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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 03/05/25 and 03/25/24 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,7,11,12,18 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over De Pasquale et al. (EP 2372937 B1, hereinafter De Pasquale)
Regarding claim 1, De Pasquale discloses a method for adjusting a communication mode of a terminal device, comprising:
acquiring a running state of the terminal device, wherein the running state comprises one or any combination of a running scenario, network performance, or a running speed (Par. 14: Lines 1-3; The UE decides whether to use MIMO or DC according to the context in terms of radio conditions and traffic to achieve the best possible performance; Par. 20: Lines 5-6; Radio conditions can be expressed in terms of CQI (channel quality indicator); Par. 53: Line 1; The selection between MIMO and DC can be based upon the traffic characteristics of a user; CQI values and traffic characteristics represent a running state (network performance) that are acquired and measured for decision making; The remaining limitations were given to patentable weight due to the optional language “or”);
determining an adjustment mode matching the running state, wherein N adjustment modes corresponding to different running states are preset, and N is an integer greater than 1 (Par. 14: Lines 1-3; The UE decides whether to use MIMO or DC according to the context in terms of radio conditions and traffic to achieve the best possible performance; There are N=2 adjustment modes selected based on radio conditions);
and adjusting the communication mode of the terminal device according to the adjustment mode (Par. 43: The RNC at call set-up will decide whether the UE will be using DC or MIMO; Par. 45; During the call, the conditions will be evaluated to determine if reconfiguration is needed).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, De Pasquale discloses wherein acquiring a running state of the terminal comprises:
periodically acquiring the running state of the terminal device according to a preset time interval (Par. 48: Timers; The system periodically re-evaluates system conditions at predefined time intervals; Re-evaluating conditions requires acquiring updated system state information at predefined time intervals).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 11. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 have been addressed.
A device capable of performing the recited functions necessarily includes a processor and memory.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
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.
Claims 2,3,13,14,21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Pasquale et al. (EP 2372937, hereinafter De Pasquale) in view of Park et al. (US 20190261424, hereinafter Park)
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, De Pasquale does not disclose wherein the adjustment mode comprises one or any combination of:
an uplink and downlink adjustment mode, a frequency offset compensation mode, a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) movement estimation mode, or a path network matching mode.
Park, however, discloses wherein the adjustment mode comprises one or any combination of:
an uplink and downlink adjustment mode (Par. 309: Lines 6-9; The device selects between different network configurations (normal uplink or supplementary uplink) based on operating conditions; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”), a frequency offset compensation mode, a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) movement estimation mode, or a path network matching mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the communication mode selection of De Pasquale to include an uplink and downlink adjustment mode, as taught by Park, in order to provide a more granular and adaptable control of uplink behavior under varying radio conditions. Since De Pasquale already selects communication configurations based on radio conditions and throughput, incorporating Park’s disclosure of selecting between different uplink configurations (e.g., normal uplink and supplementary uplink) would predictably improve the system’s ability to maintain reliable communication, particularly in scenarios with fluctuating signal quality, by enabling selection of a more suitable uplink configuration
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 2, De Pasquale does not disclose wherein determining an adjustment mode matching the running state comprises one or any combination of:
selecting the uplink and downlink adjustment mode in response to a signal strength in the network performance being lower than a preset signal strength threshold; selecting the frequency offset compensation mode in response to the running speed being higher than a preset speed;
selecting the SRS movement estimation mode in response to a throughput in the network performance being lower than a preset throughput threshold;
selecting the path network matching mode in response to a network switching frequency in the network performance being higher than a preset switching frequency threshold; or
selecting the path network matching mode in response to the running scenario being a preset running scenario.
Park, however, discloses wherein determining an adjustment mode matching the running state comprises one or any combination of: selecting the uplink and downlink adjustment mode in response to a signal strength in the network performance being lower than a preset signal strength threshold (Par. 331: Lines 3-7; The device selects the supplementary uplink when the measured signal quality is below a threshold value; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the determination of the adjustment mode of De Pasquale using a threshold-based selection mechanism as taught by Park, because De Pasquale relies on radio conditions to select communication modes but does not specify a concrete triggering condition for such selection. Incorporating Park’s teaching of selecting an uplink configuration in response to measured signal quality being below a threshold would have provided a clear and practical criterion for adapting communication behavior to real-time network performance, thereby improving reliability and reducing connection failures in low-signal environments.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 21 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 21. Therefore, the limitations of claim 21 have been addressed.
Claims 4,5,6,15,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Pasquale et al. (EP 2372937, hereinafter De Pasquale) in view of Park et al. (US 20190261424, hereinafter Park) in further view of Zacharias et al. (US 20200359330, hereinafter Zacharias)
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 2, De Pasquale in view of Park discloses selecting the uplink and downlink adjustment mode in response to a signal strength in the network performance being lower than a preset signal threshold (as detailed in the rejection of claim 3).
De Pasquale does not disclose wherein adjusting the communication mode of the terminal device according to the adjustment mode comprises one or any combination of:
adjusting a maximum power value and a minimum receive level value of the terminal device in response to selecting the uplink and downlink adjustment mode; acquiring a frequency offset value and performing compensation for the communication mode of the terminal device according to the frequency offset value, in response to selecting the frequency offset compensation mode;
scheduling an SRS resource configuration or a Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) resource configuration according to a channel strength in the network performance, in response to selecting the SRS running scenario mode; or
performing networking adjustment or cell handover compensation adjustment or performing path attenuation compensation adjustment according to the running scenario, in response to selecting the path network matching mode.
Park, however, discloses adjusting a minimum receive level value of the terminal device (Par. 328: Lines 1-8; The system defines and uses RSRP thresholds (signal strength thresholds) to control uplink selection; Providing multiple thresholds for different conditions/devices involves selecting or configuring a threshold, which corresponds to adjusting a minimum receive level value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the communication mode adjustment of De Pasquale in view of Park to include adjusting a minimum receive level value, because De Pasquale already selects communication configurations based on signal strength, and Park provides a concrete mechanism for defining and applying RSRP thresholds that govern such selection. Incorporating threshold configuration as taught by Park would have predictably enabled the system of De Pasquale to more precisely control the minimum signal level required for reliable communication under varying channel conditions, thereby improving link robustness and ensuring appropriate uplink selection in low-signal environments.
De Pasquale in view of Park does not disclose adjusting a maximum power value of the terminal device in response to selecting the uplink and downlink adjustment mode.
Zacharias, however, discloses adjusting a maximum transmit power (Par. 110: Lines 2-4; The UE determines a maximum allowable transmit power and uses it to govern uplink transmissions; Par. 110: Lines 16-20; A maximum transmit power is determined and enforced; The remaining limitations were given no patentable weight due to the optional language “or”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the system of De Pasquale in view of Park to include adjusting a maximum power value as taught by Zacharias, because De Pasquale adapts communication modes based on radio conditions but does not explicitly control transmit power limits, and Zacharias teaches determining and enforcing a maximum transmit power to govern uplink transmissions. Incorporating such power control would have predictably allowed the system to maintain reliable uplink communication while satisfying power constraints and regulatory requirements, particularly in varying channel conditions, thereby improving overall system performance and coverage.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4, the additional limitations of claim 5 are directed to a different alternative embodiment than the embodiment relied upon in the rejection of claim 4. Claim 4 recites the adjustment comprising one or any combination of several alternative features, and the present rejection relies on the uplink and downlink adjustment mode. The further limitations of claim 5 pertain to a separate, non-relied-upon alternative and therefore do not further limit the subject matter of the claims as presently rejected. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 5 are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 4, the additional limitations of claim 6 are directed to a different alternative embodiment than the embodiment relied upon in the rejection of claim 4. Claim 4 recites the adjustment comprising one or any combination of several alternative features, and the present rejection relies on the uplink and downlink adjustment mode. The further limitations of claim 6 pertain to a separate, non-relied-upon alternative and therefore do not further limit the subject matter of the claims as presently rejected. Accordingly, the limitations of claim 6 are not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 13, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Claims 8,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Pasquale et al. (EP 2372937, hereinafter De Pasquale) in view of Fang et al. (US 11102693, hereinafter Fang)
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1, De Pasquale does not disclose wherein in response to the running state comprising the running scenario, acquiring a running state of the terminal device comprises one or any combination of:
acquiring location information of the terminal device according to a base station of a cell and a Global Positioning System (GPS), and acquiring the running scenario of the terminal device according to the location information;
acquiring an environmental feature parameter using a camera of the terminal device, and acquiring the running scenario of the terminal device according to the environmental feature parameter; or
detecting a radiation characteristic of a surrounding environment of the terminal device through an electromagnetic wave, and acquiring the running scenario of the terminal device according to the radiation characteristic, wherein the radiation characteristic comprises direct irradiance, reflection, scattering, and/or diffraction characteristics.
Fang, however, discloses wherein in response to the running state comprising the running scenario, acquiring a running state of the terminal device comprises one or any combination of:
acquiring location information of the terminal device according to a base station of a cell and a Global Positioning System (GPS), and acquiring the running scenario of the terminal device according to the location information (Par. 42: The wireless device uses GPS/GNSS signals together with network/access-node information to determine a position or location fix; Par. 46 : The access nodes use reported measurements and pathloss information to classify the wireless device’s location as outdoor, dense/urban, or indoor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of De Pasquale to include acquiring location information of the terminal device using GPS and base station information and determining a running scenario based on that location as taught by Fang, because De Pasquale already adjusts communication behavior based on operating conditions of the terminal device, and Fang provides a concrete technique for identifying the environmental context (e.g., indoor, outdoor, or urban) of the device using location and associated measurements. Incorporating Fang’s scenario determination would have predictably enabled the system of De Pasquale to more accurately characterize the device’s operating environment and select appropriate communication adjustments based on that environment, thereby improving adaptability and performance under varying real-world conditions.
Regarding claim 19 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 addresses the limitations presented in claim 19. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 have been addressed.
Claims 9,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Pasquale et al. (EP 2372937, hereinafter De Pasquale) in view of Shibutani et al. (US 20210294570, hereinafter Shibutani)
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, De Pasquale does not disclose wherein in response to the running state comprising the running speed, acquiring a running state of the terminal device comprises one or any combination of:
acquiring the running speed of the terminal device according to a positioning distance acquired by a GPS and a positioning time difference corresponding to the positioning distance;
or acquiring the running speed of the terminal device according to an SRS feedback time difference and an angle difference corresponding to the SRS feedback time difference.
Shibutani, however, discloses acquiring the running speed of the terminal device according to a positioning distance acquired by a GPS and a positioning time difference corresponding to the positioning distance (Par. 42: The system determines movement speed by tracking changes in GPS position over time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of De Pasquale to include acquiring the running speed of the terminal device based on a positioning distance and corresponding time difference as taught by Shibutani, because De Pasquale determines operating conditions of the terminal device for adapting communication behavior but does not explicitly quantify movement speed, and Shibutani provides a well-known technique for determining movement speed using GPS position changes over time. Incorporating such speed determination would have predictably enabled the system of De Pasquale to more accurately characterize the mobility of the terminal device and adjust communication modes accordingly, thereby improving performance under varying mobility conditions.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 addresses the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights