DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 51 and 70 along with each of their respective independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 51-56, and 58-70, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva et al. (WO 2021/254590 A1) in view of Kaikkonen et al. (US 2022/0007293 A1).
Regarding claim 51, Laselva discloses:
a method of performing Radio Link Procedure (RLP) (par.[0007] describes RLM and RRM, wherein the resource configuration are sent to the UE to perform the measurements. The RLM is a RLP procedure) performed by a wireless device (fig.1 which depicts a wireless device (i.e. a user device) elements 131-133 and 135) operative in a wireless communication network (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network), the method characterized by:
determining whether the wireless device is operating in an operational scenario for which relaxed RLP is allowed (fig.2b element 270 wherein the UE determines whether relaxation conditions have been satisfied. Par.[0052 – 0053]);
in response to determining relaxed RLP is allowed, determining at least one of a measurement relaxation factor K (par.[0040] which recites, in part, “The present disclosure targets relaxation of RLM/BFD measurements by increasing the measurement period so that the UE does not perform RLM/BFD measurements more frequently, when compared to RRM measurements, in good radio conditions. This may be achieved by increasing the measurement period (which may be referred to as an evaluation period) for RLM/BFD measurement while keeping the number of samples per period unvaried (minimum required samples met) or by decreasing the number of samples per period while keeping the measurement period unvaried.” That is, by modifying the duration of the measurement period by a factor K, the UE is configured to perform less measurement and thereby relaxing the measurement, par.[0061 and 0081]) and a signal quality threshold S (par.[0057] which recites, in part, “In some implementations, if the one or more relaxation conditions are met, it could be inferred that the serving signal quality is good, may be better than the worst interferer, and may remain good for additional evaluation periods, and thereby making it safer (e.g., from a performance perspective) to relax”. That is, when a signal quality threshold is met, the UE may relax measurements on the reference signal) based on an effective Reference Signal (RS) occasion periodicity Te (par.[0024-0025] which describes the UE monitoring for reference signals and reporting. Par.[0027 -0028] describes the reference signal occasion or periodicity which the UE determines in order to monitor the reference signal, par.[0081]); and
wherein the effective RS occasion periodicity Te depends on a margin (fig.5a-6b describes Tevaluate which is the effective reference signal periodicity for either out_of_sync_SSB or in_sync_SSB, wherein α 5, 7.5, 10, or 15 is multiplied by P, wherein the value 10 or 15 is interpreted as a margin associated with RLP, because the value is used Tevaluate which is used for RLP/RLM. The applicant disclosure describe the “margin” as being utilized in a function to determine Tevaluate, and the “margin” is multiplied by a value P and further multiplied by MAX (TDRX ,TRS) wherein the TDRX and TRS the DRX cycle length and the reference signal periodicity. Further, the disclosure at fig.5a teaches the same function, wherein the “margin” which is either 5, 7.5, 10, or 15, is multiplied by P, and further multiplied by MAX (TDRX ,TSSB). Wherein the TSSB is periodicity of the SSB which is a reference signal).
applying at least one of the determined measurement relaxation factor K and signal quality threshold S for performing the RLP (fig.2b wherein RLM/BFD is performed in relaxed condition at element 276 using the modified measurement period).
While the disclosure of Laselva teaches a margin used for determining the effective RS occasion periodicity, it may not disclose:
α associated with the RLP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Kaikkonen discloses:
wherein the effective RS occasion periodicity Te depends on a margin α associated with the RLP (fig(s).1-4 depicts the SSB Te which is based on a margin α 1.5 which is known as KRLM a parameter defined 38.533 for RLM).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Laselva for determining a relaxation for RLP with the disclosure of Kaikkonen which also describes determining a RLP relaxation with a margin associated with the RLM. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a mechanism for scaling or relaxing an RLP measurement when the system has the ability to perform RLP relaxation.
Regarding claim 52, Laselva discloses:
in response to determining relaxed RLP is not allowed, and performing RLP using a RS occasion periodicity T wherein T < Te (fig.5a Note2: Rperiod is the relaxed measurement that is set to the SMTCperiod, while TSSB is the traditional period configured for RLM. That is, when the RLP is relaxed the UE would use Rperiod which is the relaxed measurement period as opposed to the TSSB which is the more frequent traditional measurement period, par.[0081]).
