Detailed Action
The office action is in response to the communications filed on 12/30/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 2, 12-22, and 25 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 23-24, 31, and 33 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-11, 23-24, and 26-33 are pending in this application.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kazmi et al. (Publication No. US 2023/0388924), the prior art discloses that relaxed requirements (or configurations) may be compared to normal operating requirements (or configurations) where relaxed requirements are different and/or a modification of normal operating requirements and provide power savings over the normal operating requirements; see ¶ 50.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 32-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 112(b)
Claims 1, 3-11, 23-24, and 27-33 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention (i.e. “relaxed”). However, Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
35 USC § 102
Regarding claim 1, Applicant remarks, filed on 12/30/2025, indicate that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to disclose the features in claim 1. In specific, Applicant indicates that the features reciting "a measurement requirement of the RLM measurement comprises an out-of-synchronization evaluation period", "the out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the first RLM measurement is greater than the out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the second RLM measurement", or "the first RLM measurement is configured with measurement requirements corresponding to at least two different relaxation levels, where different relaxation levels correspond to different scale factors, and a scale factor is configured to scale the out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the first RLM measurement." are not disclosed by the prior art. Examiner agrees, based on the remarks, that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection. However, a new ground of rejection necessitated by the claim amendments is set forth 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.
Claims 1, 3-11, 23-24, and 26-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 23-24, the claim recites “wherein the first RLM measurement is configured with measurement requirements corresponding to at least two different relaxation levels, where different relaxation levels correspond to different scale factors, and a scale factor is configured to scale the out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the first RLM measurement”. Examiner notes that the limitation initially associates the measurement with at least two different relaxation levels, while subsequently configure the measurement with a single relaxation level [scale factor]. Therefore, based on the context of the claim it is ambiguous whether the first RLM measurement corresponds to a single relaxation level or to a plurality of relaxation levels. As a result, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3-11 and 26-33, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of their parents claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parents claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under AIA 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 1, 3, 23-24, and 26 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thangarasa et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0210681, hereinafter referred to as Thangarasa) in view Niu et al. (Publication No. US 2024/0073728, hereinafter referred to as Niu).
Regarding claims 1 and 23-24, Thangarasa discloses performing a radio link monitoring (RLM) measurement on a radio link according to a representation parameter related to transmission quality of the radio link (The UE perform measurement on the downlink (DL) reference signals; see figure 1 & ¶ 0176. If a radio link monitoring (RLM) event (e.g. E1/E2) is triggered based on the measurement, RLM evaluation is performed; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 0171.),
wherein performing the RLM measurement on the radio link based on the representation parameter related to transmission quality of the radio link comprises one of (When radio link monitoring (RLM) event (e.g. E1/E2) is triggered based on the measurement, RLM evaluation is performed; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 0171. The event comprises event E1 and event E2, wherein event E1 is triggered because the target threshold corresponding to block error rate, and wherein event E2 is triggered because the target threshold corresponding to block error rate; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 166.):
determining that a first condition is satisfied, and performing a first RLM measurement on the radio link, wherein the first condition comprises: a block error rate (BLER) being lower than or equal to a first threshold (When radio link monitoring (RLM) event (e.g. E1/E2) is triggered based on the measurement, RLM evaluation is performed; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 0171. Event E2 is determined based on the block error rate (BLER) falling below a certain threshold [first threshold]; see ¶ 0171.), or
determining that a second condition is satisfied, and performing a second RLM measurement on the radio link, wherein the second condition comprises: the BLER being higher than or equal to a second threshold (Note: This limitation is claimed in the alternative form. Therefore, not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.);
wherein, the first threshold is smaller than the second threshold, and a measurement requirement of the first RLM measurement is more relaxed than a measurement requirement of the second RLM measurement (The event E2 BLER value [first threshold] is 2% while the event E1 BLER [second threshold] value is 10%; see ¶ 0171.);
Thangarasa fails to disclose wherein a measurement requirement of the RLM measurement comprises an out-of- synchronization (OOS) evaluation period,
wherein the first RLM measurement is configured with measurement requirements corresponding to at least two different relaxation levels,
where different relaxation levels correspond to different scale factors, and a scale factor is configured to scale the OOS evaluation period of the first RLM measurement;
wherein the first RLM measurement is a relaxed RLM measurement, the second RLM measurement is a normal RLM measurement;and
the out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the first RLM measurement is greater than the out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the second RLM measurement. However, in analogous art, Hwang discloses that the terminal device receives a relaxation configuration for relaxing the evaluation [RLM] from the network device, wherein the relaxation configuration may include a relaxation factor [scale factor]. Then the terminal device may perform the evaluation using a relaxed evaluation period if the set of criteria are met, wherein the relaxed evaluation period [first relaxation level/first RLM measurement] is determined based on the relaxation configuration and is longer than a normal evaluation period [second relaxation level/second RLM measurement] without relaxing the evaluation; see ¶ 42. Furthermore, the configured RLM-RS resource is a configured CSI-RS resource. T.sub.Relax_Evaluate_out_CSI-RS [OOS evaluation period] may be the relaxed evaluation period in which the terminal device determines whether the downlink radio link quality on the configured RLM-RS resource becomes worse than the out-of-sync quality threshold; see ¶ 84. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the relaxation factor in order to provide better power saving for a terminal; see ¶ 42.
Claim 3 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thangarasa, Niu, and further in view of Hwang et al. (Publication No. US 2019/0052377, hereinafter referred as Hwang).
Regarding claim 3, Thangarasa discloses performing the first RLM measurement or the second RLM measurement on the radio link according to the representation parameter related to transmission quality of the radio link comprises one of (RLM evaluation comprises a first type of RLM evaluation [second RLM] or a second type of RLM evaluation [first RLM], wherein the first type of RLM evaluation is performed based on event E1, and wherein the second type of RLM evaluation is performed based on event E2; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 0171/0176.).
determining that a first condition is satisfied, and performing the first RLM measurement, wherein the first condition comprises at least one of (The second type of RLM evaluation [first RLM] performed based on event E2; see figure 1.):
a block error rate (BLER) being lower than or equal to a first threshold (Event E2 is determined based on the block error rate (BLER) falling below a certain threshold [first threshold]; see ¶ 0171.), or
a radio link failure timer being not activated; or
determining that a second condition is satisfied, and performing the second RLM measurement, wherein the second condition comprises at least one of: the BLER being higher than or equal to a second threshold, the radio link failure timer being activated, or a predetermined number of out-of-synchronization indications being received.
wherein, the first threshold is smaller than the second threshold, and the measurement requirement of the second RLM measurement is stricter than the measurement requirement of the first RLM measurement (The event E2 BLER value [first threshold] is 2% while the event E1 BLER [second threshold] value is 10%; see ¶ 0171. Examiner suggest to explicitly describe the mechanism that make the measurement stricter in order to distinguish from the prior art of record.).
Thangarasa fails to disclose that the first condition further comprises a radio link failure timer being activated; or wherein the second condition further comprises at least one of: the radio link failure timer being activated or a predetermined number of out-of-synchronization indications being received. However, in analogous art, Hwang discloses the base station 610 may transmit parameters needed for RLM to the terminal; see ¶ 79. The base station 610 may notify the terminal 605 of SS configuration information and RLM/RLF parameters (number of beams needed for OOS and IS determination, threshold information needed for OOS and IS determination, duration required for generating one OOS indication (T_out), duration required for generating one IS indication (T_in), RLF timer value, number of consecutive OOS and IS indications required to start and stop the RLF timer).. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the RLM parameter in order to improve the detection of radio link failure based on the timer and/or RLF timer.
Claims 4, 8, 27, and 31 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thangarasa, Niu, and further in view of Deenoo et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0274657, hereinafter referred as Deenoo).
Regarding claims 4 and 27, Thangarasa discloses determining that a first condition is satisfied and performing the first RLM measurement comprises (When radio link monitoring (RLM) event (i.e. E2) is triggered based on the measurement, RLM evaluation is performed; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 0171.):
determining that a third condition is satisfied, and triggering a physical layer to perform the first RLM measurement, wherein the third condition comprises at least one of (The second type of RLM evaluation [first RLM] performed based on event E2 [third condition]; see figure 1.):
wherein the indications indicates that the BLER is lower than or equal to the first threshold (Event E2 is determined based on the block error rate (BLER) falling below a certain threshold; see ¶ 0171.).
Thangarasa fails to disclose a radio resource control (RRC) layer receiving N indications from the physical layer, or the RRC layer determining that the radio link failure timer is not activated, where N is a positive integer. However, in analogous art, Deenoo discloses that multiple IS indications and/or OOS indications may be delivered to higher layers (e.g., RRC) in a reporting instance; see ¶ 0136. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the RRC mechanims in order to enable the higher layers (e.g., RRC) to differentiate (e.g., may need to differentiate) the cause of such an indication from lower layers; see ¶ 0136.
Regarding claims 8 and 31, Thangarasa fails to disclose the measurement requirement of the first RLM measurement being more relaxed than the measurement requirement of the second RLM measurement comprises at least one of:
an in-synchronization evaluation period of the first RLM measurement being greater than an in-synchronization evaluation period of the second RLM measurement;
a reporting interval of the first RLM measurement being greater than a reporting interval of the second RLM measurement;
a number of reference signals measured by the first RLM measurement being less than a number of reference signals measured by the second RLM measurement; or
a frequency domain range measured by the first RLM measurement being smaller than a frequency domain range measured by the second RLM measurement. However, in analogous art, Deenoo discloses that the in-sync (IS) may be indicated, if the estimated link quality corresponding to a hypothetical PDCCH BLER based on at least Y RLM-RS resource among all configured X RLM-RS resources is above Q_in threshold, wherein Y value may be a positive integer (e.g., Y=1); see ¶ 0106-0107. Furthermore, out-of-sync (OOS) is indicated, if the estimated link quality corresponding to a hypothetical PDCCH BLER based on all configured X RLM-RS resource(s) is below Q_out threshold; see ¶ 0109-0110. Note: the stricter measurement is interpreted as “a number of reference signals measured by the first RLM measurement being less than a number of reference signals measured by the second RLM measurement” based on the description of claim 8. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the configurable value of reference signal in order to enable avoid the ping-pong effect by limiting the out-of-sync scenario when all the reference signal are below a threshold.
Claims 5-7 and 28-30 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thangarasa, Niu, and further in view of Xu et al. (Publication No. US 2020/0274657, hereinafter referred as Xu).
Regarding claims 5 and 28, Thangarasa discloses determining that a first condition is satisfied and performing the first RLM measurement comprises (When radio link monitoring (RLM) event (i.e. E2) is triggered based on the measurement, RLM evaluation is performed; see figure 1/2 & ¶ 0171.):
determining that a fourth condition is satisfied (The second type of RLM evaluation [first RLM] performed based on event E2 [fourth condition]; see figure 1.), and
wherein the fourth condition comprises at least one of: that the BLER being lower than or equal to the first threshold (Event E2 is determined based on the block error rate (BLER) falling below a certain threshold; see ¶ 0171.), or the radio link failure timer being not activated.
Thangarasa fails to disclose that a physical layer performs the RLM measurement. However, in analogous art, Xu discloses that the physical layer of user equipment (UE) periodically evaluates a configured radio link monitor (RLM) measuring reference signal; see ¶ 0003. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the physical layer measurement in order identify the degradation of the link performance by monitoring the block error rate (BLER) at the physical layer.
Regarding claims 6 and 29, Thangarasa fails to disclose determining, by the physical layer, that a fifth condition satisfied, and performing the first RLM measurement by the physical layer, wherein the fifth condition comprises at least one of: the BLER being lower than or equal to the first threshold within a predetermined period of time, or the radio link failure timer being not activated. However, in analogous art, Xu discloses that the physical layer of user equipment (UE) periodically evaluates a configured radio link monitor (RLM) measuring reference signal; see ¶ 0003. When the radio link quality of an RLM resource reference signal is lower than a configured Out-Of-Sync threshold value Qout, the physical layer indicates an Out-Of-Sync indication to a radio resource control (RRC), and when the radio link quality of the RLM resource reference signal is higher than a configured In-Sync threshold value Qin, the physical layer indicates an In-Sync threshold indication to the RRC; see ¶ 0003. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the configurable Qin/Qout thresholds in order identify the degradation of the link performance by monitoring the block error rate (BLER) at the physical layer.
Regarding claims 7 and 30, Thangarasa fails to disclose obtaining the first threshold by the physical layer from a higher layer through an interlayer interface; or
obtaining information indicating a status of the radio link failure timer by the physical layer from the higher layer through the interlayer interface. However, in analogous art, Xu discloses that the physical layer of user equipment (UE) periodically evaluates a configured radio link monitor (RLM) measuring reference signal; see ¶ 0003. When the radio link quality of an RLM resource reference signal is lower than a configured Out-Of-Sync threshold value Qout, the physical layer indicates an Out-Of-Sync indication to a radio resource control (RRC), and when the radio link quality of the RLM resource reference signal is higher than a configured In-Sync threshold value Qin, the physical layer indicates an In-Sync threshold indication to the RRC; see ¶ 0003. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thangarasa measurement system with the configurable Qin/Qout thresholds in order identify the degradation of the link performance by monitoring the block error rate (BLER) at the physical layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hector Reyes (Hector.Reyes@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 270-0239. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5.
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, Kevin Bates (Kevin.Bates@uspto.gov) can be reached on (571) 270-0239. 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.
/H.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/Tejis Daya/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights