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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on February 1, 2024, July 1, 2025, and January 21, 2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2 of claims 11 and 27, the claims recite “wherein different frequency bands have independent the relaxation factors.” This wording does not make grammatical sense. It appears, applicant intended for the claim to read, “wherein different frequency bands are independent of the relaxation factors.” Accordingly, the examiner is interpretating claims 11 and 27 as such. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (pre-AIA §112, second paragraph) as being indefinite for reciting a single means (or step) for achieving a stated result, without reciting any specific structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Specifically, claim 1 is directed to "a radio resource management (RRM) measurement relaxation method, performed by a connected user equipment (UE), and comprising: determining an RRM measurement relaxation." The claim fails to specify how the determination is made, what parameters are considered, or any particular process or structure involved in carrying out the step. As drafted, the claim covers any and all ways of performing the determination, and thus does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims that recite only a single means or step for achieving a stated result, without further detail, are generally considered indefinite and non-compliant with 35 U.S.C. §112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (pre-AIA §112, second paragraph) as being indefinite for reciting a single means (or step) for achieving a stated result, without reciting any specific structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Specifically, claim 19 is directed to "an information processing method, performed by a base station, and comprising: receiving an RRM measurement result of connected UE after an RRM measurement relaxation." The claim fails to specify how the result is received, processed, or utilized, or any particular process or structure involved in carrying out the step. As drafted, the claim covers any and all ways of receiving the result, and thus does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims that recite only a single means or step for achieving a stated result, without further detail, are generally considered indefinite and non-compliant with 35 U.S.C. §112(b). See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 27-28, 30, and 35-36 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (pre-AIA §112, second paragraph) since these claims remedy the deficiencies of independent claims 1 and 19 either directly or indirectly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites determining an RRM measurement relaxation.
The limitation determining an RRM measurement relaxation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by a connected user equipment (UE),” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, a “UE” equates to a “processor”. Therefore, substituting “UE” for “processor”, we conclude the following:
For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually calculating how much the measurements should be relaxed/how much the UE can reduce measurements of cells. Therefore, this determination step is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “performed by a connected user equipment (UE)” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking/determining in the mind what a reasonable parameter would be to essentially reduce the measuring of the UE. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a UE to perform the determining step. The UE/processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a parameter or factor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a UE/processor to perform the determining step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites receiving an RRM measurement result of connected UE after an RRM measurement.
The claim limitation reciting “receiving an RRM measurement result of connected UE after an RRM measurement relaxation”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “performed by a base station” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. In other words, a “base station” equates to a “processor”. Therefore, we essentially substituting “base station” for “processor”.
For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving/obtaining results based on measurements. These results could be have been the user receiving/obtaining them from a piece of paper. Therefore, this receiving step is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “performed by a base station” language, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user obtaining a piece of paper with measurement results. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a base station to perform the receiving step. The base station/processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving/obtaining results of measurements) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a base station/processor to perform the receiving step amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, and 36 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. More specifically, claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 35, and 36 are mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind or generic computers or components configured to perform the method since these claims are essentially directed to determining and receiving steps without significantly more.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d)may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Application 18/701,279. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. More specifically, the present application is a broader version of 18/701,279.
Please see the following table for the claim 1 analysis:
18/294,503
18/701,279
Claim Interpretation
1. A radio resource management (RRM) measurement relaxation method, performed by a connected user equipment (UE), and comprising:
determining an RRM measurement relaxation.
1. A method for communication based on a measurement relaxation mechanism, applied to a terminal, and comprising: determining a common measurement reference signal, wherein the common measurement reference signal is a reference signal commonly used for radio resource management (RRM) measurement relaxation and communication link quality monitoring measurement relaxation; and
performing measurement relaxation determination on the RRM measurement
relaxation and the communication link quality monitoring measurement relaxation based on the common measurement reference signal.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, the present application is a broader version of 19/701,279. The preambles differ from one another, but the preamble in the present application does not breathe life into the body of the claim and therefore it not given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 27, 28, 30, 35, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koskinen et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0098538 A1, hereinafter Koskinen).
Consider claim 1. Koskinen discloses a radio resource management (RRM) measurement relaxation method, performed by a connected user equipment (UE) (fig. 3, paragraphs 15, 87, read as UE 110 performing the step of 330 in a connected mode), and comprising:
determining an RRM measurement relaxation (fig. 3, paragraph 87, read as aligning/determining RRM measurements according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation state).
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1. Koskinen discloses determining a relaxation factor for the RRM measurement of the connected UE; and determining a relaxation configuration of the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor (paragraph 92).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 2. Koskinen discloses wherein the relaxation configuration indicates at least one of the following: a relaxation manner configuration, indicating a relaxation manner of the RRM measurement; or a relaxation measurement configuration, indicating a measurement configuration after the RRM measurement; wherein the relaxation manner comprises at least one of: increasing a cycle associated with the RRM measurement; or stopping the RRM measurement; wherein the stopping the RRM measurement comprises at least one of the following: stopping the RRM measurement on a serving cell; stopping the RRM measurement on a secondary cell; stopping the RRM measurement on an intra-frequency neighboring cell; stopping the RRM measurement on an inter-frequency neighboring cell; or stopping the RRM measurement on an inter-system neighboring cell (paragraphs 93, 135).
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 2. Koskinen discloses wherein the relaxation factor comprises at least one of the following: a first factor for relaxing the RRM measurement on a serving cell; a second factor for relaxing RRM measurement on an intra-frequency neighboring cell; a third factor for relaxing RRM measurement on an inter-frequency neighboring cell; a fourth factor for relaxing RRM measurement on an inter-system neighboring cell; or a fifth factor for relaxing RRM measurement on a deactivated secondary cell; wherein any two of the first factor, the second factor, the third factor, the fourth factor and the fifth factor are mutually independent (paragraph 92, 93).
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 2. Koskinen discloses wherein different frequency bands have independent the relaxation factors (paragraph 170).
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 2. Koskinen discloses wherein the determining a relaxation factor for the RRM measurement of the connected UE comprises: determining a value of the relaxation factor according to a configuration of a discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle of the connected UE; wherein the determining a value of the relaxation factor according to a configuration situation of a DRX cycle of the connected UE comprises one of the following: upon determining that the connected UE is not configured with a DRX cycle, determining that a value of the relaxation factor is a first value; upon determining that the connected UE is configured with a DRX cycle and the DRX cycle is greater than a first duration, determining that a value of the relaxation factor is a second value; or upon determining that the connected UE is configured with a DRX cycle and the DRX cycle is less than or equal to the first duration, determining that a value of the relaxation factor is a third value (paragraphs 117, 118).
Consider claim 19. Koskinen discloses an information processing method, performed by a base station (fig. 3, paragraphs 30, 86, 88, read as the NW Node 310, which is a RAN node 170, which is a base station), and comprising:
receiving an RRM measurement result of connected UE after an RRM measurement relaxation (fig. 3, paragraph 15, 88, read as receiving reporting of results of radio resource measurements made by the connected UE according to the aligned radio resource measurement relaxation state.
Consider claim 20 and as applied to claim 19. Koskinen discloses wherein the RRM measurement is performed according to a relaxation configuration; wherein the relaxation configuration indicates at least one of the following: a relaxation manner configuration, indicating a relaxation manner of the RRM measurement; or a relaxation measurement configuration, indicating a measurement configuration after the RRM measurement; wherein the relaxation manner comprises at least one of: increasing a cycle associated with the RRM measurement; or stopping the RRM measurement; wherein the relaxation configuration of the RRM measurement is determined according to a relaxation factor; wherein the cycle associated with the RRM measurement comprises at least one of the following: a recognition cycle of RRM measurement on a serving cell; a measurement cycle of RRM measurement on the serving cell; a recognition cycle of RRM measurement on a neighboring cell; or a measurement cycle of RRM measurement on the neighboring cell; wherein the relaxation factor comprises at least one of the following: a first factor for relaxing the RRM measurement on a serving cell; a second factor for relaxing RRM measurement on an intra-frequency neighboring cell; a third factor for relaxing RRM measurement on an inter-frequency neighboring cell; a fourth factor for relaxing RRM measurement on an inter-system neighboring cell; or a fifth factor for relaxing RRM measurement on a deactivated secondary cell; wherein any two of the first factor, the second factor, the third factor, the fourth factor and the fifth factor are mutually independent; and wherein the stopping the RRM measurement comprises at least one of the following: stopping the RRM measurement on a serving cell; stopping the RRM measurement on a secondary cell; stopping the RRM measurement on an intra-frequency neighboring cell; stopping the RRM measurement on an inter-frequency neighboring cell; or stopping the RRM measurement on an inter-system neighboring cell (paragraphs 93, 135).
Consider claim 27 and as applied to claim 20. Koskinen discloses wherein different frequency bands have independent the relaxation factors (paragraph 170).
Consider claim 28 and as applied to claim 20. Koskinen discloses wherein a value of the relaxation factor is determined according to a configuration situation of a discontinuous reception DRX cycle of the connected UE; wherein the connected UE is not configured with a DRX cycle, and a value of the relaxation factor is a first value; or, the connected UE is configured with a DRX cycle and the DRX cycle is greater than a first duration, and a value of the relaxation factor is a second value; or, the connected UE is configured with a DRX cycle and the DRX cycle is less than or equal to the first duration, and a value of the relaxation factor is a third value (paragraphs 117, 118).
Consider claim 30 and as applied to claim 20. Koskinen discloses wherein the relaxation factor is determined by the connected UE according to a met relaxation condition; wherein different relaxation conditions correspond to relaxation factors of different values; wherein the relaxation condition of the RRM measurement comprises at least one of the following: determining whether a motion state of the connected UE meets a stationary condition; or determining whether the connected UE is located in a non-marginal area of a serving cell (Koskinen; paragraphs 133, 134).
Consider claim 35. Koskinen discloses a communication device, comprising one or more processors, a transceiver, a memory and an executable program stored on the memory and capable of being operated by the one or more processors, wherein the executable program, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform steps of the method provided by claim 1 (paragraphs 16 and 18).
Consider claim 36. Koskinen discloses a non-transitory computer storage medium, storing an executable program, wherein the executable program, after being executed by one or more processors, is capable of implementing the method provided by claim 1 (paragraphs 16 and 18).
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.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0098538 A1, hereinafter Koskinen) in view of He (US PGPUB 2021/0352507 A1, hereinafter He ‘507).
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 3. Koskinen discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein the determining a relaxation configuration of the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor comprises: upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor; or, upon determining that the relaxation manner is stopping the RRM measurement, determining a duration of stopping the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor; wherein the cycle associated with the RRM measurement comprises at least one of the following: a recognition cycle of RRM measurement on a serving cell; a measurement cycle of RRM measurement on the serving cell; a recognition cycle of RRM measurement on a neighboring cell; or a measurement cycle of RRM measurement on the neighboring cell.
However, He ’507 teaches wherein the determining a relaxation configuration of the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor comprises: upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor; or, upon determining that the relaxation manner is stopping the RRM measurement, determining a duration of stopping the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor; wherein the cycle associated with the RRM measurement comprises at least one of the following: a recognition cycle of RRM measurement on a serving cell; a measurement cycle of RRM measurement on the serving cell; a recognition cycle of RRM measurement on a neighboring cell; or a measurement cycle of RRM measurement on the neighboring cell (paragraph 75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of He ‘507 into the invention of Koskinen in order to provide additional power saving at the UE.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0098538 A1, hereinafter Koskinen) in view of He (US PGPUB 2021/0352507 A1, hereinafter He ‘507) in view of Chen et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0053350 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 5. The combination of Koskinen and He ‘507 disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor comprises: determining the relaxation factor for the RRM measurement of the connected UE; and obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement by increasing the associated cycle before the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor.
However, Chen teaches wherein the upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor comprises: determining the relaxation factor for the RRM measurement of the connected UE; and obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement by increasing the associated cycle before the RRM measurement according to the relaxation factor (at least paragraphs 45, 49, 51, and 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen into the invention of Koskinen and He ‘507 in order to improve flexibility of determining the at least one radio resource management RRM measurement threshold.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 5. The combination of Koskinen and He ‘507 disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement relaxation according to the relaxation factor comprises: upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining the associated cycle after the RRM measurement relaxation based on a product of the relaxation factor and an associated cycle before the RRM measurement.
However, Chen teaches wherein upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining an associated cycle after the RRM measurement relaxation according to the relaxation factor comprises: upon determining that the relaxation manner is increasing the cycle associated with the RRM measurement, obtaining the associated cycle after the RRM measurement relaxation based on a product of the relaxation factor and an associated cycle before the RRM measurement (at least paragraphs 45, 49, 51, and 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Chen into the invention of Koskinen and He ‘507 in order to improve flexibility of determining the at least one radio resource management RRM measurement threshold.
Claims 8, 15, 17, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskinen et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0098538 A1, hereinafter Koskinen) in view of He (US PGPUB 2022/0312243 A1, hereinafter He ‘243).
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 2. Koskinen discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for the connected UE is smaller than a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for a non-connected UE.
However, He ‘243 teaches wherein a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for the connected UE is smaller than a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for a non-connected UE (paragraphs 78, 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of He ‘243 into the invention of Koskinen such that the network entity may configure a fewer number of measurement objects after RRM measurement relaxation is triggered, and a reduction in measurement objects may be supported by dedicated signaling.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 2. Koskinen discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach determining whether a relaxation condition for the RRM measurement of the connected UE is met; wherein the determining an RRM measurement relaxation comprises: determining that the relaxation condition for the RRM measurement of the connected UE is met, and determining to relax the RRM measurement; wherein the determining whether a relaxation condition for the RRM measurement of the connected UE is met comprises at least one of the following: determining whether a motion state of the connected UE meets a stationary condition; or determining whether the connected UE is located in a non-marginal area of a serving cell.
However, He ‘243 teaches determining whether a relaxation condition for the RRM measurement of the connected UE is met; wherein the determining an RRM measurement relaxation comprises: determining that the relaxation condition for the RRM measurement of the connected UE is met, and determining to relax the RRM measurement; wherein the determining whether a relaxation condition for the RRM measurement of the connected UE is met comprises at least one of the following: determining whether a motion state of the connected UE meets a stationary condition; or determining whether the connected UE is located in a non-marginal area of a serving cell (paragraphs 78, 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of He ‘243 into the invention of Koskinen such that the network entity may configure a fewer number of measurement objects after RRM measurement relaxation is triggered, and a reduction in measurement objects may be supported by dedicated signaling.
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 15. The combination of Koskinen and He disclose wherein the determining a relaxation factor for the RRM measurement of the connected UE comprises: determining a relaxation factor for the RRM measurement of the connected UE according to the met relaxation condition; wherein different relaxation conditions correspond to relaxation factors of different values (Koskinen; paragraphs 133, 134).
Consider claim 24 and as applied to claim 20. Koskinen discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach wherein a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for the connected UE is smaller than a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for a non-connected UE to relax RRM measurement.
However, He ‘243 teaches wherein a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for the connected UE is smaller than a relaxation factor of the RRM measurement for a non-connected UE to relax RRM measurement (paragraphs 78, 79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of He ‘243 into the invention of Koskinen such that the network entity may configure a fewer number of measurement objects after RRM measurement relaxation is triggered, and a reduction in measurement objects may be supported by dedicated signaling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
February 19, 2026