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 arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claims 1, 6, 9 and 14 the newly added secondary art Teyeb discloses a WTRU capable of changing the availability state of the serving/target cells for a NES technique in CHO. Further interdigital does disclose the idea of using SIBs for NES techniques like helping improve cell access.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-10, 13-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Interdigital (“Time domain NES techniques; 3GPP RAN WG2 Meeting #119-e; R2-2207246”, hereinafter Interdigital).
Regarding claims 1 and 9 Interdigital discloses:
receiving a system information block including information related to a network energy saving operation associated with a cell; (Page 3 Proposal 1 paragraph 2, “The UE can determine the alternate NES periodicity of the other SI from the reception of min SI or from the reception of NES SSBs.” and Page 6, 5 Annex A:R1 agreements for NES techniques, “Further study techniques and enhancements for increasing time domain energy saving opportunities by the gNB, including… a) potential methods of reducing/adapting transmission/reception of common channels/signals, e.g. SSB, SIB1, other SI, paging, PRACH, and its impact to initial access procedure, cell (re)selection, handover… performed by the idle/inactive/connected UE;” this section discussed the use of SIBs and its impact to NES operation associated with a cell. The min SI in 5g/NR is SIB1 which the UE reads to determine the alternate NES periodicity. )
accessing the cell based on the information related to the network energy saving operation associated with the cell; (Page 3 Proposal 1 paragraph 2, “The UE can determine the alternate NES periodicity of the other SI from the reception of min SI or from the reception of NES SSBs.” and Page 6, 5 Annex A:R1 agreements for NES techniques, “a) potential methods of reducing/adapting transmission/reception of common channels/signals, e.g. SSB, SIB1, other SI, paging, PRACH, and its impact to initial access procedure, cell (re)selection, handover… performed by the idle/inactive/connected UE;” a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would understand that a UE would use information of the SIBs to access the cells. Furthermore the UE reads the min SI to acquire the alternate NES periodicity for cell access.)
receiving, from the cell, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message including condition information for a conditional handover (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “Executing handover commands/ RRC reconfiguration for each of the remaining UEs… The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met. However, relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” In NR it is known that configuration information for CHO can only be transmitted through an RRC message.)
receiving, from the serving cell, downlink control information (DCI) including a turn off indication of the cell (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “a possible enhancement is to e.g. include reception of L1 signaling that the serving cell will be turned off as CHO trigger.” L1 signaling for downlink is sent using DCI.)
performing, based on the turn off indication, evaluation of a condition associated with the condition information. (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 1, “The UE may need to know whether it needs to perform cell (re)selection when the serving cell's PA is turned off or power reduced or the serving cell's resources are no longer available, and how to avoid premature mobility.” Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” These two paragraph discloses that based on the turn off indication from the BS/Serving cell the UE performs evaluations such as RSRP for CHO.)
and performing handover to a target cell in case that the condition is satisfied (Page 5 2.5 paragraph 2, “The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met.”)
Specifically regarding claim 9 Interdigital discloses:
Transceiver and controller (It is inherent and known in the art that a UE must include a transceiver and controller in order to perform the disclosed functions.)
Regarding claims 2 and 10 Interdigital discloses:
Performing measurement regarding the target cell, based on information related to the target cell (Page 3 section 2.2 paragraph 1, “The network can rely on macro-cells or neighboring cells for coverage to compensate for the sleeping/turned off cells. gNBs can combine info including UE measurements, UE assistance info, interference status, load information, proprietary info to make this decision.” The network falls back on neighboring cells (target cells) for coverage but to make that decision the base station looks at the UE measurements of those cells.)
And determining whether the target cell is valid, based on valid condition information of the target cell, (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met. However, relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” If CHO is triggered the target cell is valid based on condition information. )
Wherein the RRC reconfiguration message includes: the information related to the target cell for a handover, the valid condition information of the target cell, and information indicating a handover type. (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met. However, relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” RSRP is a valid condition information of a target cell where CHO is the handover type.)
Regarding claims 5, 8, 13 and 16 Interdigital discloses:
RRC reconfiguration message includes: information related to a target cell for a handover, valid condition information of the target cell, and information indicating a handover type, and wherein the valid condition information of the target cell includes a condition regarding the strength of a signal received from the target cell. (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met. However, relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” RSRP is a valid condition information of a target cell where CHO is the handover type.)
Regarding claims 6 and 14 Interdigital discloses:
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a system information block including information related to a network energy saving operation associated with a cell, wherein the cell is accessed by the UE based on the information related to the network energy saving operation associated with the cell;
transmitting, to the UE, a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message including condition information for a conditional handover (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met. However, relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” In NR it is known that configuration information for CHO can only be transmitted through an RRC message.)
transmitting, to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) including a turn off indication of the cell; (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “The gNB can use conditional handover to reduce HO signaling load and have the UE trigger the mobility, i.e., by configuring some candidate cells to handover to once CHO conditions are met. However, relying on existing conditional handover conditions such as RSRP can be slow” If CHO is triggered the target cell is valid based on condition information. )
and turning off the cell (Page 5 section 2.5 paragraph 2, “a possible enhancement is to e.g. include reception of L1 signaling that the serving cell will be turned off as CHO trigger.” Observation 4, “Turning off a cell or PA power reduction can result in a large number of UEs handing over to another cell simultaneously” The base station indicates that the serving cell will be turned off and turns it off after all the UE completes the CHO.)
Specifically regarding claim 14 Interdigital discloses:
Transceiver and controller (It is inherent and known in the art that a base station must include a transceiver and controller in order to perform the disclosed functions.)
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.
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Interdigital in view of Teyeb et al. (US 20250392973 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 7, 11 and 15 Interdigital does not disclose:
Transmitting a turnoff withdrawal request or an indication that there is no available target cell in case that a condition associated with the condition information is not satisfied.
Teyeb discloses:
Transmitting a turnoff withdrawal request or an indication that there is no available target cell in case that a condition associated with the condition information is not satisfied. (paragraph [0099], “A WTRU may (e.g., under certain conditions) transmit a request to the network (e.g., a wake-up request) to modify the availability state to a state that makes one or more resources available for the WTRU…Herein, wake up request, turn on request, and switch on WTRU assistance information may be used interchangeably.” And paragraph [0100], “ A WTRU may determine whether a resource is available for transmission/reception and/or measurements for a determined network availability state, for example, based on whether the resource(s) is applicable in the active availability state.” And paragraph [0191], “A WTRU may start tracking a time (e.g., via a timer) based on (e.g., upon) performing HO, initiating an RA for HO at the target cell, and/or evaluating (e.g., starting to evaluate) CHO conditions at a candidate cell… A WTRU may initiate an RLF procedure, an SCG failure procedure, revert to connect to the source cell, and/or transmit an NES wake-up request, for example, based on (e.g., upon) a duration elapsing (e.g., expiry of a timer).”)
Therefore 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 the conditional handover procedure of Interdigital in view of Teyeb to incorporate modification of availability state. One would have been motivated to do this as a fall back option in case CHO fails.
Conclusion
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 NAM P CAO whose telephone number is (571)270-0614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 5712703936. 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.
/NAM P. CAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2479 /JAE Y LEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights