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 .
Response filed 12/7/2025 is acknowledged.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, or added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 11, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al. (US20190150054A1), hereafter Ogawa, in view of Shen (US20240422634A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Ogawa discloses a cell switching method (FIG. 5, [0032] A process according to a communication medium switching method of the mobile communication device 1, FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating the communication medium switching process of the mobile communication device) comprising: determining, by a processor of a user equipment (UE), whether a serving cell is a platform cell or a tunnel cell (FIG. 5, [0032] the mobile communication device 1, the switching control unit 15 acquires information on a position of the train 2 from the position information acquiring unit (not shown) and checks whether or not the train 2 has entered a monitoring area including a boundary between travel sections (step S1); [0033] If the train 2 has entered a monitoring area (step S2), the switching control unit 15 gives instruction to the radio wave condition monitoring unit 13 such that the radio wave condition monitoring unit 13 monitors the radio wave condition of a first communication medium having a good radio wave condition in a first travel section in which the train 2 is currently traveling; and the radio wave condition of a second communication medium having a good radio wave condition in a second travel section in which the train 2 will travel after the first travel section; FIG. 4, [0025] communication device 1 stores the communication medium information indicating a communication medium having a good radio wave condition for travel sections “a” to “h”, examples of which include travel section “b” in a tunnel 51 in the travel section “d” including the station 52); and determining by the processor, whether to restrain the serving cell from switching to a neighbor cell based on at least one parameter associated with the serving cell in response to the serving cell being the platform cell or the tunnel cell (FIG. 5, [0034] On the basis of the monitoring results provided by the radio wave condition monitoring unit 13, the switching control unit 15 controls switchover from the first communication medium to the second communication medium, and gives instruction to the radio communication switching unit 12 at the timing of switchover from the first communication medium to the second communication medium (step S3)).
Ogawa discloses “restraining…from switching” as shown above, but does not expressly disclose the particular condition being the platform or tunnel cell meeting at least one condition, though Ogawa clearly discloses (i.e. Fig. 4) monitoring the various communication mediums/cells in different sections of a train/subway environment including different travel sections illustrates the ability to recognize/distinguish those mediums among tunnel and station/platform sections, including to control the timing and position of the switching among mediums based on the monitored conditions of the mediums corresponding with the sections as well as the position of the switching instruction with respect to the boundary between sections, thereby meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining whether to restrain” the switching between mediums.
Nevertheless, further analogous art to Shen (Title; Terminal Communication Mode Adjustment) includes platform or tunnel cells meeting at least one condition as a basis for switching determinations (paragraph 34, 52; Fig. 10; cell handover compensation adjustment based on switching threshold of a train at the edge of two cells including tunnels and stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ogawa by basing switching determinations on whether the platform or tunnel cell meets at least one condition, as shown by Shen, thereby reduced cell handovers and improved system performance.
Regarding claim 11,
Ogawa discloses user equipment (UE) for cell switching, comprising: a processor (FIG. 6, [0037] the processing circuit of the mobile communication device 1 is implemented by a CPU and a memory, when the processing circuit is implemented by a CPU 91 and a memory 92, the functions of the radio communication switching unit 12, the radio wave condition monitoring unit 13, and the switching control unit 15 are implemented by software, firmware, or a combination of software and firmware, note that the CPU 91 may be a processing device, a computing device, a microprocessor, a microcomputer, a processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), or the like) determining whether a serving cell is a platform cell or a tunnel cell (please refer to the rejection of claim 1 above), and determining whether to restrain the serving cell from switching to a neighbor cell based on at least one parameter associated with the serving cell in response to the serving cell being the platform cell or the tunnel cell (please refer to the rejection of claim 1 above).
Ogawa discloses “restraining…from switching” as shown above, but does not expressly disclose the particular condition being the platform or tunnel cell meeting at least one condition, though Ogawa clearly discloses (i.e. Fig. 4) monitoring the various communication mediums/cells in different sections of a train/subway environment including different travel sections illustrates the ability to recognize/distinguish those mediums among tunnel and station/platform sections, including to control the timing and position of the switching among mediums based on the monitored conditions of the mediums corresponding with the sections as well as the position of the switching instruction with respect to the boundary between sections, thereby meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining whether to restrain” the switching between mediums.
Nevertheless, further analogous art to Shen (Title; Terminal Communication Mode Adjustment) includes platform or tunnel cells meeting at least one condition as a basis for switching determinations (paragraph 34, 52; Fig. 10; cell handover compensation adjustment based on switching threshold of a train at the edge of two cells including tunnels and stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ogawa by basing switching determinations on whether the platform or tunnel cell meets at least one condition, as shown by Shen, thereby reduced cell handovers and improved system performance.
Regarding claims 5 and 15,
Ogawa discloses determining, by the processor, that the UE enters a subway mode in response to the serving cell being switched (FIG. 4, [0024], control for switching the communication medium) to the platform cell (FIG. 4, [0025], travel section “d” or “h” station tunnel 52 or 54) or the tunnel cell (FIG. 4, [0025], travel section “b” or “f” tunnel 51 or 53); and determining, by the processor, that the UE leaves the subway mode in response to the serving cell being switched to a cell (FIG. 4, [0024], control for switching the communication medium) from the platform cell (FIG. 4, [0025], travel section “d” or “h” station 52 or 54) or the tunnel cell (FIG. 4, [0025], travel section “b” or “f” tunnel 51 or 53) wherein the cell is not the platform cell or the tunnel cell (FIG. 4, [0025], travel section “a” “c” “e” or “g”).
Ogawa discloses “restraining…from switching” as shown above, but does not expressly disclose the particular condition being the platform or tunnel cell meeting at least one condition, though Ogawa clearly discloses (i.e. Fig. 4) monitoring the various communication mediums/cells in different sections of a train/subway environment including different travel sections illustrates the ability to recognize/distinguish those mediums among tunnel and station/platform sections, including to control the timing and position of the switching among mediums based on the monitored conditions of the mediums corresponding with the sections as well as the position of the switching instruction with respect to the boundary between sections, thereby meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining whether to restrain” the switching between mediums.
Nevertheless, further analogous art to Shen (Title; Terminal Communication Mode Adjustment) includes platform or tunnel cells meeting at least one condition as a basis for switching determinations (paragraph 34, 52; Fig. 10; cell handover compensation adjustment based on switching threshold of a train at the edge of two cells including tunnels and stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ogawa by basing switching determinations on whether the platform or tunnel cell meets at least one condition, as shown by Shen, thereby reduced cell handovers and improved system performance.
Regarding claims 10 and 20,
Ogawa discloses the processor further determines whether the neighbor is the platform cell in response to the serving cell being the tunnel cell (FIG. 4 [0026] monitoring area 62 including the boundary “bc”, a monitoring area 63 that is a preset area including the boundary “cd”), and switches the serving cell to the neighbor cell in response to the neighbor cell being the platform cell ([(0027] Ogawa discloses switching from travel section a to travel section b (tunnel 51); [0024] and FIG. 4 discloses additional monitoring boundaries including switching from travel section b to travel section c and switching from travel section c to travel section d (station 52)).
Ogawa discloses “restraining…from switching” as shown above, but does not expressly disclose the particular condition being the platform or tunnel cell meeting at least one condition, though Ogawa clearly discloses (i.e. Fig. 4) monitoring the various communication mediums/cells in different sections of a train/subway environment including different travel sections illustrates the ability to recognize/distinguish those mediums among tunnel and station/platform sections, including to control the timing and position of the switching among mediums based on the monitored conditions of the mediums corresponding with the sections as well as the position of the switching instruction with respect to the boundary between sections, thereby meeting a broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining whether to restrain” the switching between mediums.
Nevertheless, further analogous art to Shen (Title; Terminal Communication Mode Adjustment) includes platform or tunnel cells meeting at least one condition as a basis for switching determinations (paragraph 34, 52; Fig. 10; cell handover compensation adjustment based on switching threshold of a train at the edge of two cells including tunnels and stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Ogawa by basing switching determinations on whether the platform or tunnel cell meets at least one condition, as shown by Shen, thereby reduced cell handovers and improved system performance.
Claims 2, 3, 6-9, 12, 13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Shen further in view of Wallentin (WO 2022/010398A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12,
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose determining, by the processor, that the serving cell is the platform cell in response to a number of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) layers being higher than a first value, a synchronization signal (ss)-physical broadcast channel (PBCH)-BlockPower being lower than or equal to 5 and the serving cell having a lower variance.
Wallentin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches using UE measurements (page 23, lines 32-33; page 23, line 35 to page 24, line 1; page 24, lines 2-3) including thresholds that are greater than, equal to, or less than other values during conditional handover (CHO) procedures to improve mobility robustness (page 25, lines 19-24) and reduce unsuccessful handovers (page 25, lines 9-18). The measurements include a number of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) layers being higher than a first value (FIG. 27, antennas 2711, page 51, line 29, antennas 2762, the use of more than one antenna can be referred to as MIMO, page 49, lines 25 and 33-34), a synchronization signal (ss)-physical broadcast channel (PBCH)-BlockPower being lower than or equal to 5 (mobility reference signal (MRS) can be SS/PBCH block compared to a low and high threshold, page 26, lines 10-17) and the serving cell having a lower variance (measured signal level and/or quality for a serving cell is above or below a first measurement threshold, page 7, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa and Shen to incorporate the teachings of Wallentin to provide a number of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) layers being higher than a first value, a synchronization signal (ss)-physical broadcast channel (PBCH)-BlockPower being lower than or equal to 5 and the serving cell having a lower variance to improve mobility robustness and reduce unsuccessful handovers during the celling switching process.
Regarding claims 3 and 13,
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose determining, by the processor, that the serving cell is the tunnel cell in response to the number of MIMO layers being lower than or equal to the first value, the ss-PBCH-BlockPower being higher than or equal to 0 and the serving cell having a higher variance.
Wallentin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches using UE measurements (page 23, lines 32-33; page 23, line 35 to page 24, line 1; page 24, lines 2-3) including thresholds that are greater than, equal to, or less than other values during conditional handover (CHO) procedures to improve mobility robustness (page 25, lines 19-24) and reduce unsuccessful handovers (page 25, lines 9-18). The measurements include the number of MIMO layers being lower than or equal to the first value (FIG. 27, antennas 2711, page 51, line 29, antennas 2762, the use of more than one antenna can be referred to as MIMO, page 49, lines 25 and 33-34), the ss-PBCH-BlockPower being higher than or equal to 0 (mobility reference signal (MRS) can be SS/PBCH block compared to a low and high threshold, page 26, lines 10-17) and the serving cell having a higher variance (measured signal level and/or quality for a serving cell is above or below a first measurement threshold, page 7, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa and Shen to incorporate the teachings of Wallentin to provide a number of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) layers being lower than or equal to the first value, the synchronization signal (ss)-physical broadcast channel (PBCH)-BlockPower being higher than or equal to 5 and the serving cell having a higher variance to improve mobility robustness and reduce unsuccessful handovers during the celling switching process.
Regarding claims 6 and 16,
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose that the at least one parameter comprises a number of MIMO layers, a carrier bandwidth, an ss-PBCH-BlockPower, an RSRP, a signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), and a reception (Rx) quality level.
Wallentin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches using UE measurements (page 23, lines 32-33; page 23, line 35 to page 24, line 1; page 24, lines 2-3) during conditional handover (CHO) procedures to improve mobility robustness (page 25, lines 19-24) and reduce unsuccessful handovers (page 25, lines 9-18). The measurements include a number of MIMO layers (FIG. 27, antennas 2711, page 51, line 29, antennas 2762, the use of more than one antenna can be referred to as MIMO, page 49, lines 25 and 33-34), a carrier bandwidth (antenna 2762 can comprise one or more omni-directional, sector or panel antennas operable to transmit/receive radio signals between, for example, 2 GHz and 66 GHz), an ss-PBCH-BlockPower (page 26, line 17), RSRP (page 28, line 32), SINR (page 28, line32), and reception (Rx) quality level (page 7, lines 9-10 and 13-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa and Shen to incorporate the teachings of Wallentin to provide that the at least one parameter comprises a number of MIMO layers, a carrier bandwidth, an ss-PBCH-BlockPower, an RSRP, a SINR, and a reception (Rx) quality level to improve mobility robustness and reduce unsuccessful handovers during the celling switching process.
Regarding claims 7 and 17,
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose that the at least one condition comprises that the number of MIMO layers is higher than or equal to a first value, the carrier bandwidth is equal to a second value, the ss-PBCH-BlockPower is higher than a third value, the RSRP exceeds a first threshold, the SINR exceeds a second threshold, and the Rx quality level exceeds a third threshold.
Wallentin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches using thresholds for ss-PBCH-BlockPower (mobility reference signal (MRS) can be SS/PBCH block compared to a threshold, page 26, lines 10-17), RSRP, SINR, and Rx quality level (UE will select a candidate cell for PSCell addition if it has good enough RSRP, RSRQ, and/or SINR measurements. Similarly, a UE can also make PSCell release decisions based only on RSRP, RSRQ, and/or SINR measurements, page 30, lines 16-19; the use of more than one antenna can be referred to as MIMO, page 49, lines 33-35) during conditional handover (CHO) procedures to improve mobility robustness (page 25, lines 19-24) and reduce unsuccessful handovers (page 25, lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa and Shen to incorporate the teachings of Wallentin to provide ss-PBCH-BlockPower, RSRP, SINR, and Rx quality level threshold settings to improve mobility robustness and reduce unsuccessful handovers during the celling switching process.
Regarding claims 8 and 18,
Ogawa discloses that a neighbor cell is another tunnel cell (FIG. 4, [0025], travel section “f” tunnel 53).
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose that the at least one condition comprises that the number of MIMO layers is higher than or equal to a value, the RSRP exceeds a first threshold, and the SINR exceeds a second threshold.
Wallentin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches using RSRP and SUNR thresholds to determine candidate cells suitable (UE will select a candidate cell for PSCell addition if it has good enough RSRP, RSRQ, and/or SINR measurements. Similarly, a UE can also make PSCell release decisions based only on RSRP, RSRQ, and/or SINR measurements, page 30, lines 16-19; the use of more than one antenna can be referred to as MIMO, page 49, lines 33-35) for conditional handover procedures to improve mobility robustness (page 25, lines 19-24) and reduce unsuccessful handovers (page 25, lines 9-18) procedures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa to incorporate the teachings of Wallentin to provide RSRP and SINR threshold settings to improve mobility robustness and reduce unsuccessful handovers during the celling switching process.
Regarding claims 9 and 19,
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose setting, by the processor, a threshold for an RSRP difference between the serving cell and the neighbor cell to restrain the serving cell from switching to the neighbor cell, or setting an offset of the neighbor cell to restrain the serving cell from switching to the neighbor cell.
Wallentin from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches that the RSRP of a serving cell (e.g., PSCell) is below a first signal level threshold, and the RSRP of a candidate target cell is above a second signal level threshold as a condition of executing a primary serving cell (PSCell) change (page 33, lines 4-6) or “neighbor becomes offset better than SpCell” for LTE and “neighbor becomes offset better than PCell/ PSCell’ for NR (event A3, page 24, lines 29-32) to improve mobility robustness (page 25, lines 19-24) and reduce unsuccessful handovers (page 25, lines 9-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa to incorporate the teachings of Wallentin to provide settings for RSRP threshold differences or neighbor cell offsets in order to improve mobility robustness and reduce unsuccessful handovers during the celling switching process.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa and Shen further view of Axmon et al. (US20160345222A1), hereafter Axmon.
Regarding claims 4 and 14,
The combination of Ogawa and Shen does not expressly disclose the serving cell having a lower variance means that a reference signal received power (RSRP) variance (VAR) of the serving cell is smaller than a first threshold and a Doppler value of the serving cell is smaller than a second threshold, and wherein the serving cell having a higher variance means that the RSRP VAR of the serving cell is larger than a third threshold and the Doppler value of the serving cell is larger than a fourth threshold.
Axmon teaches the serving cell having a lower variance means that a reference signal received power (RSRP) variance (VAR) of the serving cell is smaller than a first threshold ([0268] event AY being triggered by the UE based on an outcome of a comparison of a signal measurement performed by the UE on the source cell with a first threshold), and a Doppler value of the serving cell is smaller than a second threshold ([0158] a maximum Doppler frequency associated with radio signals transmitted by and/or received by the UE is above a Doppler frequency threshold), and wherein the serving cell having a higher variance means that the RSRP VAR of the serving cell is larger than a third threshold ([0268] event AY being triggered by the UE based on an outcome of a comparison of a signal measurement performed by the UE on the source cell with a first threshold, and based on an outcome of a comparison of a signal measurement performed by the UE on the at least one predetermined target cell with a second threshold) and the Doppler value of the serving cell is larger than a fourth threshold ([0163] Maximum Doppler frequency is above a threshold e.g. magnitude of maximum Doppler frequency is above 1000 Hz) in order to overcome or at least mitigate at least some of the drawbacks related to prior art in handling radio communication with wireless communication devices ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ogawa and Shen to incorporate the teachings of Axmon to provide the serving cell having a lower variance means that a reference signal received power (RSRP) variance (VAR) of the serving cell is smaller than a first threshold and a Doppler value of the serving cell is smaller than a second threshold, and wherein the serving cell having a higher variance means that the RSRP VAR of the serving cell is larger than a third threshold and the Doppler value of the serving cell is larger than a fourth threshold in order to in order to overcome or at least mitigate at least some of the drawbacks related to prior art in handling radio communication with wireless communication devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 9-11 of the Response, Applicant contends the cited disclosure of Shen showing out-of-station scenarios that include tunnels and stations does not disclose any content about “restraining” the “cell switching” as in claim 1. Further, on pg. 12-13 of the Response, Applicant reiterates previous arguments that Ogawa’s disclosure of switching of communication mediums associated with a wireless LAN, LCX, mobile phone network or low power radio communication would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as different from “cell switching” as claimed, or how the UE restrains the switching for different types.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, it is noted that the contested rejections are based on the combination of Ogawa and Shen, rather than either Ogawa or Shen alone. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ogawa is primarily relied upon to show the switching of different communication mediums based on the environment of the communicating UE, including determinations to “restrain” such switching by controlling the timing and position of the switching among the different mediums based on the monitored conditions of the mediums corresponding with the different boundary areas/sections of a train/subway environment, as cited, similar to the corresponding descriptions of the instant disclosure. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the equivalence of the different communication mediums in Ogawa as different communications “cells” as claimed, in that both refer to different technologies having different communication coverage areas within the overall train/subway communication environment. Ogawa is only admitted as failing to expressly disclose the platform or tunnel areas of the communication environment as meeting a condition for switching. In this regard, Shen is relied upon to show cell handover adjustments based on switching threshold of a train at the edge of two cells including tunnels and stations/platforms, as claimed. Even if Ogawa’s switched mediums were not directly comparable to the claimed switched “cells”, Shen’s further disclosure of “cells” would remedy this explicit lack of specific language in Ogawa. Therefore, it is the combination of Ogawa and Shen, rather than either Ogawa or Shen alone, that properly meets a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and the rejections are properly maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477