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 32-33 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 3-11,23-24, 26-33 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (Publication No. US 2016/0037579), the prior art discloses that the UE measures a link quality through the RLM, and as a result, when a value smaller than a predetermined threshold Qout is measured, the out-of-sync is generated and when the out-of-sync is consecutively generated at the predetermined number of times, the UE operates an RLF timer.
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
Applicant remarks, filed on 12/30/2025, argues that the cited portion of the prior art, individually or in combination, fails to discloses the features in claim 1, specifically those pertaining to the act of performing the RLM measurement on the radio link based on the representation parameter related to transmission quality of the radio link comprises one of: determining that a first condition is satisfied…; or determining that a second condition is satisfied…; wherein, the first threshold is smaller…”. Examiner agrees, based on the remarks, that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the prior art rejection. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Thangarasa. The new grounds of rejection recite that 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. Event E2 is determined based on the block error rate (BLER) falling below a certain threshold [first threshold]; see ¶ 0171. The event E2 BLER value [first threshold] is 2% while the event E1 BLER [second threshold] value is 10%; see ¶ 0171. For these reasons discussed above that the claim is met by the prior art.
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 27-33 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.
Claims 1 and 23-24, it’s unclear what is meant by the language “more relaxed”. The language “more relaxed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The language “more relaxed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, for the reason stated above the limitation is ambiguous rendering the claim to be indefinite.
Regarding Claims 3-11 and 26-33, the claims are rejected as they inherited the deficiencies of the parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to the parent claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 23-24, and 26 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(2) as being anticipated by Thangarasa et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0210681, hereinafter referred to as Thangarasa).
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;
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.).
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 3 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 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 discloses 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 et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0210681, hereinafter referred to as Thangarasa) 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 out-of-synchronization evaluation cycle of the first RLM measurement being greater than an out-of-synchronization evaluation period of the second RLM measurement;
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 et al. (Publication No. US 2022/0210681, hereinafter referred to as Thangarasa) 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
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 HECTOR REYES 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 can be reached on (571) 272-3980. 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
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights