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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 02/19/2026.
The claim(s) 27 has been canceled by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant's argument with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding receive a request from the network element to send the early measurement reporting report. The Examiner respectfully disagree, Priyanto teach, “By means of the EMR request, the network may be able to selectively activate transmission of the early measurement report (EMR)”, see para. 59; for further clarification Priyanto teach, “the BS may transmit an EMR request, based on the reception of the EMR indication. If the UE receives the EMR request, it will transmit the UL message carrying the EMR”, (see para. 59). Therefore, giving broadest reasonable interpretation (see MPEP 2111) to the claim language in particular to the applicant’s receive a request from the network element to send the early measurement reporting report, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would clearly understand Priyanto to teach this concept.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 19-22, 24-26 and 28-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyanto et al. (U.S. Pub. 20210195458) in view of Thangarasa et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220394532).
Regarding claim 19 Priyanto disclose, an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor read as: “processor 5021”; and at least one memory read as: “memory 5025” comprising computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor to cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network element, an early measurement reporting configuration para. 86, “at optional block 1020, an EMR request is received, e.g., from a BS”;
receive, from the network element, an indication of whether early measurement reporting during small data transmission is allowed para. 91, “At optional block 1020, an EMR request is received, e.g., from a BS, the EMR indication could be indicative of whether the wireless communication device is generally capable of transmitting the UL message carrying the EMR”; and
initiate small data read as: “a smaller TB can be introduced to carry these EMR” see para. 124 transmission to the network element para. 45, “the EMR may be transmitted together with an early data transmission (EDT) in Msg.3 of the RA procedure”, see Fig. 5B block 1074,
wherein the small data transmission comprises an early measurement reporting report when early measurement reporting is allowed para. 96, “receipt of the EMR request is a trigger criterion for performing the channel measurement at block 1073 and transmitting the RA UL message carrying the EMR at block 1074”.
receive a request from the network element to send the early measurement reporting report para. 59, “By means of the EMR request, the network may be able to selectively activate transmission of the early measurement report (EMR)”.
Priyanto does not specifically disclose, wherein the early measurement reporting report comprises measurements for cell reselection and the early measurement reporting. However, Thangarasa teach, “If the UE is provided with a cell list (measCellList) useful for early measurement, the UE considers the serving cell and the cell identified by each entry in the measCellList to be suitable for EMR”, see para. 5.
Priyanto and Thangarasa are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to early measurement reporting in a cellular communications system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thangarasa in the system of Priyanto so the system could obtain the necessary information to setup all the available resources to the UE capable of managing multiple connections. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce connection establishment latency and reduce the network reselection delay.
Regarding claim 20 Priyanto disclose, wherein the early measurement reporting report is included in one or more of initial small data transmission or subsequent small data transmission para. 45, “the EMR may be transmitted together with an early data transmission (EDT) in Msg.3 of the RA procedure”, see Fig. 5B block 1074.
Regarding claim 21 Priyanto disclose, wherein the initial small data transmission comprises a radio resource control message for small data transmission para. 123, “the EMR 160 can be piggybacked to the RRC connection request 162 (cf. FIG. 8)”.
Regarding claim 22 Priyanto disclose, wherein the subsequent small data transmission is performed after the one or more initial small data transmission para. 113, “from this the BS 101 explicitly knows that a subsequent UL RA message Msg.3 6003 will carry the EMR 160”.
Regarding claim 23 Priyanto does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured, with the at least one processor to cause the apparatus at least to: perform measurements of neighbor cells or serving cells for reselection and early measurement reporting. However, Thangarasa teach, “If the UE is provided with a cell list (measCellList) useful for early measurement, the UE considers the serving cell and the cell identified by each entry in the measCellList to be suitable for EMR”, see para. 5.
Priyanto and Thangarasa are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to early measurement reporting in a cellular communications system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thangarasa in the system of Priyanto so the system could obtain the necessary information to setup all the available resources to the UE capable of managing multiple connections. The motivation for doing so would have been to reduce connection establishment latency and improve the network coverage mapping.
Regarding claim 24 Priyanto disclose, wherein initiation of the initial small data transmission comprises starting a small data transmission procedure by transmitting an initial small data transmission message para. 5, “the EMR indication relates to whether an UL message of one or more associated RA procedures carries or does not carry the EMR”.
Regarding claim 25 Priyanto disclose, wherein transmission of the early measurement reporting report is triggered when one or more signaling radio bearers are configured for small data transmission, or when early measurement reporting is configured for small data transmission para. 55, “The RRC control message may prospectively (and explicitly) indicate whether the EMR will or will not be activated for the next one or more RA procedure performed by the UE”.
Regarding claim 26 Priyanto disclose, wherein transmission of the early measurement reporting report is performed when one or more conditions are satisfied para. 47, “As a general rule, various trigger criteria for activating or deactivating the EMR at the given UE are conceivable”.
Regarding claim 28 Priyanto disclose, wherein the radio resource control message prompts an integrity check for the small data transmission para. 106, “the AN may determine whether another measurement report is still up-to-date. Depending on this check, the AN may or may not execute block 1082, i.e., the AN may or may not transmit the EMR”.
Regarding claim 29 Priyanto disclose, wherein the radio resource control message comprises an indication to stop early measurement reporting measurements para. 116, “the EMR request 169 can be transmitted as an extension to the UL grant carried by the RAR message 6002. In such a case, a non-EMR-capable UE 102 will read the standard UL grant and will not transmit EMR”.
Claim 1 recites a method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 19 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claims 2 and 31 the limitations of claims 2 and 31 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 20.
Claim 30 recites an apparatus corresponding to the apparatus of claim 19 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claims 32-36 the limitations of claims 32-36, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 21-22 and 27-29, respectively.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair–direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866–217–9197 (toll–free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800–786–9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571–272–1000.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights