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
Applicant's arguments filed 10-28-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 112 rejection to claims 21-30, have been withdrawn in view of the amendment. As to argument directed to the 112 rejection of previous claim 28, applicant submits that the limitation is clear, but fails to clearly articulate what is the scope of the limitation. In page 10 of the current applicant’s remarks, appear that applicant is disclosing his interpretation of the limitation “independent”; however, the limitation is a relative limitation. For examination purposes, if the criteria are used in independent and/or different circuits, the criteria are considered to be independent. If applicant’s interpretation is different the examiner invites the applicant to add the differences [such as the ones suggested in page 10 of the remarks] in the claim for proper consideration.
As to the arguments directed to claim 21, applicant added the limitations of claims 27 and 28; thereby, claim 21 now include the previous 112 rejection of claim 28. Applicant’s arguments are based on a specific interpretation of the limitation “independent”; however, the claim language uses relative wording as disclosed in the prior paragraph above; thereby, examiner’s interpretation may be different from applicant’s interpretation. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sophisticated technical solution, (1) separate threshold storage and management systems; (2) independent evaluation logic for RLM vs. BFD decisions; (3) coordinated but separate state machines; and (4) resolution mechanisms for conflicting criteria outcomes, optimize power saving, measurement quality) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, appears that because Huang discloses “RLM/BFD” together, applicant reaches the conclusion that they are “unified”; the examiner points to paragraph 0036 in which apply to RLM only; thereby, they are not unified as suggested.
Applicant submits: “The statement that criteria can be "independent from certain perspective" and "dependent from other" is merely conclusory and fails to analyze the specific technical differences between the claimed independent criteria architecture and Huang's unified approach.”; the examiner’s position as previously stated, the limitation is a relative limitation which the examiner is using different factors and reaching a different outcome. Similarly, the argument is merely conclusory and fails to analyze the specific technical differences between the claimed independent criteria architecture and Huang's non-unified approach. As to the argument: “the Office Action has not addressed the practical implementation challenges or the technical integration required to move from a unified criteria system to an independent criteria architecture”; please note that the examiner was not modifying the reference in the previous rejection; the examiner was just interpreting Huang in a way differently than the applicant.
For claims 22-25 and 29-30; they include an articulated reasoning of the modification and why it would be obvious, please see previous office action.
Please see also, the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-26, 31-35 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite “independent” which is a relative limitation, without giving information why it is considered to be independent. Therefore, it is unclear the scope of the limitation. The rest of claims they include the deficiency or share the deficiency by virtue of dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-26, 31-35 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang 20220104044 in view of Thangarasa 20230397282.
As to claims 21, Huang discloses a user equipment (UE) [201], the apparatus comprising: processing circuitry [232] (see fig. 2, par. 0024-0025) configured to:
apply low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion configured for RLM relaxation and beam failure detection (BFD) relaxation, in response to the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion being satisfied (see par. 0029, 0041),
measure radio link measurement (RLM) signals from a serving cell using relaxed measurement criteria [1003] (see par. 0041);
compare a quality of the RLM signals with a predetermined RLM relaxation threshold; and based on a comparison between the quality of the RLM signals and the predetermined RLM relaxation threshold, no longer use the relaxed measurement criteria to measure the RLM signals [criteria for UE to exit relaxed RLM/BFD measurement state and go back to normal RLM/BFD measurement state such as A1, B2, C2, D2, SNR] (see par. 0037-0038); and
a memory [231] configured to store the predetermined RLM relaxation threshold (see par. 0037).
Huang disclose the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion for RLM [281] relaxation being independent of beam failure detection (BFD) [282] relaxation (see fig. 2; par. 0024); thereby, since the circuit are independent the criterion is independent. In case that independent refers to something different. In an analogous art, Thangarasa discloses apply low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion configured for RLM relaxation and beam failure detection (BFD) relaxation, the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion for RLM relaxation being independent of the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion for BFD relaxation in response to the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion being satisfied [the UE may be configured (e.g. pre-defined or configured by NW node) with low mobility criterion in S1 for two RLPs (e.g. RLM and BM) but different criterion in S2 e.g. OOS detection related criterion for RLP1 (e.g. RLM) and beam failure indication related criterion for RLP2 (e.g. BM ->[BFD])] (see par. 0225). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use dependent or independent criterion as needed including the low mobility criterion for the simple purpose of adjusting the criterion to the specific relaxation and improving effectiveness of the relaxation.
As to claims 22, Huang discloses the UE of claim 21, wherein the RLM signals comprise at least one of signaling system block (SSB) signals or Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI-RS) (see par. 0022, 0027-0028). Huang’s priority does not disclose the specific signals. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality for the simple of maintain the quality of the communication.
As to claims 23, Huang discloses the UE of claim 22, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to continue to use the relaxed measurement criteria based on an evaluation of whether downlink radio link quality on a configured RLM-reference signal (RS) resource estimated over a predetermined evaluation period [T1] becomes worse than a predetermined threshold within the predetermined evaluation period (see par. 0022, 0027-0028, 0037-0038). Huang’s priority does not disclose the specific signals. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality for the simple of maintain the quality of the communication.
As to claims 24, Huang discloses the UE of claim 23, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to evaluate whether downlink radio link quality on a configured SSB resource estimated over another predetermined evaluation period becomes worse than another predetermined threshold within the other predetermined evaluation period [T2] (see par. 0022-0023, 0027-0028, 0037-0038). Huang’s priority does not disclose the specific signals. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality for the simple of maintain the quality of the communication.
As to claims 25, Huang discloses the UE of claim 22, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to evaluate whether downlink radio link quality on a configured SSB resource estimated over a predetermined evaluation period becomes worse than a predetermined threshold within the predetermined evaluation period (see par. 0022-0023, 0027-0028, 0037-0038). Huang’s priority does not disclose the specific signals. However, it would be obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to repeat the teaching in any comparable signal since it is going to bring the same predictable of measuring quality for the simple of maintain the quality of the communication.
As to claims 26 and 40, Huang discloses the UE of claim 21, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to continue to use the relaxed measurement criteria based on whether out-of sync indications are to be sent [method 5-8 UE exit when OOS/beam failure indication is indicated] (see 63/165,315 incorporated by reference).
Regarding claim 31, is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of apparatus/UE claim 21. Therefore, claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
As to claims 38, Huang discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are configured to, when the instructions are executed:
evaluate whether downlink radio link quality meets relaxed measurement criteria for at least one of relaxed radio link monitoring or relaxed beam failure detection [1002] (see par. 0041); and
in response to a determination that the downlink radio link quality meets the relaxed measurement criteria for at least one of relaxed radio link monitoring or relaxed beam failure detection, employ the at least one of relaxed radio link monitoring or relaxed beam failure detection [1003] (see par. 0041).
As to claims 39, Huang discloses a communication system comprising:
an antenna [235] configured to receive radio link measurement (RLM) signals from a serving cell (see par. 0025); processing circuitry [232] (see fig. 2, par. 0024-025) configured to:
apply low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion configured for RLM relaxation and beam failure detection (BFD) relaxation, in response to the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion being satisfied (see par. 0029, 0041),
measure the RLM signals using relaxed measurement criteria (see par. 0041);
compare a quality of the RLM signals with a predetermined RLM relaxation threshold; and based on a comparison between the quality of the RLM signals and the predetermined RLM relaxation threshold, no longer use the relaxed measurement criteria to measure the RLM signals [criteria for UE to exit relaxed RLM/BFD measurement state and go back to normal RLM/BFD measurement state such as A1, B2, C2, D2, SNR] (see par. 0037-0038); and
a memory [231] configured to store the predetermined RLM relaxation threshold (see par. 0037).
Huang disclose the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion for RLM [281] relaxation being independent of beam failure detection (BFD) [282] relaxation (see fig. 2; par. 0024); thereby, since the circuit are independent the criterion is independent. In case that independent refers to a different type. In an analogous art, Thangarasa discloses apply low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion configured for RLM relaxation and beam failure detection (BFD) relaxation, the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion for RLM relaxation being independent of the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion for BFD relaxation in response to the low mobility criterion and good serving cell criterion being satisfied [the UE may be configured (e.g. pre-defined or configured by NW node) with low mobility criterion in S1 for two RLPs (e.g. RLM and BM) but different criterion in S2 e.g. OOS detection related criterion for RLP1 (e.g. RLM) and beam failure indication related criterion for RLP2 (e.g. BM ->[BFD])] (see par. 0225). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use dependent or independent criterion as needed including the low mobility criterion for the simple purpose of adjusting the criterion to the specific relaxation and improving effectiveness of the relaxation.
Regarding claims 32-35, are the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of apparatus/UE claim 22-24 and 26. Therefore, claims 32-35 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim(s) 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Thangarasa and further in view of Li 20220394535.
As to claims 29 and 36, Huang discloses everything as explained above except for wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine radio link quality based on a Block Error Rate (BLER) of the RLM signals. In an analogous art, Li discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine radio link quality based on a Block Error Rate (BLER) of the RLM signals (see par. 0040). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Block Error Rate (BLER) of the RLM for the simple purpose determining the error rate and maintain the quality of the communication.
Claim(s) 30 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Thangarasa and further in view of Xie 20220417781.
As to claims 30 and 37, Huang discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether to continue to use the relaxed measurement criteria based on a period (see par. 0037-0038). Huang fails to disclose a T310 timer. In an analogous art, Xie discloses based on whether a T310 timer is running (see par. 0193). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a 310 timer for the simple purpose determining if the link is faulty or had recover and maintain the quality of the communication.
Conclusion
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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights