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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed on 02/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 13, 14-18 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenius et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021023462) in view of Zhao et al. (WIPO. Pub. KR101453991B1).
Regarding claim 1 Palenius disclose, an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor read as: “processor of a control circuitry” page 2; and at least one memory read as: “memory devices” page 6, including computer program code, the at least one memory and the computer code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a first network, a measurement configuration comprising an indication of a plurality of frequencies or cells for performing cell measurements page 14, lines 25-31, “As a general rule, various options are available to estimate or determine the level of interference. For instance, based on an analytical model or simulations or calibration measurements, a lookup table could be provided that specifies the level of interference for the various available frequencies”;
determine, from the plurality of frequencies or cells and based on the one or more measurement objects and one or more reporting events page 15, lines 4-10, “it would be possible to implement silent durations on, e.g., the first frequency bands 901-903 and then transmit, during the silent durations, pilot signals on the second frequency bands 905-908”, at least one non-preferred frequency or cell at which simultaneous operation of the apparatus at the first network and at least one second network is restricted page 8, lines 13-15, “Various techniques are based on the finding that contemporaneous transmitting and/or receiving (communicating) on multiple frequencies can suffer from inter frequency interference”; and
transmit an indication of the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell to the first network page 28, lines 28-29, “it would be possible that the UE 101 determines all possible preferred frequencies and transmits these preferred frequencies to the network 100-2”,
Palenius does not specifically disclose, the measurement configuration including one or more measurement objects to be measured and one or more reporting events However, Zhao teach, “the UE performs measurement according to the content of the measurement setup information. (I. E., Evaluating for channel quality, including measurements of the same frequency, different frequencies, different systems, etc.) and reporting the measurement results to the network”, see para 7.
Zhao further teach, wherein the one or more reporting events are triggered based on a measured value of a serving cell, a measured value of a neighboring cell, at least one threshold, or a combination thereof. para. 16, “Step 502, the UE determines whether the component carrier and / or the measurement subject according to the message satisfies a condition that triggers the measurement report”.
Palenius and Zhao are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Zhao in the system of Palenius so the system can activate measurement reporting events based on several factors related to the transmission conditions. The motivation for doing so would have been maintain and adapt the communications under the best channel conditions possible.
Regarding claim 2 Palenius disclose, wherein the apparatus is associated with the first network with a first subscriber identity and with the at least one second network with at least one second subscriber identity page 7, lines 19-22, “As a general rule, multi-SIM UEs can connect to the same cellular network or to different cellular networks using their multiple identities. For instance, some scenarios are described herein in which a multi-SIM UE connects to multiple cellular networks”.
Regarding claim 3 Palenius disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
receive an updated measurement configuration, wherein the updated measurement configuration does not comprise an indication of the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell page 24, lines 9-16, “For instance, the network band scan can initially commence on the preferred frequency band 906 and, later on, in case the net work band scan on the preferred frequency band 906 has not been successful, switch to the non-preferred frequency bands 905 and 907. In another option, where a repetitive band scan is implemented, it would be possible to visit the preferred frequency band 906 more often than the non-preferred frequency bands 905, 907”, or
wherein the updated measurement configuration comprises at least one adjusted threshold for triggering at least one measurement report for the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell;
perform the cell measurements based on the updated measurement configuration; and transmit, to the first network, the at least one measurement report comprising results of the cell measurements page 28, lines 28-29, “the UE 101 determines all possible preferred frequencies and transmits these preferred frequencies to the network 100-2”.
Regarding claim 4 Palenius disclose, wherein the measurement configuration comprises a first radio resource control reconfiguration, and/or wherein the updated measurement configuration comprises a second radio resource control reconfiguration page 15, lines 25-31, “FIG. 4 schematically illustrates aspects with respect to a time-frequency resource grid 200 including multiple time-frequency resource elements 210. Such a time- frequency resource grid 200 could be defined on each one of the frequency bands 901-903 and 905-907, respectively. The time-frequency resource elements 210 are defined by symbols and subcarriers according to the OFDM modulation. Further, the time-frequency resource elements 210 are structured in time domain”.
Regarding claim 5 Palenius disclose, wherein the indication of the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell is included in a radio resource control setup complete message, a radio resource control connection setup complete message, or a radio resource control reconfiguration complete message page 26, lines 11-20, “the request 4011 could be included in a RRC Connection Release control message that triggers the transition from the connected mode 301 to the idle mode 302 towards the second network 100-2”.
Regarding claim 7 Palenius disclose, wherein the indication of the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell comprises a list of frequencies or cells associated with a priority order page 23, lines 17-20, Fig. 9, “At box 2005, the at least one preferred frequency band 906 is selected from the list of available frequency bands 905-907. This selection depends on the estimated level of interference that is lower for the preferred frequency band 906 than for the non-preferred frequency bands 905, 907. Then, at box 2006, the prioritization is executed”.
Regarding claim 8 Palenius disclose, wherein the priority order is indicated by a sorting order of the list of frequencies or cells order page 23, lines 17-20, Fig. 9, “This selection depends on the estimated level of interference that is lower for the preferred frequency band 906 than for the non-preferred frequency bands 905, 907. Then, at box 2006, the prioritization is executed”.
Regarding claim 9 Palenius disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive, from the first network, an indication to modify the sorting order based on the priority order order page 26, lines 25-30, Fig. 9, “it would be possible that the network 100- 2 is already aware of the preferred frequency band 906 and implements the communication between the UE 101 and the second network 100-2 in accordance with the preferred frequency band 906: e.g., paging at 3005 may be shifted / implemented on the preferred frequency band 906; and/or data transmission 4050 at 3006 on the PUSCH or PDSCH along the data connection 189 may be implemented on the preferred frequency band 906”.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus corresponding to the device of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 18 the limitations of claims 14-16 and 18, respectively, are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claims 3-5 and 7, respectively.
Claim 23 recites an method corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1 and thus is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 6, 10-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenius et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021023462) in view of Zhao et al. (WIPO. Pub. KR101453991B1), further in view of Jain et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200008143).
Regarding claim 6 Palenius disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
perform the cell measurements based on the measurement configuration page 15, lines 9-11, “There are other strategies available to perform such channel measurements. For instance, there may be simultaneous transmission on both frequency bands 901-903 and 905-908”.
Palenius and Zhao does not specifically disclose, transmit, to the first network, at least one measurement report comprising results of the cell measurements and the indication of the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell. However, Jain teach, “The at least one processor may further be configured to transmit, to the network entity, the measurement report identifying the at least one neighboring intra-band network entity”, see para 11.
Palenius, Zhao and Jain are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Jain in the system of Palenius and Zhao so the system can adjust to neighboring cells operating at certain frequency bands based on the measurement report. The motivation for doing so would have been reduce the power consumption of the user equipment.
Regarding claim 10 Palenius and Zhao does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: modify the sorting order of the list of frequencies or cells based on applying at least one offset value to the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell. However, Jain teach, “In some aspects, the UE 110 may add an additional offset to prioritize preferred cells. For instance, the UE 110 may adjust or reduce a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of less preferred cells (e.g., inter-cell frequency bands 158)”, see para. 32.
Palenius, Zhao and Jain are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Jain in the system of Palenius and Zhao to be able to influence the cell selection and reselection process on the preferred frequencies as well as the non-preferred ones. The motivation for doing so would have been improving the load balancing and mobility management on the network.
Regarding claim 11 Palenius and Zhao does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: receive the at least one offset value from the first network. However, Jain teach, “For instance, the UE 110 may adjust or reduce a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) of less preferred cells (e.g., inter-cell frequency bands 158) by an offset so as to make the preferred cell (e.g., intra-cell frequency bands 156) stronger”, see para. 32.
Palenius, Zhao and Jain are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Jain in the system of Palenius and Zhao to be able to influence the cell selection and reselection process on the preferred frequencies as well as the non-preferred ones. The motivation for doing so would have been improving the load balancing and mobility management on the network.
Regarding claim 17 the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the same manner as analyzed above with respect to claim 6.
Claim(s) 12 and 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palenius et al. (WIPO. Pub. WO2021023462) in view of Zhao et al. (WIPO. Pub. KR101453991B1), further in view of Wang et al. (EPO. Pub. EP4009698).
Regarding claim 12 Palenius and Zhao does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
determine the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell based on at least one frequency for which the apparatus does not support a dual-reception capability with respect to the first network and the second network. However, Wang teach “the capability of the terminal device generally does not support pure dual connectivity. Dual connectivity refers to dual uplink and dual downlink (Dual UL/DL), that is, the UE simultaneously transmit the uplink data service and the downlink data service on the two networks through two subscriber identity cards”, see para. 36.
Palenius, Zhao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Wang in the system of Palenius and Zhao to be able to influence the cell selection and reselection process on the preferred frequencies as well as the non-preferred ones on cells that capabilities for dual connectivity is not supported. The motivation for doing so would have been improving the load balancing and mobility management on the network.
Regarding claim 22 Palenius and Zhao does not specifically disclose, wherein the at least one memory and the computer code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: deprioritize the at least one non-preferred frequency or cell when configuring a handover for the device However, Wang teach “if the cell in which the USIM A is located is handed over (that is, changed), the original cell (that is, the first cell) in the handover sends the first request message of the terminal device to the target cell (that is, the second cell) in the handover, and the target cell configures or reserves the first resource according to the first request message”.
Palenius, Zhao and Wang are analogous because they pertain to the field of wireless communication and, more specifically, to transmission parameters.
Therefore, 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 teachings of Wang in the system of Palenius and Zhao to be able to influence the cell selection and reselection process on the preferred frequencies as well as the non-preferred ones on cells that capabilities for dual connectivity is not supported. The motivation for doing so would have been improving the load balancing and mobility management on the network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fu (U.S. Pub. 20230007523) which disclose(s) Measurement method and device.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL RIVAS whose telephone number is (571)270–5590. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, from 8:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Sujoy K. Kundu, can be reached on (571) 272 - 8586. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing 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.
/RR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2471
/SUJOY K KUNDU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights