DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1-4, 11-22, and 27-30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as allegedly being anticipated by Zou et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,265,696 B2, hereinafter "Zou"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Applicant argues independent claim 1, as amended, recites a UE comprising one or more processors operable to execute code to cause the UE to obtain predicted trajectory information, "wherein the predicted trajectory information is obtained based at least in part on a change in a location of the UE from a first zone to a second zone". Independent claims 19, 29, and 30, as amended, recite similar limitations. These limitations were previously included in dependent claims 4 and 22, which have now been canceled. In the rejection of claims 4 and 22, the Office Action alleges that column 14, lines 48-63 and Figure 2 of Zou discloses "receiv[ing] the indication based at least in part on a change in the location of the UE from a first zone to a second zone". See Office Action, page 4. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this characterization of the cited portion of Zou In the cited portion of Zou, the UE transmits a location update message or signal when the UE's actual location differs from its predicted location by a threshold amount. See Zou, col. 14, lines 48-63. In response to this location update message or signal, a DU transmits updated mobility prediction information back to the UE. See Zou, id. Applicant submits that this location update message and the resulting mobility prediction update are triggered by a discrepancy between predicted and actual location, and not by a change in the UE's location from a first zone to a second zone as recited in claims 1, 19, 29, and 30, as amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claim reads “…based at least in part on a change in a location of the UE from a first zone to a second zone”.
The Applicant is reminded that the claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The Examiner’s interpretation is as follows: Break down of the phrase
Based on: Built using a specific idea or fact
At least: a minimum amount
In part: only partially, not entirely
In other words, the claim reads, as best understood by the Examiner, the predicted trajectory information is obtained using a minimum amount, but not entirely on a change in a location of the UE from a first zone to a second zone (i.e., mobility).
The prior art specifically recite: TECHNICAL FIELD
“The present invention relates generally to a system and method for user equipment (UE) mobility in a wireless network, and, in particular embodiments, to a system and method for UE mobility based on UE location prediction”.
Thus, the claim itself is based at least in part on a system and method for user equipment (UE) mobility in a wireless network, and, in particular embodiments, to a system and method for UE mobility based on UE location prediction which reads on “based at least in part on a change in a location of the UE from a first zone to a second zone”.
Applicant argues Zou does not describe or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1, 19, 29, and 30 which have been amended to include recitations from dependent claims 4 and 22. Applicant submits that the Office Action has not alleged that Thomas, Masri, and Vemuri teach the limitations of claims 4 and 22. Rather, the Office Action relied on Thomas, Masri, and Vemuri to allegedly teach various other features of the dependent claims. See Office Action, pages 8-11. Accordingly, Applicant submits that claims 5-10 and 23- 26 are patentable over Zou in view of Thomas, Masri, and Vemuri.
The Examiner submits based on the response above Zou does describe or suggest the limitations of independent claims 1, 19, 29, and 30 which have been amended to include recitations from dependent claims 4 and 22.
The Examiner submits that the Office Action has not alleged that Thomas, Masri, and Vemuri teach the limitations of claims 4 and 22. Rather, the Office Action relied on Thomas, Masri, and Vemuri to allegedly teach various other features of the dependent claims. See Office Action, pages 8-11. Accordingly, The Examiner submits that claims 5-10 and 23- 26 are not patentable over Zou in view of Thomas, Masri, and Vemuri.
In a bon a fide attempt to advance prosecution, the Examiner has further reviewed the original disclosure for evidence to overcome such an interpretation and/or advance the clams over prior art. However, the Examiner was unable to find specific language specifying the meaning of the limitation(s) beyond that which has been communicated above in the Examiner’s interpretation.
The Examiner submits the following for the Applicant’s review prior to responding if the Applicant chooses to do so.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130110387 A1 teaches receiving trajectory prediction information regarding an aircraft, and then using this information to infer (extract) trajectory predictor parameters of the aircraft that are otherwise unknown to a ground automation system. The trajectory predictor parameters can then be applied to one or more trajectory predictors of the ground automation system to predict a trajectory of the aircraft.
US 20170100838 A1 teaches in at least 0034 - The safety controller can use the kinematic information to predict location(s) of actor(s) and apply safety criteria based on the predicted locations and/or predicted times of possible collisions. For example, suppose that the safety controller receives kinematic information indicating that, if a robotic actor and a human actor continue on current respective trajectories, then the robotic actor and the human actor will collide within a high-safety threshold time (e.g., 1 second, 5 seconds) and/or come within the high-safety threshold distance within the high-safety threshold time. In this example, the safety controller can make the predicted locations and/or predicted times of possible collisions, using the kinematic equations and/or other mathematical techniques for prediction locations of actors using kinematic information.
US 20190193737 A1 teaches an autonomous drive system for a vehicle includes at least one environment perception sensor, a perception module, a location module, an intention prediction module, and a control module. The perception module is configured to receive signals from the at least one environment perception sensor and detect and track at least two remote vehicles in one or both of a current lane and a neighboring lane. The location module is configured to determine a location of the vehicle. The intention prediction module is configured to generate predicted trajectories for the at least two remote vehicles. The control module is configured to receive signals from the at least one environment perception sensor and receive the predicted trajectories from the intention prediction module. The control module determines a location and time for a lane change based on the predicted trajectories and controls the vehicle to change lanes at the determined location and time.
US 20210304018 A1 teaches a plurality of trajectory prediction algorithms to be applied to the agent can be evaluated to generate a plurality of performance metrics associated with the plurality of trajectory prediction algorithms. A particular trajectory prediction algorithm of the plurality of trajectory prediction algorithms that is to be applied to the agent can be determined based on evaluating the context against the plurality of performance metrics. The context can be associated with a particular cluster of a plurality of clusters of contexts such that the particular trajectory prediction algorithm is associated with the particular cluster. In general, a trajectory associated with an agent represents a path to be taken (or expected to be taken) by the agent. For example, the vehicle can predict a trajectory of a bicyclist recognized in its surrounding environment. The predicted trajectory can describe changes to a location (or position) of the bicyclist over some period of time. For example, the predicted trajectory can indicate that the bicyclist is expected to be located at a first location in the environment at a first time and a second location in the environment at a second time. Thus, accurate prediction of agent trajectories is needed to enable the vehicle to effectively and safely navigate its surroundings.
Based on the small snapshot of the prior art above it would appear evident that the features claimed are actually notoriously well-known in the art. Therefore, the prior art would further anticipate and/or render the claims obvious.
The rejection is maintained as proper and made final.
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)(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) 1-3, 11-21 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zou et al. US Patent No.: 11, 265, 696 B2, hereinafter, ‘Zou’.
Consider Claim 1, Zou teaches a user equipment (UE)(col. 18, lines 9-21 and figure 6), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code (col. 18, lines 9-21 and figure 6) to cause the UE to: obtain predicted trajectory information associated with the UE, the predicted trajectory information corresponding to a predicted trajectory of the UE while the UE operates in an idle or inactive mode, and the predicted trajectory information indicating at least a predicted zone associated with the UE at a time instance after obtaining the predicted trajectory information (e.g., see at least col. 12 lines 4-12 – “to ensure the accuracy of the mobility prediction especially for inactive UEs, it is desirable to have closed loop tracking mechanism with UE feedbacks. The network can predict the time of visit of the cells/TRPs/beams on the UE's traveling route, then provide the mobility prediction information message to the UE which contains the list of the cells/TRPs/beams to be visited and the prediction of visit time of the cell/TRP/beam overages. The inactive UE can compare the predicted visit time with real time of visit a specific cell/TRP/beam coverage.”); and communicate, with a network entity, location information that is indicative of a location of the UE, the location information being based at least in part on the predicted trajectory information (col. 16 line 66- col. 17 line 6 and figure 6 – “FIG. 6 is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method 600 for updating mobility prediction information. The method 600 begins at block 602 where the network node obtains updated location information about the UE that triggers an update to the mobility prediction information. The trigger may be receiving a location update from the UE, which in itself is triggered by the actual location differing from the predicted location by a threshold amount.”);receive the indication based at least in part on a change in the location of the UE from a first zone to a second zone(e.g., see at least col. 14 lines 48-63 – location updating…threshold and/or mobility).
Claim 19 is directed to a Network Node corresponding to Claim 1. Claims 29 and 30 are directed towards the method for the structures of Claim 1 and 19 and therefore are rejected based upon the same rationale.
Consider Claims 2 and 20, Zou teaches wherein, to obtain the predicted trajectory information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive an indication of the predicted trajectory information from at least one network entity, wherein the at least one network entity is associated with a previous serving cell of the UE, a cell on which the UE is camped, a service of a core network of a wireless communication system associated with the UE, or any combination thereof (The DU [i.e., a Network Entity] sends the updated predicted mobility information – col. 14 lines 48-63 and figure 2).
Consider Claim 3, Zou teaches wherein, to receive the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive the indication while operating in a connected mode associated with an active connection between the UE and the network entity; and transition, after receiving the indication, from the connected mode to the idle or inactive mode (e.g., see at least col. 13 lines 25-34 – “The information will also be carried by mobility prediction information message. The UE can be in connected mode or in an inactive mode.” and col.14 lines 48-63 and figure 2).
Consider Claim 11, Zou teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit, to the network entity, an indicator of one or more parameters corresponding to the procedure, wherein transmitting the indication is in accordance with the one or more parameters (e.g., this is met based at least figures 2 and 3 – In order for the Examiner to better understand the limitations of the clams it would be most helpful if the Applicant could specify what “transmitting the indication is in accordance with the one or more parameters” ).
Consider Claims 12 and 27, Zou teaches wherein, to transmit the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit the indication based at least in part on an actual trajectory of the UE while the UE operates in the idle or inactive mode, wherein the actual trajectory deviates from the predicted trajectory (e.g., see at least col. 14 lines 48-62 and figure 2).
Consider Claims 13 and 28, Zou teaches wherein, to communicate the location information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit, to the network entity, an indication of whether the location of the UE at the time instance is consistent with the predicted trajectory information, the indication comprising the location information (e.g., as best understood by the Examiner col. 5 lines 10-15 would meet the ”consistency” requirement - The original disclosure does not lend itself to a specific defining boundary of “consistent”. Therefore, the Examiner’s interpretation is based on the context of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning. –“All above cells/TRPs/beams entering time and the time duration of stay included in the mobility prediction information message and delivered to the UE allows the UE to compare the predicted time and actual time at the current cell/TRP/beam coverage.” ).
Consider Claim 14, Zou teaches wherein the predicted zone comprises a cell, a tracking area, a radio access network notification area, a beam, or one or more geo-location coordinates (e.g., see contents in table 14).
Consider Claim 15, Zou teaches wherein: the predicted zone corresponds to one or more signal strength measurement parameters (e.g., see at least col. 13 lines 11-20 and table 1-channel state information).
Consider Claim 16, Zou teaches wherein the predicted zone corresponds to a result of a sensing procedure at the UE (e.g., col. 14 line 64 – col. 15 line 12).
Consider Claim 17, Zou teaches wherein the predicted trajectory information is further indicative of a respective duration the location of the UE is predicted to be associated with the predicted zone, the time instance being within the respective duration(e.g., see at least time of stay in table 14 ).
Consider Claim 18, Zou teaches wherein: the time instance is a first time instance, and the location of the UE at a second time instance before the first time instance is associated with the predicted zone, and the predicted trajectory information further indicates a duration over which the location of the UE is predicted to be associated with the predicted zone (e.g., this is met based on table 1).
Consider Claim 21, Zou teaches wherein, to output the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: output the indication based at least in part on an active connection between the UE and the network entity; and determine to release the active connection between the UE and the network entity after outputting the indication (e.g., see at least col. 13 lines 25-34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 5-10 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. US Patent No.: 11,265,696 B2, hereinafter, ‘Zou’ in view of Thomas et al, US Patent Pub. No.: 2022/0240129 A1, hereinafter, ‘Thomas’ and further in view of Masri US Patent Pub. No.: 2024/0107402 and further in view of Vemuri et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 20230039800, hereinafter, ‘Vemuri’.
Consider Claim 5, Zou teaches the claimed invention except wherein, to obtain the predicted trajectory information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: obtain the predicted trajectory information based at least in part on a machine learning model that is deployed at the UE.
In analogous art, Larsson teaches “gaining information on a predicted future route of the user entity; and informing, upon a request from the cellular network, the cellular network on the predicted future route by sending to the cellular network a list of locations along the predicted future route” – see Larsson claim 24 - for improved handling of tracking/paging/RAN notification areas for, for instance, user entities in inactive modes and a concept for enabling intelligent route selection in cellular networks-0002. Marsi teaches a ML model and using the UE's trajectory and speed information as input to the ML regression model to produce output in lines 0115-0116 based on unnecessary handoff information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try modifying Zou to obtain the predicted trajectory information based at least in part on a machine learning model that is deployed at the UE with the teachings of Larsson and Marsi yielding predictable results for the purpose of improving handoff enhancing user mobility.
Consider Claim 6, Zou teaches the claimed invention except wherein, to communicate the location information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of the predicted trajectory information to the network entity.
In analogous art, Larsson teaches “gaining information on a predicted future route of the user entity; and informing, upon a request from the cellular network, the cellular network on the predicted future route by sending to the cellular network a list of locations along the predicted future route” – see Larsson claim 24 - for improved handling of tracking/paging/RAN notification areas for, for instance, user entities in inactive modes and a concept for enabling intelligent route selection in cellular networks-0002.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try modifying Zou wherein, to communicate the location information, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit an indication of the predicted trajectory information to the network entity with the teachings of Larsson and Marsi yielding predictable results for the purpose of improving handoff enhancing user mobility.
Consider Claims 7-8, and 25, Zou teaches the user equipment (UEs) in a radio resource control (RRC) connected state or an RRC inactive state(i.e., in other words the use of RRC protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try using RRC protocol to arrive at the predictable result wherein, in combination with features of the dependent claim, transmit the indication, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: transmit the indication while the UE operates in a connected mode associated with an active connection between the UE and the network entity; and transition, after transmitting the indication, from the connected mode to the idle or inactive mode establish an active connection with the network entity; and transmit the indication to the network entity based at least in part on establishing the active connection and obtain the indication from the UE via an active connection between the UE and the network entity; and determine to release the active connection between the UE and the network entity after obtaining the indication for the purpose of transmission protocol.
Consider Claim 9, Zou teaches wherein transmission of the indication is in accordance with a procedure for updating the location of the UE (e.g., see at least col. 14 lines 57-61 and figure 2 ‘220’).
Consider Claims 10 and 26, Zou teaches the claimed invention except wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, a periodicity indicator associated with the procedure, where transmission of the indication is in accordance with a periodicity indicated by the periodicity indicator.
In analogous art, Marsi teaches the network may indicate also a prediction periodicity information to be used by the UE (e.g., see at least 0087, 0111, and 0114 - that allows to dynamically (optional: periodically) predict and tune an extra penalty (Ping-Pong Offset (PPOffset)) over the old serving cell/beam after a handover in order to avoid ping-pong between the current serving cell/beam and the old one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try modifying Zou obtaining the results wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from the network entity, a periodicity indicator associated with the procedure, where transmission of the indication is in accordance with a periodicity indicated by the periodicity indicator for the purpose of improving handoff for mobility.
Consider Claim 24, Zou teaches the claimed invention except wherein the indication is obtained from the at least one other network entity, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: output a paging signal to the UE in response to obtaining the indication.
In analogous art, Vemuri teaches improving the operation of transmitting paging requests by predicting the location of the UE 104A based on the route and velocity information matrix and forwarding the paging requests to the appropriate base stations 102 that may be associated with the traveling UE 104A- 0063.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try improving the operation of transmitting paging requests by predicting the location of the UE 104A based on the route and velocity information matrix and forwarding the paging requests to the appropriate base stations 102 that may be associated with the traveling UE 104A arriving at the predictable result wherein the indication is obtained from the at least one other network entity, and the one or more processors are individually or collectively further operable to execute the code to cause the network entity to: output a paging signal to the UE in response to obtaining the indication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights