DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed 17 December 2025. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, 18-19, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2022/0408286) in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0103419).
For Claims 1 and 12, Kumar teaches a method for a user equipment (UE) in a wireless network, and a user equipment (UE), comprising: a transceiver that transmits and receives radio frequency (RF) signal in a wireless network and various functional modules (see paragraphs 8-9); the method comprising:
collecting, by the UE, a plurality of UE metrics for a UE traffic profile matrix, wherein the UE traffic profile matrix is used to determine a plurality of UE traffic types based on the plurality of UE metrics (see paragraphs 7, 29, 68-69, 79);
determining a UE traffic type based on the collected UE metrics using the UE traffic profile matrix (see paragraphs 7, 73-74, 79, 109);
adjusting a set of UE configurations selecting from a set of transmission configurations based on the UE traffic type when one or more predefined conditions are met (see paragraphs 7, 68, 83-84: selecting uplink transmission power);
monitoring one or more communication quality metrics after adjusting the set of UE configurations (see paragraphs 7, 68); and
iterating the determining traffic type procedure and the adjusting UE configurations procedure (see paragraphs 7, 68).
While Kumar does teach making adjustments to the transmission configuration based on the UE traffic type, Kumar as applied above is not explicit as to, but Lee teaches selecting from a set of RX configurations (see paragraphs 12, 80, 101: CE mode based on channel quality).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to adjust the coverage enhancement mode based on channel quality as in Lee when optimizing the configuration as in Kumar. The motivation would be to improve throughput.
For Claims 2 and 13, Kumar teaches the method, wherein the plurality of UE metrics includes one or more elements comprising a uplink/downlink slot duty ratio, a buffer status report, a throughput, a block error rate, and a UE modulation and coding scheme (see paragraphs 68, 80).
For Claims 3 and 14, Kumar teaches the method, wherein the plurality of UE metrics includes elements from one or more sources comprising one or more lower layer reports, one or more high layer configuration, and application processor-assisted information (see paragraph 55: measurement reporting).
For Claims 4 and 15, Kumar teaches the method, wherein the plurality of UE metrics includes both uplink (UL) metrics and downlink (DL) metrics (see abstract: uplink metrics, paragraphs 80-81: monitoring UL and DL).
For Claims 6 and 17, Kumar as applied above is not explicit as to, but Lee teaches the method, wherein the set of UE configuration includes one or more RX settings comprising an RX antenna number, receiver mode, coverage enhancement (CE) mode, a number of multiple input and multiple output (MIMO) search path, dynamic voltage and frequency scaling (DVFS), and reception antenna selection (see paragraphs 12, 80, 101: CE mode based on channel quality).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to adjust the coverage enhancement mode based on channel quality as in Lee when optimizing the configuration as in Kumar. The motivation would be to improve throughput.
For Claims 7 and 18, Kumar teaches the method, wherein each traffic type is preconfigured with a set of corresponding predefined settings for the set of UE configurations (see paragraph 89: predefined setting calculation).
For Claims 8 and 19, Kumar teaches the method, wherein each traffic type is configured with corresponding predefined triggering thresholds to trigger the adjusting UE configurations procedure (see abstract).
For Claims 11 and 22, Kumar teaches the method, wherein the one or more communication quality metrics include block error rate (BLER), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), transmission power, adjacent channel leakage ratio (ACLR) or error vector magnitude (EVM) (see paragraph 68).
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2022/0408286) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0103419) as applied to claims 1, 4, 12, and 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2011/0319120).
For Claims 5 and 16, while Kumar does teach looking at UL transmission power (see paragraph 121) Kumar as applied above is not explicit as to, but Chen teaches the method, wherein the set of UE configuration includes one or more TX settings comprising a maximum power reduction (MPR) value, a power amplifier (PA) voltage, a TX antenna number, Transmission antenna selection, Transmission path selection, and a switch setting of a crest factor reduction (CFR), digital pre-distortion (DPD), envelope tracking (ET) switch (see paragraphs 170-171: transmission power based on MPR value).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use MPR value as in Chen when adjusting transmission settings as in Kumar. One of ordinary skill would have been able to do so with the reasonably predictable result of selecting an appropriate transmission power based on a known metric.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 20-21, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2022/0408286) and Lee et al. (US 2018/0103419) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 2023/0209463).
For Claims 9 and 20, Kumar as applied above is not explicit as to, but Shih teaches the method, wherein the one or more predefined conditions comprises a power-saving trigger when the one or more communication quality metrics become higher than one or more predefined corresponding power-saving thresholds, and a reverting trigger when the one or more communication quality metrics become lower than one or more predefined corresponding reverting thresholds (see paragraphs 206-206 and 116-118: switching parameters including thresholds, switching between power saving and normal modes).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ thresholds as in Shih to control the optimization of the configuration as in Kumar. The motivation would be to ensure that the UE is able to respond to changing network conditions.
For Claims 10 and 21, Kumar as applied above is not explicit as to, but Shih teaches the method, wherein the adjusting UE configurations procedure adjusts the set of UE configurations to a preconfigured settings based on the UE traffic type when the power-saving trigger condition is met (see paragraph 69: preconfiguration of power saving mode).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to employ preconfigured settings as in Shih to control the optimization of the configuration as in Kumar. The motivation would be to ensure that the UE is able to respond quickly to changing network conditions.
Response to Arguments
The amendment filed 17 December 2025 has been entered.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections over prior art have been fully considered, but are either not persuasive or moot in view of the new grounds of rejection introduced herein. The claims remain rejected under 35 USC 103.
Please note that the claim makes no requirement as to what is meant by “traffic type” and in the claim, “traffic type” is only characterized by the metrics used to measure it. The metrics in the prior art are therefore sufficient to teach the claimed traffic type.
Likewise, the claim makes no requirement as to the nature of the matrix. The claimed matrix is some data structure containing measured values. Moreover, a matrix may have only a single row or column, so the set of metrics monitored and stored in the prior art is sufficient to read on the claimed matrix.
As to a set of configurations, please note that a set need only include a single item.
With respect to teachings of Kumar, the iterative monitoring of metrics and determining if the measured values are within the required ranges is therefore a characterization of a traffic type. The selection of a transmission parameter based on the determination is a selection of a transmission (or reception) configuration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhuang et al. (US 2017/0223626) teaches a system in which a UE selects a cell based on measured values.
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 CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 3/3/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466