Regarding claim 53, Laselva discloses:
wherein relaxed RLP is allowed, and wherein the wireless device determines only the measurement relaxation factor K and applies only the measurement relaxation factor K to the RLP (par.[0033] describes applying the scaling factor to the RLM measurement period when RLP is allowed).
Regarding claim 54, Laselva discloses:
wherein relaxed RLP is allowed, and wherein the wireless device determines only the signal quality threshold S and applies the only the signal quality threshold S to the RLP (par.[0051] which teaches the signal quality threshold/thresholds which when configured may trigger the allowance of the RLP relaxation).
Regarding claim 55, Laselva discloses:
wherein relaxed RLP is allowed, and wherein the wireless device determines both the measurement relaxation factor K (par.[0069 – 0070] which describes the relaxed RLM measurements using one or more relaxation factors such as scaling factor R) and the signal quality threshold S (par.[0051] which describes the signal quality thresholds wherein when met provide the UE an opportunity for RLP relaxation), and applies both the measurement relaxation factor K and the signal quality threshold S to the RLP (par.[0072] which recites, in part, “The network/UE may monitor certain conditions related to the UE’s link quality e.g., based on the UE measurement (reports), in order to evaluate if any condition is met, in which case, the gNB may send an indication to the UE of RLM relaxation allowance / the UE may start applying the UE-specific scaling factors. These conditions can be based on the RSRP, RSRQ, and SINR”).
Regarding claim 56, Laselva discloses:
wherein operational scenarios for which relaxed RLP is allowed include one or more of:
low wireless device mobility (par.[0031] describes the UE with low mobility, wherein if the UE is not very mobile and is in good cell condition the UE may not need to perform as many measurements because when the UE is not mobile the signal quality will not change much);
low wireless device activity (par.[0069] which recites, in part, “In some implementations, for example, the RLM measurements may be relaxed by applying one or more relaxation factors. In an example implementation, the relaxation factors may depend on DRX cycles.”); and
signal quality above a threshold (par.[0031] describes the good channel quality, along with other paragraphs as discussed above).
Regarding claim 58, Laselva discloses:
wherein low wireless device activity includes the wireless device is in Discontinuous Reception (DRX) operation (par.[0069] which recites, in part, “In some implementations, for example, the RLM measurements may be relaxed by applying one or more relaxation factors. In an example implementation, the relaxation factors may depend on DRX cycles.”).
Regarding claim 59, Laselva discloses:
herein determining whether the wireless device is operating in an operational scenario for which relaxed RLP is allowed comprises determining that the wireless device is configured with an operational scenario and meeting a criterion associated with the configured operational scenario (fig(s). 2a and 2b element 214 and 264 depict the UE receiving from the network relaxation criteria/conditions which when met allow the UE to modify its measurement activity to a more relaxed state).
Regarding claim 60, Laselva discloses:
wherein one or both of the measurement relaxation factor K and the signal quality threshold S are a function of the effective RS occasion periodicity Te (wherein as discussed in the rejection of claim 51, the measurement relaxation factor is used to scale the measurement periodicity such that the UE is configured to measure and detect/report the signal quality threshold at a more relaxed rate).
Regarding claim 61, Laselva discloses:
wherein one or both of the measurement relaxation factor K and the signal quality threshold S are further a function of frequency characteristics of the cell on which the mobile device is operating (the fig(s).2a and 2b wherein the UE is configured to measure in a measurement period a RLM-RS, SSB, or both, in element 266-268, the measurements being performed on signal transmitted from the cell in a frequency band of the cell. Thus, the relaxation factor and signal quality are instituted/derived based on the reception of signals in the frequency band on the cell).
Regarding claim 62, Laselva discloses:
wherein the effective RS occasion periodicity Te depends on one or more of the periodicity of a RS, a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration in the wireless device, a measurement gap sharing factor P, a scaling factor N that depends on a frequency range in which the wireless device is operating, (fig.5a teaches a periodicity of SSB wherein the periodicity of SSB is a periodicity associated with the monitoring the SSB, and TDRX is the cycle length of a DRX wherein the UE may monitor or perform measurements during a duration of the DRX cycle).
Regarding claim 63, Laselva discloses:
wherein the effective RS occasion periodicity Te is function of periodicity of a RS, and a Discontinuous Reception (DRX) configuration in the wireless device (fig.5a teaches a periodicity of SSB TSSB wherein the periodicity of SSB is a periodicity associated with the monitoring the SSB, and TDRX is the cycle length of a DRX wherein the UE may monitor or perform measurements during a duration of the DRX cycle wherein the UE is capable of measurement in a union of the SSB and TSSB and TDRX).
Regarding claim 64, Laselva discloses:
wherein performing RLP using the effective RS occasion periodicity Te comprises performing the RLP over an effective measurement time Tmr, where Tmr is greater than a measurement time Tm used when relaxed RLP is not allowed (as discussed above with regard to claim 51, the UE when RLP is relaxed perform measurements less frequently which corresponds to the periodicity Te, further measurement period is scaled by some scaling factor as discussed above, which lengthens the effective measurement period, such that the effective scaled/relaxed measurement period is longer in duration than the non-relaxed measurement period wherein the UE performs monitoring and measurements on the reference signal more frequently. By applying the relaxed measurement period with longer duration the UE effectively spaces out measurements reducing battery power needed to perform measurements as the UE isn’t performing measurements as frequently).
Regarding claim 65, Laselva discloses:
wherein Tmr is a function of K and Tm (par.[0070] which recites, in part, “the UE may be configured to scale the measurement period of RLM/BFD measurements according to one or more dedicated scaling factor “R.” For example, the evaluation period for in-sync and out-of-sync indications, T evaluate out and Tevaiuatejn periods, may be scaled by factors Rin and Rout, respectively. By having scaling factors dedicated to in-sync and out-of-sync indications, gNB may allow the UE to relax the evaluation periods.”. That is the time relaxed measurement period is derived from the original time Tm, and the scaled by a factor R/K).
Regarding claim 66, Laselva discloses:
wherein in response to determining relaxed RLP is not allowed, performing RLP over the measurement time Tm (as noted above with regard to previous claims, when measurements are relaxed the UE may perform fewer measurements over a longer duration, Tmr as discussed in the claim. Conversely, when the UE is unable to perform relaxed measurements, the UE will perform more measurements over a shorter duration Tm. This is noted throughout the specification and in fig(s).5-6 and their associated disclosures).
Regarding claim 67, Laselva discloses:
wherein the signal quality threshold S is an absolute signal quality threshold Sa, and wherein the wireless device performs RLP using the effective RS occasion periodicity Te if a measured signal quality Qm is greater than Sa (par.[0051 – 0053] which describes performing a measurement on a signal, and if the signal quality is better/greater than a threshold, then the UE may relax the measurements).
Regarding claim 68, Laselva discloses:
wherein the signal quality threshold S is a relative signal quality threshold Sr, and wherein the wireless device performs RLP using the effective RS occasion periodicity Te if the difference between a measured signal quality Qm and a reference signal quality Qr is greater than Sr (par.[0051 – 0053] which describes performing a measurement on a signal, and if the signal quality is better/greater than a reference threshold, then the UE may relax the measurements).
Regarding claim 69, Laselva discloses:
in response to a measured or estimated signal quality being greater than S, performing RLP by using K to determine an effective measurement time Tmr; and
in response to the measured or estimated signal quality not being greater than S,performing RLP by using a measurement time Tm that is used when relaxed RLP is not allowed (par.[0061] fig(s). 5-6 describes the modification of a measurement period using scaling factor if and/or when the UE is capable of performing relaxed RLM/BFD measurements. Otherwise the EU would perform RLM/BFD measurement using a more frequent measurement in a regular measurement period).
Regarding claim 70, Laselva discloses:
a method of serving a wireless device (fig.1 depicts a base station (BS) element 134) performing Radio Link Procedures (RLP. Fig.1 depicts the base station serving the wireless devices in the cell element 136) by a network node (fig.1 the base station as discussed above) operative in a wireless communication network (fig.1 depicts a wireless communications network), the method characterized by:
configuring the wireless device with information related to at least one operational scenario for which relaxed RLP is allowed (fig(s). 2a and 2b wherein the UE receives from the base station RLM-RS resource configuration with relaxation criteria/conditions along with the RRM measurement configuration); and
providing the wireless device at least one of a measurement relaxation factor K (par.[0040] which recites, in part, “The present disclosure targets relaxation of RLM/BFD measurements by increasing the measurement period so that the UE does not perform RLM/BFD measurements more frequently, when compared to RRM measurements, in good radio conditions. This may be achieved by increasing the measurement period (which may be referred to as an evaluation period) for RLM/BFD measurement while keeping the number of samples per period unvaried (minimum required samples met) or by decreasing the number of samples per period while keeping the measurement period unvaried.” That is, by modifying the duration of the measurement period by a factor K, the UE is configured to perform less measurement and thereby relaxing the measurement, par.[0061 and 0081]), a signal quality threshold S (par.[0051] describes the signal quality thresholds that would result in an allowed relaxation), a relation between K and an effective RS occasion periodicity Te, and a relation between S and an effective RS occasion periodicity Te (par.[0072] describes when measurement relaxation is allowed applying the scaling factor which modify the amount of measurement reporting performed at the UE. The signal quality threshold is one of the means for triggering the measurement relaxation which alters the periodicity for monitoring and measuring).
While the disclosure of Laselva teaches a margin used for determining the effective RS occasion periodicity, it may not disclose:
α associated with the RLP.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Kaikkonen discloses:
wherein the effective RS occasion periodicity Te depends on a margin α associated with the RLP (fig(s).1-4 depicts the SSB Te which is based on a margin α 1.5 which is known as KRLM a parameter defined 38.533 for RLM).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Laselva for determining a relaxation for RLP with the disclosure of Kaikkonen which also describes determining a RLP relaxation with a margin associated with the RLM. The motivation/suggestion would have been to provide a mechanism for scaling or relaxing an RLP measurement when the system has the ability to perform RLP relaxation.
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laselva and Kaikkonen as applied to claim 51, in view of Sabouri-Schani et al. (US 2022/0167230 A1).
Regarding claim 57, the disclosure of Laselva and Kaikkonen teaches:
wherein low wireless device mobility (par.[0031] as discussed above), but does not disclose, wherein low mobility includes the wireless device is stationary, and the wireless device is moving at a speed below a predetermined threshold.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Sabouri-Schani teaches:
wherein low wireless device mobility includes the wireless device is stationary, and the wireless device is moving at a speed below a predetermined threshold (par.[0068] which recites, in part, “It has been agreed that a UE may utilize different power saving schemes as specified in 3GPP TR 38.840. A power saving scheme “power consumption reduction in RRM measurements”, is described in TR 38.840 section 5.3, where, if certain conditions (e.g., low mobility deployment, low UE speed, and/or favorable RSRP conditions) are fulfilled, RRM measurements are adapted to more relaxed requirements.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Laselva and Kaikkonen for determining whether the UE may perform relaxed UE measurement with the disclosure of Sabouri-Sichani which teaches mobility and speed thresholds. The motivation/suggestion would have been that 3GPP established that it would be prudent to modify the measurement on a UE which is in a low mobile state to reduce power consumption at the UE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sharma et al. (US 2022/0131596 A1) “Communications Device and Method for Adapting Relaxed Radio Measurement Procedure” fig.6
Chen et al. (US 2022/0053350 A1) “Measurement Method, Configuration Method, Terminal, and Network-Side Device”, par.[0210]
Laselva et al. (US 2024/0080772 A1) “Handling of Measurement Relaxation and Other Activity Skipping”
You et al. (US 2021/0400589 A1) “Techniques for Radio Resource Management Measurements and User Equipment Power Consumption”
He et al. (US 2019/0254110 A1) “Method and Apparatus for Power Savings at a User Equipment”, par.[0389 – 0401].
Thangarasa et al. (US 2021/0105719 A1) “Methods for Reducing User Equipment Power Consumption in Presence of Wake-Up Signal”
Kaikkonen et al. (US 2021/0392525 A1) “Method for Power Consumption Reduction for Measurement Configurations”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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 at (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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights