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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JAPAN 2023-022402, filed on February 16, 2023, has been filed in Application No. 18/684,837, filed on January 01, 2025. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It is also noted that the present application is a 371 National Phase Patent Application of PCT/JP2023/026729, for which the 371(c) filing date is July 21, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024 has been considered by examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Regarding Claim 1
Line 4, an upper-layer measurement reporter to report upper-layer communication quality…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Line 7, a state transitioner to transition…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Line 10, causing a lower-layer measurement reporter, in the lower-layer control state, to report…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Line 13, causing a handover determiner, in the lower-layer control state, to determine…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Regarding Claim 13:
Line 4, causing a first measurement reporter to report…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Line 7, a statistical value acquirer to acquire a statistical value…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Line 9, a second measurement reporter to report second…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a centralized or distributed manner by computer or processor provided in at least one of: a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2;”).
Line 12, causing a handover determiner to determine…
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for performing the said limitation: (Specification, paragraph [0043], “The functional blocks are realized by the cooperation of hardware resources and software to be executed using them. Examples of such hardware resources include a central processing unit, a memory, an input device, and an output device of a computer, or a peripheral device connected to the computer.” and paragraph [0044], “a communication device UE similar to the above communication device 2; base stations BS1 and BS2 similar to at least one of the above base stations 111, 121, and 131;”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOCKALINGAM (US-20160360462-A1) in view of Zou (US-20210368399-A1).
Regarding Claim 13, CHOCKALINGAM discloses a communication control apparatus that controls handover of a communication device from one base station to another base station
causing a first measurement reporter to report first communication quality of the one base station measured by the communication device to the one base station (paragraph [0052], Fig.6A:604;606;620, "In step 604, the wireless communication device measures a signal strength, e.g., the RSRP, of the serving cell…the wireless communication device can proceed to step 620 and send a normal (unmodified) measurement report to the serving cell of the eNodeB to trigger handover." (i.e., reporting RSRP report to perform handover.));
causing a statistical value acquirer to acquire a statistical value of the first communication quality (paragraph [0039], "As would be understood by those skilled in the art, an RSRP performance metric can be defined as an average received signal power of RSs received by the UE 302 from the serving eNodeB 304 over a particular time interval. The UE 302 can also measure other performance metrics, such as RRSI, RSRQ, RSCP, SNR, SINR, BER, BLER, and/or other physical layer (or “lower” layer) …" and paragraph [0052], Fig.6A:608 "When the signal strength of the serving cell does not fall below the network-defined threshold, the wireless communication device, in step 608, measures a signal quality of the serving cell, e.g., the SINR of the serving cell. In some embodiments, the wireless communication device computes the SINR of the serving cell by estimating an interference-plus-noise level for the serving cell using information derived from decoding the reference signals and combines such information with signal strength measurements for the reference signals to determine and SINR value on each resource element, in a set of resource blocks, on which the reference signals are communicated by the serving cell of the eNodeB to the wireless communication device." (i.e., examiner is reading a statistical value as the SINR of the communication of the serving cell.));
causing a second measurement reporter to report second communication quality of the other base station measured by the communication device to the one base station in the lower layer, if the statistical value goes below a handover measurement threshold (paragraph [0052], Fig.6A:612 "When the SINR of the serving cell falls below the UE-defined signal quality threshold, in step 612, the wireless communication device measures one or more neighbor cells, which can be located based on a search by the wireless communication device and/or based on information about neighbor cells provided by the serving cell." (i.e., When the SINR is below a threshold, a different report will be made that will include the neighboring cell measurement in order to transfer from the serving base station to the neighbor.));
and causing a handover determiner to determine appropriateness of the handover in the lower layer based on the first communication quality and the second communication quality (paragraph [0056], Fig.6A:618 "In step 618, the wireless communication device derives a measurement report that includes one or more modified values for measurements of the serving cell reported to the serving cell by the wireless communication device. The modified measurement report is derived to trigger a handover by the eNodeB to switch the wireless communication device from the serving cell to the neighbor cell." (i.e., The report that is based off from first measurement quality that is indicating the serving cell is below SINR and the second measurement quality is the measurement of the neighboring cell that the UE needs to hand off and based on both the measurement will indicate the UE to perform a handover.)).
However, CHOCKALINGAM does not explicitly disclose at least two layers in a communication protocol hierarchy; causing a first measurement reporter to report first communication quality of the one base station measured by the communication device to the one base station in a lower layer of the two layers; in the lower layer.
Zou discloses at least two layers in a communication protocol hierarchy (paragraph [0118], "RRC (L3) level measurements may be used if both beam level measurements and cell level measurement are required by source node 302, which may bring longer delay due to extra L3 processing and filtering. In another embodiment, L1 measurement may be used per beam basis with shorter filtering time and shorter delay." (i.e., Zou discloses two layers.));
causing a first measurement reporter to report first communication quality of the one base station measured by the communication device to the one base station in a lower layer of the two layers (paragraph [0116], Fig.3:304, "At step 304, UE 301 transmits a first measurement report to source node 302." and paragraph [0117], "UE 301 may monitor radio conditions of the neighboring radio access nodes and may report measurement results by transmitting a series of measurement reports, which include the first measurement report and the second measurement report. The radio conditions that UE 301 monitors may include physical layer (L1) measurements of candidate beams of a neighboring radio access node…" and paragraph [0120], "a lower layer signaling (e.g., an MAC PDU or an L1 signaling message) may be used to carry the measurement report to reduce delays that may be introduced by RRC layer filtering and reporting." (i.e., Zou discloses reporting of lower layer.));
in the lower layer (paragraph [0117], "UE 301 may monitor radio conditions of the neighboring radio access nodes and may report measurement results by transmitting a series of measurement reports, which include the first measurement report and the second measurement report. The radio conditions that UE 301 monitors may include physical layer (L1) measurements of candidate beams of a neighboring radio access node…" and paragraph [0120], "a lower layer signaling (e.g., an MAC PDU or an L1 signaling message) may be used to carry the measurement report to reduce delays that may be introduced by RRC layer filtering and reporting." (i.e., Zou discloses reporting multiple measurement in the same layer.)).
CHOCKALINGAM and Zou are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CHOCKALINGAM to implement the method of Zou of reporting measurement as it provides the reporting in L3 and also has reporting in L1 signaling message that provides reduced delays that is introduced by RRC layer filtering and reporting (Zou, paragraph [0120], “the first measurement report and the second measurement report may be RRC signaling messages. Alternatively, a lower layer signaling (e.g., an MAC PDU or an L1 signaling message) may be used to carry the measurement report to reduce delays that may be introduced by RRC layer filtering and reporting.”). Furthermore, there is a requirement of meeting Ultra-Reliability and Low-Latency communication and having lots of challenges and Zou provides techniques and solutions to fix with interruptions caused by the handover (Zou, paragraph [0101], “To meet requirements of Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency Communications (URLLC), mobility management in 5.sup.th generation (5G) new radio (NR) networks faces many challenges… Furthermore, using a Dual Connectivity (DC) technique in 5G NR, the UE may receive traffic data from both the source node and the target node during the handover. This technique may reduce latency of the traffic by mitigating throughput fluctuation and minimizing service interruption caused by the handover. However, efficient radio resource utilization on both the source node and the target node may be difficult to achieve without proper data synchronization and buffer management mechanisms. Therefore, flexible and advanced handover techniques are desired to solve the above issues.”).
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEGUIE (EP-2343923-A1) in view of CHENG (US-20210345201-A1) in further view of CHUNG (WO-2022071761-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, SEGUIE discloses a communication control apparatus that controls handover of a communication device from one base station to another base station in at least two layers in a communication protocol hierarchy (Fig.4),
causing an upper-layer measurement reporter to report upper-layer communication quality of at least the one base station measured by the communication device (page 4, paragraph [0034], Fig.4, "Terminal 400 triggers a series of quality measurements in a step 402 for evaluating a quality of communication in a 3G telecommunication network controlled by management unit 401. Terminal 400 then periodically sends 3G quality measurements 403 to the management unit. Alternatively, the measurements may be sent only upon request of a management unit of the network." (i.e., examiner is reading SEGUIE terminal is sending the base station communication of 3G as the upper-layer communication quality.));
causing a state transitioner to transition the communication control apparatus to a lower-layer control state in which the handover control is enabled in a lower layer of the two layers, if the upper-layer communication quality goes below a lower-layer control threshold (Fig.2, 3G_T1) (page 4, paragraph [0035], Fig.4:403,405,406, "The management unit processes measurements 403 in a step 404 and checks whether this quality is enough good. When quality is getting low, it sends a request 405 to the terminal 400 for performing quality measurements for evaluating a quality of communications in a 2G network controlled by management unit 401." and Fig.2. (i.e., a state transitioner is implied because when the quality of 3G gets worse, the terminal will send 2G measurements. Fig.2 shows the different thresholds.));
causing a lower-layer measurement reporter, in the lower-layer control state, to report lower-layer communication quality of at least the one base station measured by the communication device (page 4, paragraph [0036], Fig.4:406,407, "The terminal 400 then triggers the measurements in the 2G network in step 406. In step 409, the terminal checks whether or not quality has got better in the 3G network." and paragraph [0037], Fig.4:407, "If quality has not got better, it sends 2G measurements 407 to the management unit 401" (i.e., terminal sending 2G measurements.));
causing a handover determiner, in the lower-layer control state, to determine appropriateness of the handover in the lower layer (page 4, paragraph [0037], "If quality has not got better, it sends 2G measurements 407 to the management unit 401 (alternatively, the measurements may be sent only upon request of the management unit). The management unit then triggers a decision process 408 for deciding, based on measurements 407 whether or not a handover should be performed." (i.e., determining the handover of the UE based on the upper communication not improving.)).
However, SEGUIE does not explicitly disclose to at least the one base station in an upper layer of the two layers; to at least the one base station in the lower layer; and causing a handover determiner, in the lower-layer control state, to determine appropriateness of the handover in the lower layer based on the lower-layer communication quality.
CHENG discloses to at least the one base station in an upper layer of the two layers (paragraph [0137], and Fig.3, "UE 115-a may regularly perform cell measurements to measure cell quality of neighboring cells. Some examples of cell measurements included in a measurement report 215 may include one or more of RSRP, RSRQ, or SINR. Cell measurements may also be used to trigger a handover as part of a measurement event evaluation. For example, if a neighbor cell has a cell quality greater than a configured threshold, UE 115-a may trigger a handover to that neighbor cell, which may then be referred to as the target cell or target base station of the handover. In some cases, the serving cell of UE 115-a may trigger a handover based on one or more measurement events occurring at UE 115-a. For example, cell evaluation may trigger a measurement event, and the network (e.g., including the serving cell) may identify a potential target cell for handover of UE 115-a based on that measurement event or based on a measurement report transmitted during the measurement event." (i.e., Modifying SEGUIE refence to report L3 based measurement instead of 3G.)).
SEGUIE and CHENG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEGUIE to implement the system of CHENG as it enables the terminal of SEGUIE to report cell measurement in order to perform handover based on the measurement and also provides the adnvatage to report beam measurement for just a subset of neighboring cell thus reducing the amount of power to take beam measurement (CHENG, paragraph [0006], “A UE described herein may be configured to report beam measurements for just a subset of neighboring cells. For example, the UE may report cell measurements for each of the neighboring cells, but the UE may measure, or in some cases report, beam measurements for a subset of the neighboring cells which meet configured criteria or are included in a subset of cells configured by the serving cell. By measuring for just the subset of neighboring cells, the UE may reduce an amount of power used to take beam measurements and reduce an amount of overhead allocated for a measuring report.”).
However, SEGUIE in view of CHENG does not explicitly disclose to at least the one base station in an upper layer of the two layers; and causing a handover determiner, in the lower-layer control state, to determine appropriateness of the handover in the lower layer based on the lower-layer communication quality.
CHUNG discloses to at least the one base station in an upper layer of the two layers (page 11, paragraph 1, "In addition, the UE reports an L3 (eg, RRC layer)-based measurement value to the base station based on measurement configuration information (in particular, a reporting condition, etc.) (ie, a measurement reporting operation)." (i.e., Modifying SEGUIE refence to report L3 based measurement instead of 3G.));
causing a handover determiner, in the lower-layer control state, to determine appropriateness of the handover in the lower layer based on the lower-layer communication quality (page 11, last paragraph, "Option 1 refers to a method of replacing an L3-based cell quality value included in the existing report configuration information (eg, ReportConfigNR IE) with an L1-based beam quality value. That is, option 1 is a method in which the UE checks whether a measurement result for each MO meets a handover event trigger condition defined based on a beam quality value." and page 12, paragraph 7, "Option 2 refers to a method of defining a handover event trigger condition including an L3-based cell quality value and an L1-based beam quality value. That is, option 2 is a method in which the UE checks whether a handover event trigger condition is satisfied based on the L3-based cell quality value and the L1-based beam quality value for each MO." (i.e., performing handover based on the lower-layer communication quality meeting a threshold e.g. L1-based beam quality value.)).
SEGUIE in view of CHENG and CHUNG are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEGUIE to implement the system of CHUNG as there is an increase in communication capacity, there is a need for improved mobile broadband communication such as new radio (NR) and CHUNG provides handover based on the layer of either L3 or L1 making it more flexible when the user device needs to perform handoff (CHUNG, page 5, paragraph after “system general”, “As more and more communication devices require greater communication capacity, there is a need for improved mobile broadband communication compared to a conventional radio access technology (RAT)… the technology is called NR. NR is an expression showing an example of 5G RAT.”).
Regarding Claim 2, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
CHUNG further discloses wherein the upper layer is the third layer or L3 in the communication protocol hierarchy defined by 3GPP for NR (page 10, paragraph 3, "One or several report configuration information (eg, ReportConfigNR IE) may be configured per MO. Report configuration information is a measurement result (eg, L3 (layer 3) based signal) derived based on RS (eg, synchronization signal (SS), SSB, or CSI-RS) for MO (s)" and page 22, paragraph 2, "Although the method proposed in the present disclosure has been described focusing on examples applied to 3GPP LTE/LTE-A and 5G systems" (i.e., the upper layer is L3 and page 22 discloses the L3 is based on 3GPP LTE.)),
and wherein the lower layer is at least one of the first layer or L1 (page 11, paragraph 4, "the terminal transmits a CSI measurement value based on L1 (layer 1) (eg, physical layer) to the base station for the purpose of changing a transmission and reception point (TRP)/panel/beam in the same cell." and page 22, paragraph 2, "Although the method proposed in the present disclosure has been described focusing on examples applied to 3GPP LTE/LTE-A and 5G systems" (i.e., examiner is reading "at least one" as the lower layer is either L1 or L2. CHUNG discloses L1.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 5, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SEGUIE further discloses wherein the upper-layer measurement reporter, in the lower-layer control state, stops the reporting of the upper-layer communication quality from the communication device (page 4, paragraph [0024], Fig.2, "When the power of the communication signals of the 3G network (for example the RSCP) is below a threshold value "3G_T1", the management unit 15 requests terminal 10 to perform power measurements in the 2G network (such as measuring the RxLev parameter). When the power of the communication signals of the 3G network is above threshold value "3G_T2", and that a measurement of power in the 2G network has been requested, terminal 10 stops reporting the measurements." (i.e., SEGUIE discloses of different states shown in Fig.2 and can stop reporting of the measurement.)).
CHUNG further discloses wherein the upper-layer measurement reporter, in the lower-layer control state, stops the reporting of the upper-layer communication quality from the communication device (page 11, last paragraph, "Option 1 refers to a method of replacing an L3-based cell quality value included in the existing report configuration information (eg, ReportConfigNR IE) with an L1-based beam quality value…" (i.e., SEGUIE disclose the lower-layer control state in Fig.2, and CHUNG discloses stopping of reporting L3 measurement to report L1 measurement.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 6, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
CHUNG further discloses wherein the upper-layer measurement reporter, in the lower-layer control state, continues the reporting of the upper-layer communication quality from the communication device (page 12, paragraph 7, "Option 2 refers to a method of defining a handover event trigger condition including an L3-based cell quality value and an L1-based beam quality value. That is, option 2 is a method in which the UE checks whether a handover event trigger condition is satisfied based on the L3-based cell quality value and the L1-based beam quality value for each MO." and page 12, paragraph 8, "In order to apply option 2, a condition related to a beam quality value (ie, an L1-based condition) may be included in the existing handover event trigger condition (ie, L3-based condition). When one or both of the L1-based condition and the L3-based condition are satisfied, a handover event may be triggered, and accordingly, the UE may perform a measurement reporting operation." (i.e., Modifying SEGUIE wherein the UE Fig.4:407 reporting 2G measurement it can measure both L1 and L3 measurement and use both the measurement to determine a handover.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 9, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
SEGUIE further discloses wherein the state transitioner transitions the communication control apparatus to a lower-layer transition determining state (Fig.2, 3G_T2) for determining the appropriateness of the transition to the lower-layer control state, if the upper-layer communication quality goes below a lower-layer transition determining threshold which is higher than the lower-layer control threshold (page 4, paragraph [0026], Fig.2, "At instant t1, while performing a communication over the 3G network, the terminal measures an RSCP value that is above threshold value 3G_T1, hence communication may continue normally. This is also the case at instants t2 and t3…" (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.2, wherein has three states and depending on the quality of the signal the UE will report measurement depending on the level of threshold. Examiner reading a lower-layer transition determining state as the state 3G_T2 as that state is the buffer state before 3G_T1 wherein when the quality goes below 3G_T2 the UE will transition from upper-state to a lower-state in order to report 2G instead of 3G.)),
and transitions the communication control apparatus from the lower-layer transition determining state (Fig.2, 3G_T2) to the lower-layer control state (Fig.2, 3G_T1), if the upper-layer communication quality goes below the lower-layer control threshold (page 4, paragraph [0026], Fig.2, "…At instant t4, RSCP is below threshold 3G_T1, then the management unit 15 requests terminal 10 to perform RxLev measurements in the 2G network." (i.e., See above for explanation.)).
Regarding Claim 10, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 9.
SEGUIE further discloses wherein the upper-layer measurement reporter causes the communication device to report the upper-layer communication quality before and after going below the lower-layer transition determining threshold based on a common reporting format (page 4, paragraph [0026], Fig.2, "At instant t1, while performing a communication over the 3G network, the terminal measures an RSCP value that is above threshold value 3G_T1, hence communication may continue normally. This is also the case at instants t2 and t3…" and page 4, paragraph [0034], "Terminal 400 then periodically sends 3G quality measurements 403 to the management unit. Alternatively, the measurements may be sent only upon request of a management unit of the network." (i.e., as shown in Fig.2, and par.26 the communication is normal when going below 3G_T1 which is mapped as lower-layer transition determining threshold and "may continue normally" is reading as the same reporting format until the quality is below 3G_T2 as disclosed in Fig.2 and Fig.4 to include 2G measurements.)).
Regarding Claim 14, which is similar in scope to claim 1, thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEGUIE (EP-2343923-A1) in view of CHENG (US-20210345201-A1) in view of CHUNG (WO-2022071761-A1) in further view of Pezeshki (US-20220225188-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG do not disclose wherein the reporting frequency of the upper-layer communication quality from the communication device by the upper-layer measurement reporter is lower than the reporting frequency of the lower-layer communication quality from the communication device by the lower-layer measurement reporter.
Pezeshki discloses wherein the reporting frequency of the upper-layer communication quality from the communication device by the upper-layer measurement reporter is lower than the reporting frequency of the lower-layer communication quality from the communication device by the lower-layer measurement reporter (paragraph [0047], "…In some examples, L1 or L2 signaling may occur more frequently than L3 signaling. Thus, handover procedures based on L1 or L2 signaling may be dynamic and exhibit a higher efficiency and reduced latency when compared to L3 handover procedures." and paragraph [0048], "Accordingly, it may be advantageous for a communication device to use L1 reporting techniques for downlink signals received from other communication devices (e.g., base stations) of non-serving cells to increase a frequency of reporting or an amount of information associated with channel conditions on neighboring cells provided to communication devices (e.g., base stations) of serving cells." (i.e., SEGUI discloses reporting two different measurements, CHUNG discloses reporting L1 measurement and L3 measurement. Pezeshki is disclosing the L3 is performed less frequently compared to L1/L2 measurement.)).
SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG and Pezeshki are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEGUIE to implement the system of Pezeshki of having more frequent L1 measurement as it would increase efficiency or decrease a latency associated with handover procedure (Pezeshki, paragraph [0048], “Accordingly, it may be advantageous for a communication device to use L1 reporting techniques for downlink signals received from other communication devices (e.g., base stations) of non-serving cells to increase a frequency of reporting or an amount of information associated with channel conditions on neighboring cells provided to communication devices (e.g., base stations) of serving cells. By implementing L1 reporting, the communication devices may increase an efficiency or decrease a latency associated with handover procedures in wireless communications systems which support inter-cell mobility.”).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEGUIE (EP-2343923-A1) in view of CHENG (US-20210345201-A1) in view of CHUNG (WO-2022071761-A1) in further view of PALADUGU (US-20210136638-A1).
Regarding Claim 4, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
CHUNG further discloses wherein the handover determiner determines the appropriateness of the handover in the upper layer based on the upper-layer communication quality (page 12, paragraph 7, "Option 2 refers to a method of defining a handover event trigger condition including an L3-based cell quality value and an L1-based beam quality value. That is, option 2 is a method in which the UE checks whether a handover event trigger condition is satisfied based on the L3-based cell quality value and the L1-based beam quality value for each MO." (i.e., performing handover based both the quality of L3 and L1 measurement being satisfied.)).
However, SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG do not disclose wherein the handover determiner determines the appropriateness of the handover in the upper layer based on the upper-layer communication quality.
PALADUGU discloses wherein the handover determiner determines the appropriateness of the handover in the upper layer based on the upper-layer communication quality (paragraph [0069], Fig.4, "At 415, UE 120 may provide a measurement report to source BS 110-1. The measurement report may be generated by the UE 120, and may indicate to the source BS 110-1 that a handover is to be performed from the source BS 110-1 to the target BS 110-2. For example, the UE 120 may perform cell quality measurements (e.g., L3 cell quality measurements) to assess the quality of radio links between the UE 120 and one or more of the source BS 110-1 and the target BS 110-2. Accordingly, the measurement report may include the results of the cell quality measurements. In some examples, if the quality of the radio link between the UE 120 and the source BS 110-1 is sufficient to allow for successful UL communication of the measurement report, then successful receipt of the measurement report at the source BS 110-1 may indicate to the source BS 110-1 that a handover is to be performed from the source BS 110-1 to the target BS 110-2." (i.e., Using L3 measurement which is the upper-layer to determine handover. This is to show the handover is based ONLY on L3 measurement.)).
SEGUIE in view of CHENG in further view of CHUNG and PALADUGU are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified SEGUIE to implement the system of PALADUGU of performing L3 handover as it provides low-latency or zero-latency handover from a source base station to a target bases station (Pezeshki, paragraph [0065], “Some techniques and apparatuses described herein provide for low-latency or zero-latency handover from a source base station (BS) to a target BS (e.g., in a network such as a 4G/LTE or 5G/NR network)…configuration of the handover using a first protocol stack of the user equipment (UE) and a second protocol stack of the UE, wherein the first protocol stack is used for communication with the first BS and the second protocol stack is used for communication with the second BS. The use of the two protocol stacks may enable configuration of handover with regard to the target BS to be performed while communication with the source BS is ongoing. Thus, a latency associated with handing over the UE from the source BS to the target BS is reduced.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8, and 11-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner notes of contingent limitation when using “If” see MPEP 2111.04(II) Contingent Limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648