DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21, 23, 25, 26, and 30 have been examined and are pending.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “EDRX BASED RRM MEASUREMENT CONFIGURATION DETERMINING METHOD AND APPARATUS, COMMUNICATION DEVICE, AND STORAGE MEDIUM”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. determining relevant information that indicates a first DRX cycle and whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle, determining a measurement configuration of the UE according to relevant information). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the determining relevant information that indicates a first DRX cycle, whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle, determining the measurement configuration of the UE), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained claim 1 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim 1, and also determining that the UE does not support the idle state eDRX, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle and determining the value of a first DRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim 1, and also determining that the UE does not support the idle state eDRX, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle and determining the value of a first DRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained claim 2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 2, and also determining the first DRX cycle being a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and a RAN paging cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 2, and also determining the first DRX cycle being a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and a RAN paging cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 4 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 5 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 7 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 8 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining that the UE does not have a first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining that the UE does not have a first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 9 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining that the first eDRX cycle is equal to idle state eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 5, determining the first DRX cycle, determining that the first eDRX cycle is equal to idle state eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 10 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining that the first DRX cycle, determining first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining that the first DRX cycle, determining first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 12 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 12, determining the first DRX cycle, determining first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 12, determining the first DRX cycle, determining the first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 14 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 12, determining the first DRX cycle, determining first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 12, determining the first DRX cycle, determining first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 15 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 12, determining first eDRX cycle, determining that a measurement time of RRM measurement of the UE is located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 12, determining first eDRX cycle, determining that a measurement time of RRM measurement of the UE is located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 16 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining first eDRX cycle, determining first DRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception(i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining first eDRX cycle, determining first DRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 18 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining first DRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining first DRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 19 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining first DRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining first DRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 20 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining measurement time of RRM of the UE being located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining measurement time of RRM of the UE being located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 21 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining RRM measurement time of the UE being located within the PTW of the inactive state eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the UE). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 18, determining first eDRX cycle, determining RRM measurement time of the UE being located within the PTW of the inactive state eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 23 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining measurement configuration for RRM measurement according to the first DRX cycle and/or the first eDRX cycle). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1, determining measurement configuration for RRM measurement according to the first DRX cycle and/or the first eDRX cycle), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 25 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 25, determining measurement configuration for RRM measurement being performed within the first PTW). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites additional elements such as a user equipment (UE), The UE performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears to result in no more than generic data processing. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the UE, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the abstract idea of parent claim(s) 1 and 25, determining measurement configuration for RRM measurement being performed within the first PTW), when taken into consideration with the UE, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the UE. Thus, for the reasons explained, claim 26 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea, and more specifically, a mental process such as determining steps that performed mentally and/or by hand (i.e. determining relevant information that indicates a first DRX cycle and whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle, determining a measurement configuration of the UE according to relevant information). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites an additional elements (i.e. communication device with a processor, transceiver, memory) The additional elements, the communication device, performs the determining steps in a highly generalized manner that appears no more than generic data processing . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as previously stated the additional elements, the communication device, as applied to the judicial exception seem to do no more than perform general data processing (i.e. the determining steps performed by the communication device). Furthermore, the judicial exception (i.e. the determining relevant information that indicates a first DRX cycle, whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle, determining the measurement configuration of the UE), when taken into consideration with the communication device, do not appear to result in any improvement of a technology or an improvement in the underlying operation of the communication device. Thus, for the reasons explained claim 30 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 26 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the RRM measurement". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first cycle ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites, “the inactive state”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites, “the idle state eDRX cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, recites, “the inactive state eDRX cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5, recites, “the idle state eDRX configuration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the second cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “the idle state eDRX cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “the inactive state eDRX cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12, recites the limitation, “the idle state eDRX configuration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “the default paging cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the RAN paging cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the default paging cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the RAN paging cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the default paging cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation, “the inactive state eDRX configuration”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the PTW". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the idle state eDRX cycle ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the inactive state eDRX cycle ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the second cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the default paging cycle ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the idle state eDRX configuration ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the inactive state eDRX configuration". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation, “the idle state DRX cycle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the RAN paging cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the RAN paging cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation " idle state DRX cycle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the PTW". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the first PTW". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the PTW". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 12, 14-16, 18-21, 23, 25-26 and 30 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1)
In regards to claim 1, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches a radio resource management (RRM) measurement configuration determining method, executed by user equipment (UE), and comprising (See [Par. 162] which teaches a user equipment, wireless communication device, comprising processor(s), memory, a transceiver, where the memory stores an executable program, software, that when executed by the processor executes the functionality described below.):
determining relevant information according to a non-connected state of the UE and an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) configuration condition of the UE, wherein the relevant information at least indicates: a first discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle and whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle; and determining a measurement configuration of the UE for the RRM measurement according to the relevant information (Based upon a non-connected sate of a UE, idle state or in-active state, the UE determines an operating state (OS) “[0070] In some embodiments, determining that the wireless device is operating in an OS is a result of a trigger or rule, which can be pre-defined or configured by the network node. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when operating in any low Radio Resource Control (RRC) activity state e.g., in idle state, in inactive state, etc. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when operating in a particular type of low RRC activity state e.g., only in idle state or only in inactive state, etc. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when it is explicitly configured by the network node to perform the evaluation. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS if the wireless device battery power falls below certain threshold (e.g., below 25% of the maximum battery power).”,), where the OS indicates a DRX cycle and whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle, and a measurement configuration, scaling factor K1/K2, applied to a measurement “[0101] According to the first aspect of the UE embodiment, the UE determines at least one measurement scaling factor based on the determined operational scenario in step 200. At a high level, it is assumed that each OS is associated with at least one measurement scaling factor. The term measurement relaxation factor may also be referred to as a scaling factor, a measurement scaling factor, etc. [0102] The determined scaling factor is used for deriving one or more measurement requirements. For example: [0103] scaling factor K1 is used when the UE is operating in OS #1, and [0104] scaling factor K2 is used when the UE is operating in OS #2. [0107] In a first example, it is assumed that K1>K2 because UEs operating in OS#1 can be configured with (or expected to be configured with) long DRX cycles lengths or extended DRX (eDRX) compared to UEs operating in OS#2 because they have limited or reduced mobility compared to UEs in OS#2. Therefore, configurations can be such UEs in OS#1 are in DRX OFF more frequently than UEs operating in OS#2. In a specific example, UEs in OS#1 can be configured with enhanced DRX (eDRX) while UEs in OS#2 are configured with normal DRX.” ).
In regards to claim 30, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches a communication device, comprising a processor, a transceiver, a memory and an executable program stored on the memory and capable of being operated by the processor, when the executable program is operated by the processor, the processor is caused to(See [Par. 162] which teaches a user equipment, wireless communication device, comprising processor(s), memory, a transceiver, where the memory stores an executable program, software, that when executed by the processor executes the functionality described below.): determine relevant information according to a non-connected state of user equipment (UE) and an extended discontinuous reception (eDRX) configuration condition of the UE , wherein the relevant information at least indicates: a first discontinuous reception (DRX) cycle and whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle (“[0180]…In one embodiment, the trigger or rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when operating in any low RRC activity state e.g., in idle state, in inactive state, etc. (i.e., a trigger or rule that the wireless device is to determine its OS when operating in any low RRC activity state). In another embodiment, the trigger or rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when operating in a particular type of low RRC activity state e.g., only in idle state or only in inactive state, etc. (i.e., a trigger or rule that the wireless device is to determine its OS when operating in a certain low RRC activity state)…”); and determine a measurement configuration of the UE for a radio resource management (RRM) measurement according to the relevant information(Based upon a non-connected sate of a UE, idle state or in-active state, the UE determines an operating state (OS) “[0070] In some embodiments, determining that the wireless device is operating in an OS is a result of a trigger or rule, which can be pre-defined or configured by the network node. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when operating in any low Radio Resource Control (RRC) activity state e.g., in idle state, in inactive state, etc. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when operating in a particular type of low RRC activity state e.g., only in idle state or only in inactive state, etc. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS when it is explicitly configured by the network node to perform the evaluation. In some embodiments, the rule comprises the wireless device evaluating the status of its OS if the wireless device battery power falls below certain threshold (e.g., below 25% of the maximum battery power).”,), where the OS indicates a DRX cycle and whether the UE has a first eDRX cycle, and a measurement configuration, scaling factor K1/K2, applied to a measurement “[0101] According to the first aspect of the UE embodiment, the UE determines at least one measurement scaling factor based on the determined operational scenario in step 200. At a high level, it is assumed that each OS is associated with at least one measurement scaling factor. The term measurement relaxation factor may also be referred to as a scaling factor, a measurement scaling factor, etc. [0102] The determined scaling factor is used for deriving one or more measurement requirements. For example: [0103] scaling factor K1 is used when the UE is operating in OS #1, and [0104] scaling factor K2 is used when the UE is operating in OS #2. [0107] In a first example, it is assumed that K1>K2 because UEs operating in OS#1 can be configured with (or expected to be configured with) long DRX cycles lengths or extended DRX (eDRX) compared to UEs operating in OS#2 because they have limited or reduced mobility compared to UEs in OS#2. Therefore, configurations can be such UEs in OS#1 are in DRX OFF more frequently than UEs operating in OS#2. In a specific example, UEs in OS#1 can be configured with enhanced DRX (eDRX) while UEs in OS#2 are configured with normal DRX.” ).
In regards to claim 2, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the relevant information according to the non-connected state of the UE and the eDRX configuration condition of the UE comprises at least one of:
in response to the UE being in an idle state, an idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is configured as a first cycle and at least one of the UE or an anchor base station of the UE does not support the idle state eDRX cycle which is the first cycle, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and the first DRX cycle is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle;
in response to the UE being in an inactive state, an inactive state eDRX cycle of the UE is configured as the first cycle and at least one of the UE or the anchor base station of the UE does not support the inactive state eDRX cycle which is the first cycle, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and the first DRX cycle is equal to the inactive state eDRX cycle;
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is not greater than a second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle of the UE is not configured, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to an idle state eDRX configuration of the UE; or
in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is not greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle of the UE is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining that UE has /doesn’t have eDRX cycle, determining of first DRX cycle being contingent upon the state of the UE, whether UE/anchor base station supports idle state eDRX cycle being a first cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 4, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is not greater than a second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle of the UE is not configured, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to an idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to that the UE is in the inactive state, an idle state cycle of the UE is not greater than the second cycle, the inactive state eDRX cycle of the UE is not configured and the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, determining that the first DRX cycle is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and a radio access network (RAN) paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining first DRX cycle being the smaller of the idle state eDRX cycle and RAN paging cycle, being contingent upon the state of the UE, the inactive state eDRX cycle not being configured and the UE not having a first eDRX cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 5, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the relevant information according to the non-connected state of the UE and the eDRX configuration condition of the UE further comprises:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the UE is configured with the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and both the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle are not greater than a second cycle, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the inactive state eDRX cycle and the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle as a third cycle or the first cycle; or
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the UE is configured with the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and both the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle are not greater than the second cycle, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle as the third cycle or the first cycle; wherein the third cycle is an eDRX cycle smaller than the second cycle; and the first cycle is an eDRX cycle smaller than the third cycle;
determining the relevant information according to the non-connected state of the UE and the eDRX configuration condition of the UE further comprises at least one of:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE;
in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE;
or in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the state of the UE, a value of the idle state eDRX cycle, a value of inactive state eDRX cycle, whether inactive state eDRX cycle is configured) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regard to claim 7, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 5,
wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of an idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and a default paging cycle;
or, in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smallest one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration, an RAN paging cycle defined by an inactive state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the state of the UE, a value of the idle state eDRX cycle, the inactive state eDRX cycle not being configured) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 8, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 5,
wherein in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of an idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and a default paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the UE being in an idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 9, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 5,
wherein in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, determining that the UE does not have the first eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of an idle state eDRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and an RAN paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining that UE does not have first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the UE being in an idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value, inactive state eDRX cycle not being configured) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 10, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 5,
wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and RRM measurement of the UE is located within a paging time window (PTW) of the idle state eDRX cycle;
wherein in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle is not configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and RRM measurement of the UE is located within a PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining that UE has a first eDRX cycle, determining that a RRM measurement being located within a Paging Time Window (PTW) of the idle state eDRX cycle, being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive/idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value, inactive state eDRX cycle not being configured) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 12, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1,
wherein determining the relevant information according to the non-connected state of the UE and the eDRX configuration condition of the UE further comprises at least one of the following:
in response to the UE being in an idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of an eDRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle;
in response to the UE being in an inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE; or
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE
(Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive/idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value, inactive state eDRX cycle being a particular value) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 14, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle;
or, in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smallest one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration, the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value, inactive state eDRX cycle being a particular value) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 15, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle;
or, in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration;
or, in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smallest one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration, the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle, being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value, inactive state eDRX cycle being a particular value) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 16, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 12,
wherein in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, it is determined that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and measurement time of RRM measurement of the UE is located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle;
wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle not greater than the second cycle is configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and measurement time of RRM measurement of the UE is located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the measurement time of RRM measurement, being contingent upon the UE being in an idle or inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle being a particular value, inactive state eDRX cycle being a particular value) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 18, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the relevant information according to the non-connected state of the UE and the eDRX configuration condition of the UE further comprises at least one of the following:
in response to the UE being in an idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle;
in response to the UE being in an inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE;
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the inactive state eDRX configuration of the UE;
or in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration and the inactive state eDRX configuration of the UE (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle being contingent upon whether the UE is an inactive or idle state, the value of the idle state eDRX, the value of the inactive state eDRX cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 19, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle; or,
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smallest one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration, the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration and the default paging cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive state, the value of the idle state eDRX cycle, the value of the inactive state eDRX cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 20, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 18, wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining the first DRX cycle according to the idle state eDRX configuration and the inactive state eDRX configuration of the UE, comprises:
in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smallest one of the idle state DRX cycle defined by the idle state eDRX configuration, the default paging cycle and the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration;
or, in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is a smaller one of the default paging cycle and the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration;
or, in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, determining that the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and determining that the first DRX cycle is the RAN paging cycle defined by the inactive state eDRX configuration (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining the first DRX cycle being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive state, the value of the idle state eDRX cycle, the value of the inactive state eDRX cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 21, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 18,
wherein in response to the UE being in the idle state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and measurement time of RRM measurement of the UE is located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle;
wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the idle state eDRX cycle, and measurement time of RRM measurement of the UE is located within the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining measurement time of RRM measurement being contingent upon the UE being in an idle/inactive state, the value of the idle state eDRX cycle, the value of the inactive state eDRX cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 23, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 18,
wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to the inactive state eDRX cycle, and RRM measurement time of the UE is located within a PTW of the inactive state eDRX cycle;
wherein in response to the UE being in the inactive state, the idle state eDRX cycle of the UE is greater than the second cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle greater than the second cycle is configured, the UE has the first eDRX cycle which is equal to a smaller one of the idle state eDRX cycle and the inactive state eDRX cycle, and time of RRM measurement is located within a smaller one of the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle and a PTW of the inactive state eDRX cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining the first eDRX cycle, determining measurement time of RRM measurement being contingent upon the UE being in an inactive state, the value of the idle state eDRX cycle, the value of the inactive state eDRX cycle) requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 25, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the measurement configuration of the UE for the RRM measurement according to the relevant information comprises:
in response to the UE not having the first eDRX cycle, determining the measurement configuration for RRM measurement according to the first DRX cycle; or, in response to the UE having the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle, determining the measurement configuration for RRM measurement according to the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining RRM measurement based upon either the first DRX cycle or based upon both the first DRX cycle and the first eDRX cycle being contingent upon whether the UE has the first eDRX cycle, requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
In regards to claim 26, Thangarasa (US 20230102370 A1) teaches the method according to claim 25, wherein in response to the UE having the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle, determining the measurement configuration for RRM measurement according to the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle comprises:
in response to the UE having the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle and the UE has a first PTW, determining a measurement configuration for RRM measurement performed within the first PTW according to the first eDRX cycle, the first DRX cycle and the first PTW;
or, in response to the UE having the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle and the UE does not have the first PTW, determining a measurement configuration for RRM measurement performed within a time domain according to the first eDRX cycle and the first DRX cycle; wherein the first PTW is the PTW of the idle state eDRX cycle or the inactive state eDRX cycle which is equal to the first eDRX cycle (Note that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations (i.e. determining RRM measurement being contingent upon whether the UE has a first PTW, requires only those steps that must be performed (i.e. limitations that must be performed such as those of parent claim 1) and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TARELL A HAMPTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7162. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 5712723795. 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.
/TARELL A HAMPTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights