DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This action is in response to communications filed on 7/12/2023.
Claims 21-30 were cancelled by preliminary amendment. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/097257 and claims foreign priority to application PCT/CN2021/072105 filed 1/15/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
To comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, applicants are required to make the terms that are used to define the invention clear and precise, so that the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant can be ascertained. See MPEP § 2173.05(a), subsection I. It is important that a person of ordinary skill in the art be able to interpret the metes and bounds of the claims so as to understand how to avoid infringement of the patent that ultimately issues from the application being examined. See MPEP § 2173.02, subsection II (citing Morton Int ’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1993)); see also Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1249, 85 USPQ2d at 1658 (“Otherwise, competitors cannot avoid infringement, defeating the public notice function of patent claims.”).
With regard to Claim 9, the claim contains the limitation “the criterion configuration only indicates the mobility criterion”, and further contains the limitation “in accordance with a determination that the terminal device is located at a center region of a serving cell, performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period”. If the criterion configuration only indicates the mobility criterion (i.e. whether the terminal is in a state of low mobility), it’s unclear to examiner how a cell edge criterion (i.e. whether the terminal is not located at an edge region of a serving cell) can subsequently be used for determining whether to perform the relaxed evaluation period as it would appear that the cell edge criterion was never indicated.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because the limitation “determine the relaxed evaluation period based on the number of criteria bring met” lacks proper antecedent basis. See MPEP 2173.05(e). Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as reciting “determine the relaxed evaluation period based on a number of criteria bring met”.
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 of this title, 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.
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 1-6 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva et al. (US 2024/0080772 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0116802 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Laselva teaches:
A method comprising:
transmitting, from a terminal device to a network device, capability information; (the UE may be connected to the network node in an RRC connected mode [Laselva: 0072]. Examiner notes a UE indicates capability information in a UECapabilityInformation message to the gNB utilizing RRC);
receiving, from the network device, a relaxation configuration for relaxing the evaluation; (the network node may transmit to the UE a measurement configuration of RRM and/or RLM-RS (for RLM and/or BFD) that includes radio link quality-based relaxation information, a scaling factor, and/or DRX On-Duration-dependent relaxation information [Laselva: 0072; 0056]);
and performing the evaluation using a relaxed evaluation period determined based on the relaxation configuration, the relaxed evaluation period longer than a normal evaluation period without relaxing the evaluation; (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements according to the measurement configuration and may measure the RLM-RS and/or SSBs at 224, 226 according to relaxation with the scaling factor (X) (e.g., DRX*X) [Laselva: 0073-74]).
However, Laselva does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
transmitting, from a terminal device to a network device, capability information indicating a capability of the terminal device to relax an evaluation of a radio link quality.
In a similar field of endeavor involving measuring channel quality by performing a relaxed measurement operation, Kim discloses:
transmitting, from a terminal device to a network device, capability information indicating a capability of the terminal device to relax an evaluation of a radio link quality; (the base station may receive the capability information from the terminal, and may identify whether the terminal supports the relaxed measurement operation based on the capability information [Kim: 0227]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laselva in view of Kim in order to indicate a capability of the terminal to relax an evaluation in the system of Laselva.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Laselva with Kim as doing so would enable the base station to respond to the UE by transmitting information indicating whether the relaxed measurement operation is supported, and if so subsequently provide the configuration information for the relaxed measurement operation [Kim: 0227-28].
With regard to Claim 2, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the evaluation comprises at least one of radio link monitoring (RLM) and beam failure detection (BFD); (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements according to the measurement configuration [Laselva: 0073-74]).
With regard to Claim 3, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the relaxed evaluation period based on a relaxation factor indicated in the relaxation configuration; (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements according to the measurement configuration and may measure the RLM-RS and/or SSBs at 224, 226 according to relaxation with the scaling factor (X) (e.g., DRX*X) [Laselva: 0073-74]).
With regard to Claim 4, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 3, wherein the relaxation factor is determined by the network device based on at least one of: a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) cycle configured to the terminal device, or a configuration of reference signals on which the evaluation is to be performed; (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements according to the measurement configuration and may measure the RLM-RS and/or SSBs at 224, 226 according to relaxation with the scaling factor (X) (e.g., DRX*X) [Laselva: 0073-74]).
With regard to Claim 5, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the relaxed evaluation period based on a relaxation factor predefined for the relaxation configuration; (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements according to the measurement configuration and may measure the RLM-RS and/or SSBs at 224, 226 according to relaxation with the scaling factor (X) (e.g., DRX*X) [Laselva: 0073-74; 0085]).
With regard to Claim 6, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 5, wherein the relaxation factor is associated with at least one of: a DRX cycle used by the terminal device, or a type of reference signals on which the evaluation is to be performed; (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements according to the measurement configuration and may measure the RLM-RS and/or SSBs at 224, 226 according to relaxation with the scaling factor (X) (e.g., DRX*X) [Laselva: 0073-74]).
With regard to Claims 17-20, they appear substantially similar to the limitations recited by claims 1-4 and consequently do not appear to teach or further define over the citations provided for said claims. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-4.
Claims 7-12 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva et al. (US 2024/0080772 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0116802 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0104044 A1).
With regard to Claim 7, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period comprises: receiving, from the network device, a criterion configuration indicating multiple criteria for relaxing the evaluation; and performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration; (determining that relaxation for the measurement is allowed to be performed in response to determining whether at least one radio link quality-based condition for relaxation of a measurement is satisfied and whether at least one user equipment activity-based additional condition is satisfied based on one or relaxation measurement conditions received by the user equipment [Laselva: 0077; 0083; Fig. 4]).
However, Laselva-Kim does not explicitly teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
receiving, from the network device, a criterion configuration indicating a set of criteria for relaxing the evaluation; and performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration.
In a similar field of endeavor involving performing RLM and BFD measurements in a relaxed measurement state, Huang discloses:
receiving, from the network device, a criterion configuration indicating a set of criteria for relaxing the evaluation; and performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration; (a UE can enter the power saving mode where RLM/BFD measurements are relaxed based on fulfillment of a set of conditions A1, B1, C1, and D1 [Huang: 0004; 0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laselva-Kim in view of Huang in order to perform the relaxed evaluation based on a set of criteria in the system of Laselva-Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Laselva-Kim with Huang as doing so would enable relaxed measurements when any one, any two, any three, or all conditions of relax criteria are fulfilled [Huang: 0004; 0038], thereby improving the granularity with which the conditions can be set.
With regard to Claim 8, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the set of criteria comprises at least one of: a mobility criterion specifying that the terminal device is in a state of low mobility, or a cell edge criterion specifying that the terminal device is not located at an edge region of a serving cell; (the at least one radio link quality-based condition may be related to low mobility or a location of the user equipment or a detection error rate of the user equipment or power of a signal received by the user equipment and may comprise a link condition indicating low mobility of the user equipment, a location of the user equipment not being at the cell edge, energy of a signal received being above a threshold, or a detection error being below a threshold [Laselva: 0087]. Huang teaches a UE can enter the power saving mode when any or both of the following two criteria is fulfilled: 1) the UE is not in cell edge; and 2) the UE has low mobility [Huang: 0004; 0038]).
With regard to Claim 9, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration comprises: in accordance with a determination that the criterion configuration only indicates the mobility criterion, in accordance with a determination that the terminal device is located at a center region of a serving cell, performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period; (the at least one radio link quality-based condition may be related to low mobility or a location of the user equipment and may comprise a link condition indicating low mobility of the user equipment, a location of the user equipment not being at the cell edge, energy of a signal received being above a threshold, or a detection error being below a threshold [Laselva: 0087]. Huang teaches a UE can enter the power saving mode when any or both of the following two criteria is fulfilled: 1) the UE is not in cell edge; and 2) the UE has low mobility [Huang: 0004; 0038]).
With regard to Claim 10, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration comprises: in accordance with a determination that the criterion configuration indicates both the mobility criterion and the cell edge criterion, in accordance with a determination that at least one of the mobility criterion and the cell edge criterion is met, performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period; (determining that relaxation for the measurement is allowed to be performed in response to determining whether at least one radio link quality-based condition for relaxation of a measurement is satisfied and whether at least one user equipment activity-based additional condition is satisfied based on one or relaxation measurement conditions received by the user equipment [Laselva: 0077; 0083; Fig. 4]. Huang teaches a UE can enter the power saving mode when any or both of the following two criteria is fulfilled: 1) the UE is not in cell edge; and 2) the UE has low mobility [Huang: 0004; 0038]).
With regard to Claim 11, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: adjusting a relaxation factor used to determine the relaxed evaluation period based on the number of criteria being met; (the level of BFD relaxation, which may be allowed based on the radio link quality-based relaxation conditions, may be adjusted by applying a scaling factor [Laselva: 0060]).
With regard to Claim 12, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is not met, resuming performing the evaluation using the normal evaluation period; (if one of the required conditions is not satisfied, then the UE will not determine that measurement relaxation is allowed to be performed [Laselva: 0053; Figs. 1 & 4]. Huang teaches that the exits the relaxed measurement state back to a normal measurement state [Huang: 0023; 0038]).
With regard to Claim 15, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the evaluation comprises beam failure detection (BFD) and performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration comprises one of:
performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in a serving cell for which at least one of the set of criteria is met; (the UE may perform RLM, BFD, RRM, and/or the like measurements of its serving cell [Laselva: 0054; 0073-74]).
in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is met for a serving cell, performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in all serving cells,
or in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is met for all serving cells, performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in all the serving cells.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva et al. (US 2024/0080772 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0116802 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazmi et al. (US 2023/0388924 A1).
With regard to Claim 13, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a determination that a counter starts, the counter used to count the number of consecutive out-of-sync indications; (after a number of out-of-sync (OOS) indications (e.g., a N310 counter), the UE may start a timer (e.g., a T310 timer) and may declare radio link failure if the signal quality does not improve until the timer expires [Laselva: 0037]).
However, Laselva-Kim does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
in accordance with a determination that a counter starts, resuming performing the evaluation using the normal evaluation period, the counter used to count the number of consecutive out-of-sync indications.
In a similar field of endeavor involving performing cell measurements in a relaxed mode, Kazmi discloses:
in accordance with a determination that a counter starts, resuming performing the evaluation using the normal evaluation period, the counter used to count the number of consecutive out-of-sync indications; (upon detecting a certain number of out-of-sync indications or upon triggering T310 while the wireless device 22 is performing relaxed RLM, wireless device 22 may revert to the normal RLM operation (i.e., without relaxation) [Kazmi: 0232-33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laselva-Kim in view of Kazmi in order to resume using the normal evaluation period in accordance with a determination that a counter starts in the system of Laselva-Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Laselva-Kim with Kazmi as doing so would aid in recovery for situations in which the wireless device experiences RLM performance degradation after the wireless device has entered in the relaxed RLM mode [Kazmi: 0232].
With regard to Claim 14, Laselva-Kim teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: in accordance with a determination that a timer starts, the timer used to monitor a waiting time for a radio link failure; (after a number of out-of-sync (OOS) indications (e.g., a N310 counter), the UE may start a timer (e.g., a T310 timer) and may declare radio link failure if the signal quality does not improve until the timer expires [Laselva: 0037]).
However, Laselva-Kim does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
in accordance with a determination that a timer starts, resuming performing the evaluation using the normal evaluation period, the timer used to monitor a waiting time for a radio link failure.
In a similar field of endeavor involving performing cell measurements in a relaxed mode, Kazmi discloses:
in accordance with a determination that a timer starts, resuming performing the evaluation using the normal evaluation period, the timer used to monitor a waiting time for a radio link failure; (upon detecting a certain number of out-of-sync indications or upon triggering T310 while the wireless device 22 is performing relaxed RLM, wireless device 22 may revert to the normal RLM operation (i.e., without relaxation) [Kazmi: 0232-33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laselva-Kim in view of Kazmi in order to resume using the normal evaluation period in accordance with a determination that a timer starts in the system of Laselva-Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Laselva-Kim with Kazmi as doing so would aid in recovery for situations in which the wireless device experiences RLM performance degradation after the wireless device has entered in the relaxed RLM mode [Kazmi: 0232].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva et al. (US 2024/0080772 A1) in view of Kim (US 2022/0116802 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0104044 A1) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Kazmi et al. (US 2023/0388924 A1).
With regard to Claim 16, Laselva-Kim-Huang teaches:
The method of claim 7, wherein the evaluation comprises BFD in a predetermined high frequency range; (the UE can be configured to measure for frequency range 2 (FR2) [Laselva: 0037]).
However, Laselva-Kim-Huang does not teach:
and performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration comprises one of:
in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is met for a serving cell of a group of serving cells configured with a same beam, performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in the group of serving cells,
or in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is met for all of a group of serving cells configured with a same beam, performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in the group of serving cells.
In a similar field of endeavor involving performing cell measurements in a relaxed mode, Kazmi discloses:
and performing the evaluation using the relaxed evaluation period based on the criterion configuration comprises one of:
in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is met for a serving cell of a group of serving cells configured with a same beam, performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in the group of serving cells; (a wireless device is configured with a power saving cell group (PSG) including 2 or more cells for which the wireless device uses a common beam management (CBM) scheme [Kazmi: 0036; 0167], wherein wireless device is configured to enter a first relaxed measurement mode for a plurality of serving cells of the power savings group based at least on the plurality of serving cells meeting at least a first criterion [Kazmi: 0051]);
or in accordance with a determination that at least one of the set of criteria is met for all of a group of serving cells configured with a same beam, performing the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in the group of serving cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Laselva-Kim-Huang in view of Kazmi in order to perform the BFD using the relaxed evaluation period in the group of serving cells in the system of Laselva-Kim-Huang.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Laselva-Kim-Huang with Kazmi as doing so would prevent wastage of scheduling grants by avoiding frequent scheduling on serving cells when wireless device is applying relaxed requirements [Kazmi: 0050].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Thangarasa et al. (US 2023/0397282 A1) which teaches based on an evaluation of criteria by the UE, performing RLP in a relaxed mode provided that at least one criterion in set S1 and at least one criterion in set S2 are met for purposes of improving UE power consumption [Thangarasa: 0064; 0030].
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446