DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The instant Office Action is in response to communication filed on 6/9/2026.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-20 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are the base independent claims. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 16 are amended.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant files the Remark: see pages 11-13.
Applicant explains the claim construction based on the citations from the references that were mapped to the claim limitations under the Rejection. Such that, the claim requires combination of event A regarding neighbor cell measurement with an event H related to the altitude of the UE, which is an event of a different category. Applicant argues Takahashi merely discloses that Event A3* combines a beam quality condition (event X). Applicant further explains a combining operation as cited in Takahashi does not teach or suggest the claimed elements of the amended limitation. Applicant then argues about Ramachandra. Specifically, Applicant argues: “Ramachandra does not disclose that whether each condition is set from information about one event (one RRC parameter) or from separate information about each event (separate RRC parameters…) fails to disclose the specific condition is set from the events…Ramachandra does not describe that each condition is established from information about one event (one RRC parameter).”
--In response, the arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the secondary reference, Ramachandra, discloses (see page 8, lines 20-30) the limitation of “the event Hn is associated with altitude of the UE,” while the primary reference, Takahashi, discloses a Event A3*. Moreover, Ramachandra further discloses (see fig. 6A or page 42, line 25 - page 43, line 15) receiving the MDT configuration that comprises an event condition for triggering the MDT configuration… the event condition comprises any one or more of: an altitude of the wireless device is above a first threshold, hence Takahashi in view of Ramachandra discloses receiving configuration information including the claimed event K which is defined as a combination of event associated with neighbor cell measurement, and event associated with altitude of the UE. Therefore, the combination discloses all subject matter of claim 1.
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.
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, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takahashi et al (US 2023/0007521) in view of Ramachandra et al (WO 2022/264086).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a method performed by a user equipment (UE) in a communication system, the method comprising:
receiving, via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (fig. 6 & par 81; RRC Connection Reconfiguration; also par 60), measurement configuration information including information on an event K, wherein the predefined event K is defined as a combination of an event Ax (par 34-50; event Ax) and an event Hn (par 100; new events), where x is one of 3, 4, 5 and n is one of 1, 2 (examining note: since the claim shows a limitation in an alternative form, the prior art may teach either or both limitations, and this notice applies to subsequent occurrences of claim limitations that are in the alternative form) (par 118-119; in one modification example, the entry condition of Event A3* is defined as Event X1 added to the entering condition of Event A3), wherein the event Ax is associated with neighbor cell measurement (par 40; e.g. reception quality of the neighboring cell becomes better than the reception quality of the serving; also see par 118, thus X1 is treated as Hn in combining with Ax);
identifying whether an entering condition corresponding to the event K is satisfied, wherein the entering condition is satisfied in case that both a first entering condition corresponding to the event Ax and a second entering condition corresponding to the event Hn are fulfilled (fig. 7 & par 88-90; UE determines whether the trigger condition for starting measurement reporting; also par 118); and
transmitting a measurement report based on the identification (par 92; e.g. transmits a measurement report).
The reference discloses new events except the event Hn is associated with altitude of the UE (emphasis added), however Ramachandra discloses:
wherein the event Ax is associated with neighbor cell measurement, and wherein the event Hn is associated with altitude of the UE (Ramachandra, page 8, lines 20-30; e.g. when the height of the UE is above a threshold AND when cell measurement is fulfilling RSRP/RSRQ event; also see fig. 6A or page 42, line 25 - page 43, line 15; e.g. The MDT configuration comprises an event condition for triggering the MDT configuration… the event condition comprises any one or more of: an altitude of the wireless device is above a first threshold…).
In view of the above, 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 teaching of communication protocol configured for the electronic system of Ramachandra with the electronic system of Takahashi. One is motivated as such to target special needs when serving the UAV (Ramachandra, page 5, lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, Takahashi discloses:
identifying whether a leaving condition corresponding to the event K is satisfied, wherein the leaving condition is satisfied in case that both a first leaving condition corresponding to the event Ax and a second leaving condition corresponding to the second event Hn are fulfilled (par 88-89; e.g. if the leaving condition is satisfied, the UE 200 ends the measurement reporting).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi discloses:
wherein the information on the event K includes a first set of configuration parameters corresponding to the first event Ax and a second set of configuration parameters corresponding to the second event Hn (par 90, par 116-118; e.g. thresholds for each event).
Regarding claims 6, 9-11, 14-16 and 19-20, Takahashi in view of Ramachandra also discloses the subject matter according to similar mappings of claims 1, 4 and 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Velde et al (US 2010/0197300).
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 YAOTANG WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4023. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-18:00 ET (M, W, TH & alternate F).
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, HADI ARMOUCHE can be reached at 571-270-3618. 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.
/YAOTANG WANG/SCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights