in accordance with an aspect of the disclosure. By way of example and not limitation, the method 900 may be performed by the UE 502 at the block 706. The UE 502 may be transmitting uplink data to a network (e.g., RAN 300), and the uplink data may be the application data 513 (e.g., media streaming data, audio/video data, etc.). The uplink data may be buffered or enqueued at the RLC layer of the UE. For example, the uplink data may be stored in the RLC layer uplink queue 517. The amount of uplink data available for transmission at the uplink queue 517 may be referred to as a Buffer Occupancy. At the UE, RLC services provided at the RLC layer can calculate the average Buffer Occupancy (UL_BO.sub.av) (average amount of uplink data in the queue) based on the instantaneous amount of data available for transmission at the queue 517 over a certain period T of time (block 902).
[0065] At the UE, the MAC layer EUL logic knows the serving network grant at every TTI level. That is, the MAC layer knows when data can be sent in the uplink (UL) direction per TTI. Therefore, the MAC layer can calculate an average grant based UL data rate (UL_Grant.sub.av) (average amount of uplink data rate) based on the instantaneous uplink data rate over the same period T of time (block 904). However, the UE may transmit uplink data at a rate lower that the average grant based UL data rate (UL_Grant.sub.av) due to other factors such as transmitter headroom limitations and/or radio environment, etc.
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan, Niu, and Kanamarlapudi are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan and Niu to include the concepts of classifying cells over periods of time and transmitting the adjusted values based on the classification as taught by Kanamarlapudi so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 14,
Claim 14 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Regarding Claim 23,
Claim 23 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 5.
Claims 6-8, 15-17, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan, held further in view of Tabet et. al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. 2014/0098693), herein referred to as “Tabet”. The Tabet reference was provided in the information disclosure statement dated November 20, 2024.
Regarding Claim 6,
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 6.
However, Tabet discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more adjusted measurement values are derived by applying a penalty to a reference signal received power value.
[0054] The wireless communication device 202 in accordance with some example embodiments can be configured to send a measurement report to the serving cell 204 that includes a modified DL channel quality measurement in response to detecting an UL power limited condition so as to trigger transition of the wireless communication device 202 from the serving cell 204 to the second cell 206. In this regard, the wireless communication device 202 can be configured to measure a DL channel quality. By way of non-limiting example, the measured DL channel quality can be an RSRP measurement, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurement, received signal strength indicator (RSSI) measurement, received signal code power (RSCP), signal to noise ratio (SNR), Signal to noise plus interference ratio (SINR), and/or the like. However, it will be appreciated that other channel quality measurements are contemplated within the scope of the disclosure. For example, the wireless communication device 202 can apply a variable offset based on an extent of the UL power limited condition. The offset can, for example be applied based on filtered history of current measurements of DL resources (e.g., a filtered DL channel quality measurement derived from filtering a plurality of instantaneous DL channel quality measurements). In some example embodiments, the value of the applied offset can be based on network set criteria, a policy implemented on the wireless communication device 202, based on event reporting thresholds that can be set by the network, and/or the like. As a further example, in some embodiments, the offset can be equal to an extent of the imbalance between the UL channel quality and the DL channel quality (e.g., the difference between the UL signal power and the DL signal power). The connection management module 518 can be further configured to generate a measurement report including the modified DL channel quality measurement. The wireless communication device 202 can be configured to send the measurement report to the serving cell 204 to trigger transition of the wireless communication device 202 from the serving cell 204 to the second cell 206.
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan and Tabet are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan to include the concept of applying a penalty to a reference signal received power value as taught by Tabet so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 7,
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 7.
However, Tabet discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform a handover based at least in part on transmitting the measurement report comprising the one or more adjusted measurement values.
[0029] The wireless communication device 202 can also be within coverage range and/or can enter coverage range during operation of a second cell 206. In this regard, the wireless communication device 202 can be, or come within sufficient proximity of the second cell 206 to transition from the serving cell 204 to the second cell 206, such as through handover, redirection, reselection, selection, and/or other procedure that can be used by a network and/or wireless communication device to transition a wireless communication device between cells. In accordance with some example embodiments, the wireless communication device 202 can be configured to trigger a cell transition from the serving cell 204 to the second cell 206 in response to experiencing an UL power limited condition.
[0054] The wireless communication device 202 in accordance with some example embodiments can be configured to send a measurement report to the serving cell 204 that includes a modified DL channel quality measurement in response to detecting an UL power limited condition so as to trigger transition of the wireless communication device 202 from the serving cell 204 to the second cell 206.
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan and Tabet are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan to include the concept of performing a handover passed in part of transmitting a report based on adjusted values as taught by Tabet so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 8,
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 8.
However, Tabet discloses: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: trigger a radio link failure based at least in part on transmitting the measurement report comprising the one or more adjusted measurement values.
[0022] Accordingly, transition to a cell that may provide increased UL resources to the wireless communication device can be triggered preemptively before an UL radio link failure resulting from the UL power limited condition causes a data stall, call drop, and/or the like.
[0054] The wireless communication device 202 in accordance with some example embodiments can be configured to send a measurement report to the serving cell 204 that includes a modified DL channel quality measurement in response to detecting an UL power limited condition so as to trigger transition of the wireless communication device 202 from the serving cell 204 to the second cell 206.
Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan and Tabet are considered to be analogous because they pertain to wireless communications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sevendik in view of Balakrishnan to include the concept of triggering a radio link failure based on a transmitted report that contains adjusted values as taught by Tabet so as to aid in uplink data stall mitigation.
Regarding Claim 15,
Claim 15 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Regarding Claim 24,
Claim 24 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 6.
Regarding Claim 25,
Claim 25 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 26,
Claim 26 is rejected on the same grounds of rejection set forth in claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
There are no new claims, canceled claims, or amended claims.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-19, 21-28, and 30 are pending.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 10, 19, and 28 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSE P. SAMLUK whose telephone number is (571)270-5607. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSE P. SAMLUK/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
/DERRICK W FERRIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights