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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Preliminary Amendment
. Applicant’s preliminary amendment, filed on 1/11/2024, has been fully considered and entered. Claims 1-12 are amended, claims 14 and 15 are canceled, claims 16 and 17 are new, and claims 1-13, 16 and 17 are currently pending.
Priority
This application is a 371 National Stage of International Patent Application PCT/EP2022/069090, filed on July 8, 2022, which claims priority to Indian Patent Application No. IN202141034666, filed on August 2, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 3/11/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the respective target cell” on line 13 and 15. Examiner suggest changing the limitation to “the one or more target cells” or similar wording.
Claims 4 and 13 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is objected for similar reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example determining one or more parameters of a serving cell and one or more target cells at a first time instance; and estimating one or more time delay metrics for each of the one or more target cells based on said parameters, such that an optimal time point for performing a handover can be determined. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because he steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
CLAIM ANALYSIS
STEP 1: YES. The claims meet the statutory categories.
Claims 1-3 fall within a statutory category of machine.
Claims 4-12 fall within a statutory category of machine.
Claims 13, 16 and 17 fall within a statutory category of process.
STEP 2A: PRONG ONE YES. The claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 recite a judicial exception being directed to an abstract idea.
As a representative example, take Claim 1:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the following:
determining, at a user device of a mobile communication system, one or more parameters of a serving cell and one or more target cells at a first time instance; and
estimating one or more time delay metrics for each of the one or more target cells based on said parameters, such that an optimal time point for performing a handover can be determined, wherein the time delay metrics comprise one or more of:
a first time delay corresponding to a time period between the first time instance and a time instance at which a signal parameter of the serving cell is predicted to match a signal parameter of the respective target cell; and
a second time delay corresponding to a time period between the first time instance and a time instance at which the signal parameter of the respective target cell is predicted to be higher than the signal parameter of the serving cell by an offset value.
(Additional elements appearing in bold analyzed in Steps 2A,2B below)
In plain language, the claim steps above in the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) comprise determining parameter of serving cell and target cell, and estimating time delay metrics so that an optimal time point for performing a handover can be determined.
These steps are merely a mental process (i.e. receiving and sharing information). Examiner notes mental process includes describe mental observations and evaluations that can be performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion and also those performed with a pen/pencil or a general purpose computer (i.e. receiving, determining, and estimating).
Claims 4 and 13 contain the same process steps as claim 1, performed using general purpose computer.
STEP 2A Prong Two: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited in the claim individually and in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The additional elements in in claim 1 appear in bold and account for insignificant extra solution activity. The limitations merely define the intended environment (i.e. ‘serving cell’, ‘target cell’, etc.) defined generally and are mere generic entities such as “an apparatus” or “serving cell” and “target cells” constitute mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data generally, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
STEP 2B: NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere generic entities such as “An apparatus”, “processor”, “memory”, “serving cell” and “target cell” without any given implementation thus amount to data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
ANALYSIS 2A Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-13, 16 and 17
Dependent claims recite additional elements: sending time delay metrics to a network node in claims 2, 6 and 16, receiving configuration information from network node in claims 3, 9 and 17, initiating a handover command in claim 5, estimating signal parameter of serving cell fall below a threshold in claim 7, identify and prepare target cell in claim 8, parameters related to serving cell and target cell in claims 10 and 11, non-terrestrial network in claim 12.
The dependent claims further recite additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality and thus amount to intended environment descriptors. Thus, the claims are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, analyzing and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
ANALYSIS 2B Dependent Claims 2-3, 5-13, 16 and 17 NO. Evaluating additional elements recited, the claim as a whole does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis above in parts and re-evaluated again for the claims as a whole, the additional elements are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dang et al. (US 20180352492 A1 and Dang hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Dang teaches an apparatus (Figure 11 and Paragraph 0310; schematic structural diagram of a user equipment) comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 11 and Paragraph 0312; processor 1101); and
at least one memory including computer program code (Figure 11 and Paragraph 0313; memory 1102 is configured to store program code), wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform (Figure 11 and Paragraph 0313; the processor 1101 is configured to invoke program code that is for predicting signal strength of a serving cell and that is stored by the memory 1102, to predict the signal strength of the serving cell) the following:
determining, at a user device of a mobile communication system (Figure 7A-1; user equipment), one or more parameters of a serving cell (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraph 0168; the user equipment records the signal strength of the serving cell within a first preset time period) and one or more target cells (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraphs 0207 and 0208; the user equipment records the signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell within the first preset time period; the user equipment records the signal strength of the serving cell within a first preset time period) at a first time instance (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraphs 0168 and 0207; the user equipment records the signal strength of the serving cell and the target cell within a first preset time period); and
estimating one or more time delay metrics for each of the one or more target cells based on said parameters (Figure 7A-2 and Paragraph 0178; if the signal strength of the serving cell is falling, the user equipment predicts signal strength of the serving cell that is at a second preset time. Paragraph 0215; if the signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell is increasing, the user equipment predicts signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time. Paragraph 0181; the second preset time is a time point after the signal strength within the first preset time period is recorded, and can be derived according to a predefined rule. Examiner asserts the second preset time is interpreted as a time delay metrics), such that an optimal time point for performing a handover can be determined (Paragraphs 0267, 0278 and 0327; when signal strength of a cell satisfies a reporting criterion, user equipment reports the predicted value, so that a base station can perform a cell handover in advance according to the predicted value. Paragraph 0231; when using at least one of an event A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2 as a criterion for determining whether to report a measurement report, the user equipment compares the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time with another measure (for example, the signal strength of the serving cell or an absolute threshold) in the corresponding event to determine whether the criterion for reporting the measurement report is satisfied; and if the criterion is satisfied, reports the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell to the base station by using the measurement report, so that the base station determines, based on the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell instead of actual signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell, whether the user equipment needs to be handed over from a current serving cell to the neighboring cell of the serving cell), wherein the time delay metrics comprise one or more of:
a first time delay corresponding to a time period between the first time instance and a time instance at which a signal parameter of the serving cell is predicted to match a signal parameter of the respective target cell (this limitation is part of an “A AND/OR B” limitation, and since Dang teaches the “B” limitation below, this limitation has been satisfied); and
a second time delay corresponding to a time period between the first time instance and a time instance at which the signal parameter of the respective target cell (Paragraph 0215; if the signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell is increasing, the user equipment predicts signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time. Paragraph 0181; the second preset time is a time point after the signal strength within the first preset time period is recorded, and can be derived according to a predefined rule. Examiner asserts the second preset time is interpreted as a second time delay metrics) is predicted to be higher than the signal parameter of the serving cell by an offset value (Paragraph 0231; when using at least one of an event A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2 as a criterion for determining whether to report a measurement report, the user equipment compares the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time with another measure (for example, the signal strength of the serving cell or an absolute threshold) in the corresponding event to determine whether the criterion for reporting the measurement report is satisfied. Paragraph 0158; the event A3 is that an amount by which signal strength of a neighboring cell is greater than the signal strength of the serving cell is greater than a particular threshold (English: Event A3, Neighbor becomes amount of offset better than PCell/PSCell)).
Regarding claim 2, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to send some or all of said time delay metrics to a network node of the mobile communication system for use in determining the optimal time point for performing said handover (Paragraph 0231; when using at least one of an event A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2 as a criterion for determining whether to report a measurement report, the user equipment compares the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time with another measure (for example, the signal strength of the serving cell or an absolute threshold) in the corresponding event to determine whether the criterion for reporting the measurement report is satisfied; and if the criterion is satisfied, reports the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell to the base station by using the measurement report, so that the base station determines, based on the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell instead of actual signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell, whether the user equipment needs to be handed over from a current serving cell to the neighboring cell of the serving cell).
Regarding claim 3, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to receive configuration information from the network node of the mobile communication system for configuring the user device to estimate said time delay metrics (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraph 0155; user equipment receives a measurement configuration. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0003; the base station sends a measurement configuration to the user equipment and the user equipment measures signal strength of the serving cell and neighboring cell according to the received measurement configuration).
Regarding claim 4, Dang teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the following:
sending configuration information to a user device of a mobile communication system (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraph 0155; user equipment receives a measurement configuration. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0003; the base station sends a measurement configuration to the user equipment and the user equipment measures signal strength of the serving cell and neighboring cell according to the received measurement configuration), such that the user device is caused to:
determine one or more parameters of a serving cell (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraph 0168; the user equipment records the signal strength of the serving cell within a first preset time period) and one or more target cells (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraphs 0207 and 0208; the user equipment records the signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell within the first preset time period; the user equipment records the signal strength of the serving cell within a first preset time period) at a first time instance (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraphs 0168 and 0207; the user equipment records the signal strength of the serving cell and the target cell within a first preset time period); and
estimate one or more time delay metrics for each target cell based on said parameters (Figure 7A-2 and Paragraph 0178; if the signal strength of the serving cell is falling, the user equipment predicts signal strength of the serving cell that is at a second preset time. Paragraph 0215; if the signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell is increasing, the user equipment predicts signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time. Paragraph 0181; the second preset time is a time point after the signal strength within the first preset time period is recorded, and can be derived according to a predefined rule. Examiner asserts the second preset time is interpreted as a time delay metrics), wherein the time delay metrics comprise one or more of: a first time delay corresponding to a time period between the first time instance and a time instance at which the signal parameter of the serving cell is predicted to match the signal parameter of the respective target cell; and a second time delay corresponding to a time period between the first time instance and a time instance at which the signal parameter of the respective target cell (Paragraph 0215; if the signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell is increasing, the user equipment predicts signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time. Paragraph 0181; the second preset time is a time point after the signal strength within the first preset time period is recorded, and can be derived according to a predefined rule. Examiner asserts the second preset time is interpreted as a second time delay metrics) is predicted to be higher than the signal parameter of the source cells by an offset value (Paragraph 0231; when using at least one of an event A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2 as a criterion for determining whether to report a measurement report, the user equipment compares the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time with another measure (for example, the signal strength of the serving cell or an absolute threshold) in the corresponding event to determine whether the criterion for reporting the measurement report is satisfied. Paragraph 0158; the event A3 is that an amount by which signal strength of a neighboring cell is greater than the signal strength of the serving cell is greater than a particular threshold (English: Event A3, Neighbor becomes amount of offset better than PCell/PSCell));
receiving some or all of said time delay metrics from the user device (Paragraph 0231; when using at least one of an event A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2 as a criterion for determining whether to report a measurement report, the user equipment compares the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time with another measure (for example, the signal strength of the serving cell or an absolute threshold) in the corresponding event to determine whether the criterion for reporting the measurement report is satisfied; and if the criterion is satisfied, reports the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell to the base station by using the measurement report); and
determining an optimal time point for performing a handover based on the one or more time delay metrics received from the user device (Paragraphs 0267, 0278 and 0327; when signal strength of a cell satisfies a reporting criterion, user equipment reports the predicted value, so that a base station can perform a cell handover in advance according to the predicted value. Paragraph 0231; UE reports the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell to the base station by using the measurement report, so that the base station determines, based on the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell instead of actual signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell, whether the user equipment needs to be handed over from a current serving cell to the neighboring cell of the serving cell).
Regarding claim 5, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 4, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to initiate a handover command based on the determined optimal time point (Paragraphs 0194, 0230 and 0267; UE report predicted signal strength to the base station by using the measurement report, so that the base station performs a cell handover based on the predicted signal strength instead of actual signal strength. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0003; the base station sends an RRC message [interpreted as handover command] including the radio resource and the user equipment identifier, and after receiving the RRC message, the UE is connected to the another base station according to the RRC message).
Regarding claim 6, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to receive the first time instance and/or some or all of said parameters from said user device (Paragraph 0231; when using at least one of an event A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2 as a criterion for determining whether to report a measurement report, the user equipment compares the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell that is at the second preset time with another measure (for example, the signal strength of the serving cell or an absolute threshold) in the corresponding event to determine whether the criterion for reporting the measurement report is satisfied; and if the criterion is satisfied, reports the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell to the base station by using the measurement report).
Regarding claim 7, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to estimate, based at least in part on said parameters, a time instance at which signal parameter of the serving cell will fall below a threshold (Paragraph 0191; if the reporting criterion is satisfied, the user equipment reports the predicted signal strength of the serving cell that is at the second preset time. Paragraphs 0157 and 0263; measurement configuration includes an event identifier of at least one of an event A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, B1, or B2. The event identifier may be used as a criterion for the user equipment to determine whether a measurement report (Measurement Report) needs to be reported to the base station. Paragraph 0158; the event A2 is that the signal strength of the serving cell is less than an absolute threshold (English: Event A2, Serving becomes worse than absolute threshold)).
Regarding claim 8, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to identify and preparing suitable target cell and/or updating an existing list of target cells (Paragraphs 0267, 0278 and 0327; when signal strength of a cell satisfies a reporting criterion, user equipment reports the predicted value, so that a base station can perform a cell handover in advance according to the predicted value. Paragraph 0231; the user equipment reports the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell to the base station by using the measurement report, so that the base station determines, based on the predicted signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell instead of actual signal strength of the neighboring cell of the serving cell, whether the user equipment needs to be handed over from a current serving cell to the neighboring cell of the serving cell. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0003; if handover criterion is satisfied, the base station sends a handover request to another base station, and receive a handover response including the radio resource related configuration information and the user equipment identifier).
Regarding claim 9, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, as described above. Further, Dang teaches wherein the configuration information identifies said first time instance or provides a trigger condition for identifying said first time instance (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraph 0155; user equipment receives a measurement configuration. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0003; the base station sends a measurement configuration to the user equipment and the user equipment measures signal strength of the serving cell and neighboring cell according to the received measurement configuration).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, as described above. Claim 16 recites similar features as claim 2, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 16, as described above. Further, Dang teaches further comprising receiving configuration information from the network node of the mobile communication system (Figure 7A-1 and Paragraph 0155; user equipment receives a measurement configuration. As illustrated in Figure 1 and Paragraph 0003; the base station sends a measurement configuration to the user equipment and the user equipment measures signal strength of the serving cell and neighboring cell according to the received measurement configuration) for configuring the user device to estimate said time delay metrics (Figures 7A-1 and 7A-2, Paragraphs 0155 and 0204; the user equipment receives a measurement configuration and measures signal strength of a serving cell and a neighboring cell, Paragraphs 0172 and 0209; the user equipment determines, based on the signal strength of the serving cell within the first preset time period, whether the signal strength of the serving cell is falling and the signal strength of the neighboring cell is increasing. Figure 7A-2 and Paragraphs 0178 and 0215; the user equipment predicts signal strength of the serving cell and the neighboring cell at a second preset time).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang, as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Klein (US 20110059741 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the parameters comprise signal parameter rates of change of the serving cell and the one or more target cells. In an analogous art, Klein teaches wherein the parameters comprise signal parameter rates of change of the serving cell and the one or more target cells (Figure 20, Paragraphs 0044 and 0093; automatically receive signal strength data from a source cell and at least one target cell and automatically calculate a change in a rate of reduction of signal power of the source cell, and/or a change in rate of increase of signal power of the at least one target cell based on the signal strength data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dang and Klein because it would resolve the issue with conventional soft handover technology where there is a delay during active set addition that can result in dropped calls (Klein, Paragraphs 0004-0005).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Dang and Klein teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as described above. Further, Klein teaches wherein the signal parameter rates of change relates to a rate of change of radio signal received power and/or radio signal received quality measurements measured by the user device (Figure 20, Paragraphs 0044 and 0093; automatically receive signal strength data from a source cell and at least one target cell and automatically calculate a change in a rate of reduction of signal power of the source cell, and/or a change in rate of increase of signal power of the at least one target cell based on the signal strength data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dang and Klein because it would resolve the issue with conventional soft handover technology where there is a delay during active set addition that can result in dropped calls (Klein, Paragraphs 0004 and 0005).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dang, as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Arur et al. (US 20190230568 A1 and Arur hereinafter).
Regarding claim 12, Dang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Dang does not explicitly teach wherein the mobile communication system is a non-terrestrial network. However, in an analogous art, Arur teaches wherein the mobile communication system is a non-terrestrial network Abstract; prediction of user terminal handovers in a satellite communications network. Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0067-0068; current serving beam for the user terminal at time t.sub.0 is beam a of satellite A, then find the next instant of time t.sub.m at which the estimated signal strength of some other candidate, say beam b of satellite B is greater than or equal to the estimated signal strength of beam a of satellite A, and determine the ideal handover time t.sub.ho when the estimated signal strength of the current serving beam for the UT will be equal to the estimated signal strength of the other candidate beam. Paragraph 0130; calculate average slopes [interpreted as rate of change] of the signal strengths of the serving and candidate beams over a suitable time interval [t.sub.1, t.sub.ho] immediately prior to t.sub.ho, where t.sub.1 is chosen to provide sufficient lead time for pre-handover processing and signaling as well as for the worst-case anticipated error in the handover prediction t.sub.ho). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Dang and Arur because it would provide sufficient lead time for pre-handover processing and signaling as well as for the worst-case anticipated error in the handover prediction (Arur, Paragraph 0130).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Da Silva et al. (US 20230025432 A1) discloses UE predicts the mobility information and report the predicted mobility information to serving base station to perform handover procedure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647