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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 USC 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the application file.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0116838 A1, hereinafter Kumar) in view of Da Silva et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0040461 A1, hereinafter Da Silva).
Consider claim 1. Kumar discloses one or more processors comprising circuitry that executes instructions to cause a user equipment (UE) to perform operations (paragraph 52, read as controller/processor of the UE performs one or more techniques associated with handover optimization) comprising:
determining, based on contextual information associated with the UE, an anticipated mobility event to occur during a time window (paragraph 96, read as indicating/determining UE assistance information includes an indication of the respective probabilities that the UE 120 will encounter each of the one or more candidate base stations, may include an indication of respective timings that the UE 120 will travel into the cells of the one or more candidate base stations, may include an indication of respective time durations that the UE 120 will be located in the cells of each of the one or more candidate base stations);
transmitting, to the network entity, a second message indicative of the mobility event (paragraphs 95, 96, read as the UE transmits an uplink communication including the UE assistance information); and
determining to make a connectivity change when the mobility event occurs (fig. 3, paragraphs 73, 107, read as determining that a handover condition is satisfied based on the probabilities that the UE 120 will encounter each of the one or more candidate base stations).
Kumar substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach transmitting, to a network entity, a first message indicating a capability of the UE.
However, Da Silva teaches transmitting, to a network entity, a first message indicating a capability of the UE (fig. 5, paragraph 900, read as the UE transmits capability information of the UE to the network node).
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 Da Silva into the invention of Kumar in order to determine whether the UE has the capability to perform certain operations so that signaling between the UE and network can be reduced, resulting in reduced power consumption at the UE.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose determining that the mobility event occurs during the time window; and making the connectivity change when the mobility event occurs (Kumar; paragraphs 104, 106).
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein determining to make the connectivity change when the mobility event occurs comprises: receiving, from the network entity, a third message configuring the UE to make the connectivity change when the mobility event occurs (Kumar; paragraphs 72, 95).
Consider claim 4 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose determining, based on an update of the contextual information, an anticipated change to the mobility event; and transmitting, to the network entity, a fourth message indicative of the change to the mobility event (Kumar; paragraph 170).
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the connectivity change comprises at least one of: (i) a handover of the UE from a source base station to a target base station, or (ii) changing an operating frequency band of the UE (Kumar; paragraph 98).
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the contextual information comprises at least one of: a user's interaction with the UE, a mobility history of the UE, information obtained from one or more sensors of the UE, or contextual information obtained from other UEs (Kumar; paragraphs 86, 96).
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein determining the anticipated mobility event based on the contextual information comprises: determining, based on the contextual information, an anticipated user behavior that causes the UE to change location during the time window; and determining a correlation between the location change and the mobility event (Kumar; paragraph 82).
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the mobility event comprises at least one of: a change of a radio environment of the UE, or a change of a data traffic of the UE (Kumar; paragraph 84).
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose receiving, from the network entity, one or more information elements that indicate a type of the mobility events supported by the UE (Da Silva; paragraphs 170, 232).
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 Da Silva into the invention of Kumar in order to determine whether the UE has the capability to perform certain operations so that signaling between the UE and network can be reduced, resulting in reduced power consumption at the UE.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the third message comprises one or more parameters for the UE to make the connectivity change, wherein the UE accesses the one or more parameters upon occurrence of the mobility event, and wherein the one or more parameters configure at least one of: a frequency band, an antenna, a beam, a timer that measures a radio link failure, a random access channel (RACH) preamble, a scheme for link adaptation, or a maximum number of retransmissions (Kumar; paragraphs 72, 109).
Consider claim 13. Kumar discloses a network entity, comprising one or more processors configured to execute instructions that cause the network entity to perform operations (paragraph 52, read as controller/processor of the base station performs one or more techniques associated with handover optimization) comprising:
receiving, from the UE, a second message indicating an anticipated mobility event that the UE predicts to occur during a time window (paragraphs 95, 96, the UE transmits, which the serving base station receives, an uplink communication including the UE assistance information read as indicating UE assistance information that includes an indication of the respective probabilities that the UE 120 will encounter each of the one or more candidate base stations, may include an indication of respective timings that the UE 120 will travel into the cells of the one or more candidate base stations, may include an indication of respective time durations that the UE 120 will be located in the cells of each of the one or more candidate base stations); and
configuring, in anticipation of a connectivity change of the UE, one or more base stations according to the anticipated mobility event (paragraphs 104, 106, read as serving base station prepares/transmits the RRC reconfiguration communication after communicating with the one or more target base stations in preparation for a handover of the UE 120, where the one or more target base stations are among the one or more candidate base stations indicated by the UE in the UE assistance information).
Kumar substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a first message indicating a capability of the UE.
However, Da Silva teaches receiving, from a user equipment (UE), a first message indicating a capability of the UE (fig. 5, paragraph 900, read as the UE transmits capability information of the UE, which is received by network node).
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 Da Silva into the invention of Kumar in order to determine whether the UE has the capability to perform certain operations so that signaling between the UE and network can be reduced, resulting in reduced power consumption at the UE.
Consider claim 14 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose transmitting a third message to the UE, the third message configuring the UE to make the connectivity change when the mobility event occurs (Kumar; paragraphs 72, 95).
Consider claim 16 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the third message comprises one or more parameters for the UE to make the connectivity change, and wherein the one or more parameters configure at least one of: a frequency band, an antenna, a beam, a timer that measures a radio link failure, a random access channel (RACH) preamble, a scheme for link adaptation, or a maximum number of retransmissions (Kumar; paragraphs 72, 109).
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose receiving a fourth message from the UE, the fourth message indicating an anticipated change to the mobility event; and reconfiguring the one or more base stations according to the anticipated change to the mobility event (Kumar; paragraphs 72, 73).
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the connectivity change comprises a handover of the UE from a source base station to a target base station of the one or more base stations (Kumar; paragraph 98).
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 13. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose wherein the connectivity change comprises changing an operating frequency band of the UE (Kumar; paragraphs 72, 109).
Consider claim 20. Kumar disclose a method, comprising:
determining, based on contextual information associated with the UE, an anticipated mobility event to occur during a time window (paragraph 96, read as indicating/determining UE assistance information includes an indication of the respective probabilities that the UE 120 will encounter each of the one or more candidate base stations, may include an indication of respective timings that the UE 120 will travel into the cells of the one or more candidate base stations, may include an indication of respective time durations that the UE 120 will be located in the cells of each of the one or more candidate base stations);
transmitting, to the network entity, a second message indicative of the mobility event (paragraphs 95, 96, read as the UE transmits an uplink communication including the UE assistance information); and
determining to make a connectivity change when the mobility event occurs (fig. 3, paragraphs 73, 107, read as determining that a handover condition is satisfied based on the probabilities that the UE 120 will encounter each of the one or more candidate base stations).
Kumar substantially discloses the claimed invention but fails to teach transmitting, to a network entity, a first message indicating a capability of a user equipment (UE).
However, Da Silva teaches transmitting, to a network entity, a first message indicating a capability of a user equipment (UE) (fig. 5, paragraph 900, read as the UE transmits capability information of the UE to the network node).
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 Da Silva into the invention of Kumar in order to determine whether the UE has the capability to perform certain operations so that signaling between the UE and network can be reduced, resulting in reduced power consumption at the UE.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0116838 A1, hereinafter Kumar) in view of Da Silva et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0040461 A1, hereinafter Da Silva) in view of Fonseca dos Santos (EP 2 615 857 A1).
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 3. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein the third message further indicates a load prediction on one or more base stations associated with the network entity.
However, Fonseca dos Santos teaches wherein the third message further indicates a load prediction on one or more base stations associated with the network entity (paragraph 64).
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 Fonseca dos Santos into the invention of Kumar and Da Silva in order to more accurately predicting future demands on individual components of a communication network.
Consider claim 15 and as applied to claim 14. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach making a load prediction for the one or more base stations based on the second message, wherein the third message further indicates the load prediction.
However, Fonseca teaches making a load prediction for the one or more base stations based on the second message, wherein the third message further indicates the load prediction (paragraph 64).
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 Fonseca dos Santos into the invention of Kumar and Da Silva in order to more accurately predicting future demands on individual components of a communication network.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0116838 A1, hereinafter Kumar) in view of Da Silva et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0040461 A1, hereinafter Da Silva) in view of Chen et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0121161 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 8. The combination of Kumar and Da Silva disclose the claimed invention but fail to teach wherein determining the anticipated user behavior based on the contextual information comprises: inputting the contextual information to a machine learning engine; calculating, using the machine learning engine, a probability that the user behavior will occur during the time window; and comparing the probability with a predetermined confidence threshold.
However, Chen teaches wherein determining the anticipated user behavior based on the contextual information comprises: inputting the contextual information to a machine learning engine; calculating, using the machine learning engine, a probability that the user behavior will occur during the time window; and comparing the probability with a predetermined confidence threshold (paragraphs 113, 115).
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 Kumar and Da Silva in order to optimize network deployment, operation, and maintenance to improve network performance and user experience.
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 26, 2026