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 .
Claims 1-16, 18, 24, 25, and 27 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Although the term “close” is a relative term (see claims 16, 18, 25, and 27, i.e., “a plurality of terminal devices that are geographically close” and “beam measurements are close”), Applicant’s specification provides a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (see Fig. 10A, ¶00143, i.e., “less than a strength difference threshold”, and Fig. 10B and ¶00156, “a magnitude relation among received signal strength”, also see ¶0076, “substantially unchanged within a predetermined time period when the UE is under the connected state”).
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 24, 25 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: There is a typographical error in the claim. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
As per claim 5, “…wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit information assisting in a determination of the stationary status to the base station, the information assisting in the determination of the stationary status comprising at least information indicating a type of the electronic device and/or information related to received signal strength of historical downlink reference signals.”
As per claim 12, “receive information assisting in a determination of a stationary status from the terminal device, the information assisting in the determination of the stationary status… determine whether the terminal device is in [[a]] the stationary status is also based on the information assisting in the determination of the stationary status”.
As per claim 13, “…so that the terminal device, while under the idle state or the inactive state…”.
As per claim 15, “… receive, from a base station, configuration information indicating to perform a measurement on one or more Synchronization Signal Blocks…”.
As per claim 24, “…in response to determining the terminal device is in the stationary status, transmit, to the terminal device, configuration information indicating to perform a measurement on one or more…”, and “such that the terminal device, while under or the inactive state…”.
Claims not specifically addressed are objected to based on their dependency to one of the above-mentioned claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 16, 18, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, it is not clear whether the limitation “when the electronic device is under an idle state or inactive state”, is defining the time period for “receiving, from a base station, configuration information” or for “performing [a] measurement…”. In addition, it is not clear if the further limitation “perform [a] measurement, during the electronic device…”, is with respect to the measurement indicated in the “configuration information” or is with respect to a different measurement. Finally, it is not clear what “when the electronic device is under a connected state” is in reference to, since it appears from the previous limitations that the measurement is performed while the electronic device is under the idle state, thus the limitation “when the electronic device is under a connected state” appears to be a direct contradiction. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…a processing circuitry, configured to: receive, from a base station configuration information indicating to perform[[ing]], when the electronic device is under an idle state or an inactive state, a measurement on one or more Synchronization Signal Blocks, SSBs of a plurality of SSBs corresponding to the electronic device ,… ; and
perform the measurement, while the electronic device is under the idle state or the inactive state, only on one or more SSBs of the plurality of SSBs which have a received signal strength higher than the first threshold .”
As per claim 3, the limitation “wherein the electronic device being not displaced is determined at least based on a variation of received signal strength of each SSB of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from the base station of a serving cell and a variation of received signal strength of each SSB of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from base stations of two neighbor cells being all less than a second threshold, within a predetermined time period under the connected state” is simply not clear. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…at least based on a variation of received signal strength, received within a predetermined time period under a connected state and relative to a previous signal strength measurement, of each SSB of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from the base station of a serving cell, and a variation of a received signal strength, received within the predetermined time period under the connected state and relative to a previous signal strength measurement, of each SSB of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from base stations of two neighbor cells , the variations having a value less than a second threshold…”
As per claim 4, the limitation “and the processing circuitry is further configured to perform measurement on each SSB of the plurality of SSBs corresponding to the electronic device in response to a variation of received signal strength of any SSB of the one or more SSBs measured during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state with respect to received signal strength of the SSB measured at a previous time being higher than the third threshold” is simply not clear. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“and the processing circuitry is further configured to perform a measurement on each SSB of the plurality of SSBs corresponding to the electronic device in response to a variation, relative to a previous signal strength of each SSB, of received signal strength of any SSB of the one or more SSBs, measured while the electronic device is under the idle state or the inactive state, being higher than the third threshold”.
As per claim 6, the limitation “…the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the following operations during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state: - performing measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing, and - performing SSB measurement in every paging period in response to a variation of received signal strength of any of the measured one or more SSBs with respect to received signal strength measured at a previous time being higher than the fourth threshold” is simply not clear. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…and the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the following operations while the electronic device is under the idle state or the inactive state:
- performing a measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing, and
- performing an SSB measurement in every paging period in response to a variation of received signal strength of any of the measured one or more SSBs, relative to a previous signal strength measurement, being higher than the fourth threshold."
Claims 7, 8, and 14, recite similar limitations as claim 1, and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), for the same reasons as noted above.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 recites similar limitations as claim 3, 4, and 6, respectively, and are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), for the same reasons as noted above.
As per claim 16 and 25, first the limitation “…that are geographically close and whose beam measurements are close” is unclear. Furthermore, the limitation “every time the predetermined period passes during performing measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing, transition from performing measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing to performing measurement on the one or more SSBs in every paging period, and- in the case of the one or more SSBs being measured in every paging period, restore to perform measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing in response to for a predetermined number of consecutive measurements, a variation of received signal strength of each SSB of the one or more SSBs with respect to received signal strength measured at a previous time being all less than or equal to the first threshold” is simply not clear. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claims to read:
“…wherein the group of electronic devices includes a plurality of terminal devices that are geographically close and that have beam measurements that are close”; and
“…every time the predetermined period passes , transition from performing a measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing to performing a measurement on the one or more SSBs in every paging period, and
- in the case of the one or more SSBs being measured in every paging period, in response to a variation, relative to a previous signal strength measurement, of received signal strength of any SSB of the one or more SSBs, measured while the electronic device is under the idle state or the inactive state, being less than or equal to the first threshold perform a measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing .”
As per claim 18 and 25, the limitation: “…in response to a variation of received signal strength of any of the measured one or more SSBs with respect to received signal strength measured at a previous time being greater than the first threshold, switch from the idle state or the inactive state to the connected state and transmit the measurements of the one or more SSBs to the base station, such that the base station notifies one or more terminal devices under an idle state or an inactive state that are geographically close and whose beam measurements are close to the electronic device of performing measurement on one or more SSBs corresponding to a respective terminal device in every paging period respectively”, is simply not clear. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“the processing circuitry is further configured to:
“…in response to a variation of received signal strength, relative to a previous signal strength measurement, of any of the measured one or more SSBs being greater than the first threshold,
switch the electronic device from the idle state or the inactive state to the connected state and transmit the measurements of the one or more SSBs to the base station, such that the base station notifies one or more terminal devices under an idle state or an inactive state to perform a measurement on one or more SSBs in every paging period, wherein the one or more terminal devices are geographically close to the electronic device and have beam measurements that are close to that of the electronic device ”.
Claims not specifically addressed are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), based on their dependency to one of the above-recited claims.
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.
(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, 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2022/0124526)(“Lee ‘526”),
As per claim 1, Lee ‘526 teaches an electronic device for a terminal device side of a wireless communication system (i.e., UE, see Fig. 17), comprising:
a processing circuitry Id., configured to:
receive, from a base station (i.e., gNB, see Fig. 17), configuration information indicating performing measurement on one or more Synchronization Signal Blocks, SSBs of a plurality of SSBs corresponding to the electronic device (see Fig. 17, ref. S1705 and/or ref. S1713, and ¶0200 and ¶0204), while the electronic device is under an idle state or an inactive state (see Fig. 17, ref. 1715, “Relaxed idle measurement”, also see ¶0204, “…to be used by the UE in the RRC_IDLE or RRC_INACTIVE state”) wherein the configuration information is transmitted based on the electronic device being in a stationary status (see Fig. 17, ref. S1701), and the configuration information at least comprises information indicating a first threshold (i.e., “relax-ThreshSS”, see ¶0201); and
perform a measurement while the electronic device is under the idle state or the inactive state only on one or more SSBs of the plurality of SSBs which have received signal strength higher than the first threshold (see Fig. 17, ref. 1715, and ¶0207-0209, where the UE thereafter performs relaxed measurements only on beams/SSB above the relax-ThreshSS value, i.e., “greater than or equal to a specific threshold”, see ¶0207 and/or “greater than or equal to a first threshold”, see ¶0209) (also note that Fig. 17, and ¶0201-0209, correspond to pp. 61-62 of KR 10-2020-0134115, with a filing date of 10/16/2020).
Claims 7-8 and 14 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
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.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘526 in further view of Laselva et al. (US 2022/0150726) (“Laselva”).
As per claims 2 and 9, although Lee ‘526 teaches wherein the stationary status indicates the electronic device is not displaced (i.e., stationary, see Fig. 17, ref. S1701), Lee does not expressly teach the stationary status indicates is also not rotated.
Nevertheless, in the same art of relaxing RRM measurements, Laselva teaches determining a stationary state based on a lack of UE rotation (see ¶0142, “…an additional condition for a quasi-stationary environment can be for the user equipment to be not rotating”)( also note that ¶0142, correspond to ¶0106, of FI 20206131, with a filing date of 11/09/2020).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take into consideration, with respect to the stationary status in Lee, whether or not the UE is rotating. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to ensure the stationary status of UEs, even when implemented with panel arrays providing quasi-omni coverage.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘526 in view of Lee (US 2021/0105647)(“Lee ‘647”).
As per claim 4, although Lee ‘526 suggests the processing circuitry is further configured to perform measurement on each SSB of the plurality of SSBs corresponding to the electronic device in response to a condition (see ¶0222, i.e., “a measurement result of the SSB index is lower than the relax-ThreshSS value for a time X1 or the difference between a maximum measurement value and a minimum value for a time X2 is lower than a predetermined level, the UE starts measurement for all SSB indexes of the serving cell”).
However, Lee ‘526 does not expressly teach the configuration information further comprises information indicating a third threshold, and the processing circuitry is further configured to perform measurement on each SSB of the plurality of SSBs corresponding to the electronic device in response to a variation of received signal strength of any SSB of the one or more SSBs measured during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state with respect to received signal strength of the SSB measured at a previous time being higher than the third threshold.
Nevertheless, in the same art of configuring RRM measurements, Lee ‘647 suggests relaxing measurement requirements based on configuration information indicating a third threshold related to a variation of received signal strength of any SSB, under the idle state or the inactive state, and a previous SSB measurement at a previous time (see abstract, and ¶0380, i.e., “if serving cell measurement quality does not change more than a relative threshold during a time period”. Also see ¶0406, “For example, UE may perform measurement on serving cell and/or neighbor cell while in idle state and/or inactive state based on the first measurement configuration”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly modify the teachings of Lee ‘526 and Lee ‘647, to set as a condition for relaxing RRM measurements in Lee ‘526 a relative threshold based on a variation or change between a received signal strength of any SSB and a previous SSB measurement at a previous time, and also as a corollary a condition in response to the variation or change being higher than the relative threshold while under relaxed RRM measurement/reporting, or in other words “in response to a variation of received signal strength of any SSB of the one or more SSBs measured during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state with respect to received signal strength of the SSB measured at a previous time being higher than the third threshold” as claimed, restoring signal strength measurement/reporting on each SSB of the plurality of SSBs, as in Lee ‘526 (see ¶0222). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to search for a better SSB in response to detected movement (i.e., as detected based on a variation or change of received signal strength, as in Lee ‘647) of the stationary UE in Lee ‘526.
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘526 in further view of DU (EP 3442254)(“DU”).
As per claim 5, Lee ‘526 further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to transmit information assisting in determination of the stationary status to the base station (i.e., “Report stationary state”, see Fig. 17, ref. S1703).
However, Lee ‘526 does not expressly teach the information assisting in determination of the stationary status comprising at least information indicating a type of the electronic device and/or information related to received signal strength of historical downlink reference signals.
Nevertheless, in the same art of cell measurement and reporting, DU teaches, transmitting assisting/identification information to a network from which a type of UE/terminal (e.g., whether the terminal is fixed or mobile) can be determined for purposes of configuring cell measurement/reporting (see abstract and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similar indicate at least a type of electronic device for purposes of configuring cell measurement/reporting. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been for power saving reasons, such as to reduce cell measurement requirements for fixed terminals.
Claims 6, 13, 15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘526, in view of Saito (US 2013/0084893)(“Saito”), in further view of Lee ‘647”.
As per claim 6, Lee ‘526 teaches wherein the configuration information further comprises information indicating SSB measurement timing (see ¶0203, i.e., “UE measures the SSB indexes selected by the gNB during a periodic time duration indicated by a combination of periodicityAndOffset and a duration”) and the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the following operations during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state:
- performing measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing. Id.
However, Lee ‘526 does not expressly teach the SSB measurement timing being within a paging period of every N paging periods, N being an integer greater than 1.
Nevertheless, in the same art of relaxing signal measurements for devices in an idle state, Saito teaches configuring a mobile device in an idle state with a relaxed signal measurement interval relative to a paging period of every N paging periods, N being an integer greater than 1 (see abstract, i.e., “a signal quality measuring unit which measures quality of received radio signals for every second [paging] cycle which is two or more times the first cycle from among the radio signals received for every first cycle, but does not measure the quality of the radio signals received at a timing other than the second cycle.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly configure the performance of relaxed SSB measurements by the UE in Lee ‘526 every two or more times a first paging cycle/period. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to further reduce power consumption of the UE.
Furthermore, as per claim 6, and similar to claim 4, Lee ‘526 does not teach wherein the configuration information further comprises information indicating a fourth threshold and
the processing circuitry is further configured to perform the following operations during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state:
- performing SSB measurement in every paging period in response to a variation of received signal strength of any of the measured one or more SSBs with respect to received signal strength measured at a previous time being higher than the fourth threshold.
Nevertheless, in the same art of configuring RRM measurements, Lee ‘647 suggests relaxing measurement requirements based on configuration information indicating a third threshold related to a variation of received signal strength of any SSB, under the idle state or the inactive state, and a previous SSB measurement at a previous time (see abstract, and ¶0380, i.e., “if serving cell measurement quality does not change more than a relative threshold during a time period”. Also see ¶0406, “For example, UE may perform measurement on serving cell and/or neighbor cell while in idle state and/or inactive state based on the first measurement configuration”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similarly modify the teachings of Lee ‘526 and Lee ‘647, to set as a condition for relaxing RRM measurements in Lee ‘526 a relative threshold based on a variation or change between a received signal strength of any SSB and a previous SSB measurement at a previous time, and thus as a corollary also set a condition in response to the variation or change being higher than the relative threshold while under relaxed RRM measurement/reporting, or in other words “in response to a variation of received signal strength of any SSB of the one or more SSBs measured during the electronic device being under the idle state or the inactive state with respect to received signal strength of the SSB measured at a previous time being higher than the fourth threshold” as claimed, restoring signal strength measurement/reporting on each SSB of the plurality of SSBs, as in Lee ‘526 (see ¶0222). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to search for a better SSB in response to detected movement (i.e., as detected based on a variation or change of received signal strength, as in Lee ‘647) of the stationary UE in Lee ‘526.
Claims 13, 15, and 24 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 12, 16, 18, 25 and 27, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), see above, for purposes of 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not teach or render obvious, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s claimed invention, in the specific combinations and manner recited within the claims, the features of:
as per claims 3 and 10, “…the electronic device being not displaced is determined at least based on a variation of received signal strength of each SSB of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from the base station of a serving cell and a variation of received signal strength of each SSB of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from base stations of two neighbor cells being all less than a second threshold, within a predetermined time period under the connected state; and the electronic device being not rotated is determined at least based on a magnitude relation among received signal strength of the corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from the base station of the serving cell and a magnitude relation among received signal strength of corresponding SSBs received by the electronic device from a base station of a neighbor cell being both substantially unchanged, within the predetermined time period under the connected state”;
as per claims 16 and 25, “… the SSB measurement timing is determined based on a group of terminal devices including the electronic device, wherein the group of electronic devices includes a plurality of terminal devices that are geographically close and whose beam measurements are close, or wherein the configuration information further comprises information indicating a predetermined period, the predetermined period including M paging periods, M being an integer multiple of N, and the processing circuitry is further configured to: - every time the predetermined period passes during performing measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing, transition from performing measurement on the one or more SSBs according to the SSB measurement timing to performing measurement on the one or more SSBs in every paging period…:
as per claims 18 and 27, “… in response to a variation of received signal strength of any of the measured one or more SSBs with respect to received signal strength measured at a previous time being greater than the first threshold, switch from the idle state or the inactive state to the connected state and transmit the measurements of the one or more SSBs to the base station, such that the base station notifies one or more terminal devices under an idle state or an inactive state that are geographically close and whose beam measurements are close to the electronic device of performing measurement on one or more SSBs corresponding to a respective terminal device in every paging period respectively.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441