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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been considered for examination.
With regard to the objections to Specification and Claims, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/20/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the objections to Specification and Claims have been withdrawn.
With regard to the 102 and 103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments filed 01/20/2026 in view of the amendments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are not applied to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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, 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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US Publication No. 2021/0105647) in view of Sedin et al (US Publication No. 2022/0104082) and further in view of Helka et al (US Publication No. 2023/0308168)1.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses, a wireless communication method [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; a method performed by a wireless device], comprising:
receiving, by a User Equipment (UE), a threshold sent by a network device [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0304, in step 1001, a wireless device may receive, from a network, a first measurement configuration including at least one of relaxed measurement conditions (i.e., first relaxation condition); further see ¶0308, the first relaxed measurement condition may be that the wireless device is stationary or with low mobility. For example, the wireless device may be considered as stationary or with low mobility based on that measurement results of a serving cell does not change more than a first threshold value during a time period], wherein the threshold comprises at least one of . . a second threshold, and the second threshold is used for determining whether the UE is located within a service time range of the serving cell [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0308, the wireless device may be considered as stationary or with low mobility based on that measurement results of a serving cell does not change more than a first threshold value during a time period; further see ¶0313]; and
determining, by the UE, according to the threshold, whether to perform Radio Resource Management (RRM) measurement relaxation in a neighbor cell [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0337, in step 1005, a wireless device may perform relaxed measurement on the serving frequency and/or the at least one of neighbor frequencies (i.e., neighbor cell) based on the evaluation; further see ¶0334, in step 1004, a wireless device may evaluate the at least one of the relaxed measurement conditions based on measurement results of the serving frequency; note that evaluating the relaxed measurement conditions are performed according to the first threshold value; further see ¶0305, the wireless device perform measurement for the cell selection and/or the cell reselection/RRM measurement],
wherein the threshold further comprises a third threshold and the third threshold is used for determining whether the UE is located within a signal coverage area of the serving cell, and the third threshold is used for determining, in conjunction with signal information of a reference signal received by the UE, whether the UE meets a third criterion, and the third criterion is not-cell-edge criterion based on signal information of the reference signal [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0304 and 0308-0309, the second threshold value; further see [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0382, the UE may be considered as being not at cell edge (i.e., within a signal coverage area of the cell) based on that measurement results (RSRP, RSRQ, SINR) of a serving cell is above a threshold value],
wherein a condition that the UE performs the RRM measurement relaxation in the neighbor cell [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0382-0383, one or more relaxed measurement condition(s) that the UE performs the relaxed measurement in the neighbor cell] comprises at least one of:
the UE being determined to meet the second criterion and the third criterion [FIG. 11; its related descriptions; ¶0382-0383, the UE being determined to meet the one or more relaxed measurement condition(s); note that the one or more relaxed measurement conditions include a condition where the UE is stationary or low mobility (i.e., second criterion) (see ¶0379-0380) and a condition where the UE is not at cell edge (i.e., third criterion) (see ¶0381-0382)].
Although Lee discloses, “the third threshold is used for determining, in conjunction with signal information of a reference signal received by the UE, whether the UE meets a third criterion, and the third criterion is not-cell-edge criterion based on signal information of the reference signal” as set forth above, Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sedin discloses,
wherein the threshold comprises at least one of a first threshold [¶0105-0106, distance threshold], the first threshold is used for determining whether the UE is located within a service space range of a serving cell [¶0106, the distance threshold is used for determining whether the UE closes to the cell or the outskirts of the cel],
in a case that the threshold comprises the first threshold, the first threshold is used for determining, in conjunction with location assistance information, whether the UE meets a first criterion, and the first criterion is an enhanced not-cell-edge criterion based on the location assistance information [¶0105-0106, the distance threshold is used for determining, in conjunction with a distance between the UE and the cell, whether the distance of the UE to the cell is smaller or larger than the distance threshold (e.g., d0), the first criterion is a condition where the UE approaches the outskirts of the cell].
a condition that the UE performs the RRM measurement relaxation in the neighbor cell comprises at least one of: the UE being determined to meet a first criterion based on the first threshold, wherein the first criterion is an enhanced not-cell-edge criterion based on a location assistance information [¶0105-0106, the distance threshold is used for determining, in conjunction with a distance between the UE and the cell, whether the distance of the UE to the cell is smaller or larger than the distance threshold (e.g., d0), the first criterion is a condition where the UE approaches the outskirts of the cell].
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Lee with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Sedin to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Sedin into the system of Lee would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to reduce unnecessary measurement operations and save UE power, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Lee in view of Sedin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Helka discloses, wherein in a case that the threshold comprises the second threshold, the second threshold is used for determining, in conjunction with a current moment, whether the UE meets a second criterion, and the second criterion is an enhanced not-cell-edge criterion based on the current moment [¶0106, the UE 412 can determine whether the serving cell quality is sufficiently good (i.e., not-cell-edge criterion) through one or more initial serving cell quality measurements and if this/these consistently result in a serving cell quality above a configured or specified threshold value, then the UE 412 may omit neighbor cell measurements until Tservice < Tthreshold] see also e.g., ¶0067 of US provisional application no. 63/066,585 filed on 08/17/2020.
It is noted that the above-mentioned feature is a known technique in the field Applicant's endeavor, e.g., telecommunication art.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the system of Lee in view of Sedin with "the above-mentioned known feature(s)" taught by Helka to reach the claimed invention as set forth above. Since one having ordinary skill in the art could have recognized that applying the known technique taught by Helka into the system of Lee in view of Sedin would have yield predictable results and/or resulted in the improved system, such as e.g., ensure to reduce unnecessary measurement operations and save UE power, such a modification (or application) would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Lee discloses, wherein a message for transmitting the threshold comprises at least one of: a system message [¶0363, the first measurement configuration may be provided via broadcast system information; further see ¶0304, the first measurement configuration including at least one of relaxed measurement conditions and ¶0308, the first relaxed measurement condition may be that the wireless device is stationary or with low mobility. For example, the wireless device may be considered as stationary or with low mobility based on that measurement results of a serving cell does not change more than a first threshold value during a time period ].
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sedin discloses, wherein the location assistance information comprises at least one of: a distance between the UE and a satellite of the serving cell [[¶0106, distance between the UE and the cell, stated as “ the UE and/or network uses the UE distances d, and the above list of distance thresholds d0, . . . , dN-1 for determining the value of the threshold SSearchDeltaP for relaxing non-serving cell inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements. For a UE close to the cell center a higher tolerance, i.e. large SSearchDeltaP is acceptable. As the UE approaches the outskirts of the cell a lower tolerance is relevan”; further see FIG. 1 and its descriptions; satellite network and cell].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Sedin in the system of Lee for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 and particularly “the first threshold” as set forth above.
Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sedin discloses, wherein the first threshold comprises at least one of: a distance threshold, the distance threshold being a threshold of a distance between the UE and a satellite [¶0106, distance between the UE and the cell, stated as “ the UE and/or network uses the UE distances d, and the above list of distance thresholds d0, . . . , dN-1 for determining the value of the threshold SSearchDeltaP for relaxing non-serving cell inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements. For a UE close to the cell center a higher tolerance, i.e. large SSearchDeltaP is acceptable. As the UE approaches the outskirts of the cell a lower tolerance is relevan”; further see FIG. 1 and its descriptions; satellite network and cell].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Sedin in the system of Lee for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Lee does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Sedin discloses, wherein a first condition that the UE meets the first criterion comprises at least one of: a distance between the UE and a satellite [¶0106, distance between the UE and the cell, stated as “ the UE and/or network uses the UE distances d, and the above list of distance thresholds d0, . . . , dN-1 for determining the value of the threshold SSearchDeltaP for relaxing non-serving cell inter-frequency and/or inter-RAT measurements. For a UE close to the cell center a higher tolerance, i.e. large SSearchDeltaP is acceptable. As the UE approaches the outskirts of the cell a lower tolerance is relevan”; further see FIG. 1 and its descriptions; satellite network and cell].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Sedin in the system of Lee for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Lee in view of Sedin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Helka discloses, wherein the second threshold comprises at least one of: an absolute time threshold [¶0106, the UE 412 can determine whether the serving cell quality is sufficiently good (i.e., not-cell-edge criterion) through one or more initial serving cell quality measurements and if this/these consistently result in a serving cell quality above a configured or specified threshold value, then the UE 412 may omit neighbor cell measurements until Tservice < Tthreshold; note that Tthreshold is an absolute time threshold] see also e.g., ¶0067 of US provisional application no. 63/066,585 filed on 08/17/2020.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Helka in the system of Lee in view of Sedin for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Lee in view of Sedin does not explicitly disclose (see, italicized limitations), but Helka discloses, wherein a second condition that the UE meets the second criterion comprises at least one of: the current moment being earlier than an absolute time threshold [¶0106, the UE 412 can determine whether the serving cell quality is sufficiently good (i.e., not-cell-edge criterion) through one or more initial serving cell quality measurements and if this/these consistently result in a serving cell quality above a configured or specified threshold value, then the UE 412 may omit neighbor cell measurements until Tservice < Tthreshold] see also e.g., ¶0067 of US provisional application no. 63/066,585 filed on 08/17/2020.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the above-mentioned feature(s) as taught by Helka in the system of Lee in view of Sedin for similar rationales set forth above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Sedin and Helka discloses, the method according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Lee discloses, wherein the condition used by the UE to perform the RRM measurement relaxation in the neighbor cell is determined at least according to indication information sent by the network device to the UE, and the indication information is configured to indicate the condition that is indicated by the network device and used by the UE to perform the RRM measurement relaxation in the neighbor cell [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; ¶0304, in step 1001, a wireless device may receive, from a network, a first measurement configuration including at least one of relaxed measurement conditions (i.e., first relaxation condition); further see ¶0308, the first relaxed measurement condition may be that the wireless device is stationary or with low mobility. For example, the wireless device may be considered as stationary or with low mobility based on that measurement results of a serving cell does not change more than a first threshold value during a time period].
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses, a User Equipment (UE) [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; a wireless device; further see FIG. 2, wireless device 100], comprising a processor [FIG. 2, processor 102; note that every wireless device has at least one processor]; and a memory [FIG. 2, memory104; note that every wireless device has at least one memory] for storing a computer program executable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the following operations when running the computer program [¶0082, the one or more memories 104 and 204 may be connected to the one or more processors 102 and 202 and store various types of data, signals, messages, information, programs, code, instructions, and/or commands].
Since claim 12 recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 12 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses, a network device [FIG. 10; its related descriptions; a network; further see FIG. 2, wireless device/base station 200], comprising a processor [FIG. 2, processor 202; note that every base station has at least one processor]; and a memory [FIG. 2, memory 204; note that every base station has at least one memory] for storing a computer program executable on the processor, wherein the processor is configured to execute the following operations when running the computer program [¶0082, the one or more memories 104 and 204 may be connected to the one or more processors 102 and 202 and store various types of data, signals, messages, information, programs, code, instructions, and/or commands].
Since claim 13 is merely different from claim 1 in that it recites claimed features from the perspective of a base station, but recites similar features to claim 1 without further additional features, claim 13 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected at least based on a similar rationale applied to claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cao et al (US Publication No. 2023/0337035) [FIG. 9; its related description; ¶0312-0325]
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 SUN JONG KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3216. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am-5:30pm (M-T).
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.f attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/SUN JONG KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
1 Helka claims priority of US Provisional Application No. 63/066,585 filed on 08/17/2020, thus Helka is qualified as a prior art under 102(a)(2) for the instant application with the effective filing date 04/30/2021.
Prosecution Insights