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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JHA et al PG PUB 2021/0096973.
Re Claims 1, 20, JHA et al teaches in figure 8, a UE (comprising RF modems, processors, and memory) coupled to NR (a first RAT) and LTE (a second RAT) supporting dual registration mode/ENDC mode [0010 0017] wherein when data sessions in NR crosses a threshold (a thermal trigger event), the UE performs thermal mitigation on the NR (a first level thermal mitigation) by switching the data session in NR to the LTE (the second RAT) [0082 0096] wherein the UE determines a throughput (a first data measurement) associated with the NR to support the data session(s) and a throughput (a second data measurement) associated with LTE to support the switched data session(s) during the thermal mitigation.
Re Claims 2, 21, JHA et al teaches a temperature threshold (one thermal parameter) triggers the thermal mitigation until the temperature threshold is satisfied.
Re Claims 4, JHA et al teaches the UE is configured with ENDC mode (Split-bearer) wherein each determined throughput in NR and LTE (first and second RATs) are associated with first and second amounts of data scheduled portions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GEEKIE et al PG PUB 2019/0094929.
Re Claim 13, GEEKIE et al teaches UE configured to support CA for monitoring a plurality of Scells [0035] associated with 5G (at least one RAT); figure 3, 302 teaches the UE determining whether TEMP>High Threshold (a thermal trigger event) has occurred [0053], responsive to 302, the UE determining a data rate/throughput (a data measurement) [0079] associated with each Scell of the CA; the UE selecting a level of thermal mitigation actions based on the data rate (the data measurement) and performing the selected level of thermal mitigation actions.
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 3, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JHA et al PG PUB 2021/0096973 in view of Lattrel et al PG PUB 2021/0405735.
Re Claims 3, 22, JHA et al teaches during thermal mitigation, throughputs can be determined for NR and LTE (first/second RATs) but fails to explicitly teach “a first/second data throughpht...an aggregated data throughput across multiple downlink CCs associated with the first/second RAT.”. However, Lattrel et al teaches 5G NR and 4G supports data transfers in 8cc, 4cc, 2cc (downlink CCs) [0034]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have determined “the aggregated data throughput” across the in 8cc, 4cc, 2cc (downlink CCs) to be compliant with the known communication standards. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 23, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JHA et al PG PUB 2021/0096973 in view of GEEKIE et al PG PUB 2019/0094929.
Re Claims 7, 23, JHA et al teaches after the temperature reaches to an optimum level (if the thermal trigger event has ended), the throughput is regained by undoing the same or returning the switched data session in LTE to NR thereby halting the initial thermal mitigation in NR and LTE [0096]. JHA fails to teach “responsive to the thermal trigger event is still occurring, increasing…to a more aggressive level of thermal mitigation.”. However, GEEKIE et al teaches in figure 8, when a successively applying thermal mitigation action in more aggressively than the preceding thermal mitigation action [0081]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have to more aggressive level of thermal mitigation to maintain the QoS at the UE. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claims 8, 10, 24, GEEKIE et al teaches in figure 9, STATE_1 ACTIONs (a relaxed level of thermal mitigation) which can be selected by the UE to perform the thermal mitigation (the first level of thermal mitigation); the UE can select STATE_3 ACTIONs (a aggressive level of thermal mitigation) wherein the STATE_1 ACTIONs reduces a temperature of the UE more gradually than STATE_3 ACTIONs and has a less negative impact on data throughput.
Claim 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JHA et al PG PUB 2021/0096973 in view of WEI et al PG PUB 2022/0286191.
Re Claim 16, JHA et al teaches in figure 8, a UE coupled to NR (a first RAT) and responsive to when data sessions in NR crosses a threshold (a thermal trigger event), the UE performs thermal mitigation on the NR (a first level thermal mitigation) by reducing the data rate at the NR [0082 0096]. JHA et al fails to explicitly teach “receiving a reduced bandwidth part configuration”. However, WEI et al EI et al teaches a UE reporting (informing) to the network of reduced bandwidth capability of UE; the UE receiving from the network UE-specific RRC (a reduced bandwidth part configuration) configured BWP having a narrow bandwidth; the UE implementing the reduce bandwidth part configuration [0107]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have received the “reduced bandwidth part capabilities at the UE” to determine whether thermal mitigation can be supported by supported by reducing the bandwidth part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 17, JHA et al teaches after the temperature reaches to an optimum level (if the thermal trigger event has ended), the throughput is regained by undoing the same or returning the switched data session in LTE to NR [0096], in view of WEI et al, the network can transmit the UE-specific RRC to the UE to increase/implement the bandwidth part capabilities/configuration.
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JHA et al PG PUB 2021/0096973 in view of WEI et al PG PUB 2022/0286191 as applied to Claim 16 above and further in view of HUANG et al PG PUB 2022/03294.
Re Claim 18, JHA et al in vie of WEI et al fails to explicitly teach “determining a current CQI; selecting a lower CQI…and sending the lower CQI to the network.”. HUANG et al a UE reporting the current CQIs to the BS (the network) wherein the reporting includes the lowest CQI whereby the BS selects the MSC based in part on the lowest CQI to ensure the reliability requirement is satisfied for the connection [0006]. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to have selected the MSC with the lowest CQI to ensure the reliability of the cellular connection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled to have combined the teachings.
Re Claim 19, refer to Claim 17, which teaches determining that the thermal trigger event has ended; in response, in view of HUANG et al, a new current CQI for the connection can be reported to BS to ensure the reliability of the cellular connection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14-15, 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would- be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Re Claim 14, prior art fails to teach determining a thermal mitigation priority for each of the plurality of Scells based on their associated data measurement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 16-24 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3130. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM ET.
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, KASSIM KHALAD can be reached at 5712703770. 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.
/ANDREW LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights