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 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the language of the claim however mandates that the priority indications control the execution of the measurements themselves, which frequencies are measured first/earlier.
The Examiner respectfully submits the col.9 line -col. 10 teaches “...In another instance of the present invention, after the UE receives the MC message, if the UE determines that the received signal level of the serving cell is lower than or equal to the first threshold or the received signal quality of the serving cell is lower than or equal to the second threshold, the UE may further determine whether a frequency to be measured (if any) that are indicated in the MC message are in a range of currently measured frequencies of the cell reselection measurement. If the UE determines that the frequency to be measured are in the range of the currently measured frequencies, the UE determines to continue executing the cell reselection measurement. In this case, when generating the MR message, the UE may include the results of the cell reselection measurement on the frequencies same as the frequency to be measured in the cell reselection measurement in the MR message. If the UE determines that the frequency to be measured are beyond the range of the currently measured frequencies, in a case that the cell reselection measurement is performed on a system of two standards (for example, two radio access technologies (RAT)), the UE may further execute the following two operations. In a case that a system to which the frequency to be measured belong is different from the system of two standards, the UE determines to execute a measurement on cells and/frequencies of only one selected system of the system of two standards and the system to which the frequency to be measured belong. Optionally, the selected system may be determined by selecting a system with a higher priority and a system of better signal quality or a system same as a system where the serving cell is located. Optionally, the UE may determine the priority of a corresponding system according to priorities of frequencies that undergo the cell reselection measurement, and may determine signal quality of the system by using signal quality obtained in the cell reselection measurement. For example, if the cell reselection measurement executed by the UE is performed on system A and system B but the system to which the frequency to be measured belong is system C, the UE may stop executing a measurement on a system with a lower priority (for example, system A) between system A and system B. In this way, besides a report measurement on system C, the UE executes a cell reselection measurement on system B only. In a case that the system to which the frequency to be measured belong is the same as one of the system of two standards, the UE may further determine whether a sum of a quantity of the frequency to be measured and a quantity of frequencies in the cell reselection measurement meets a performance requirement of a maximum quantity of measured frequencies of the user equipment. If it is determined that the sum meets the performance requirement of the maximum quantity of measured frequencies of the user equipment, the UE may determine to execute a measurement on the frequency to be measured and meanwhile does not stop executing the cell reselection measurement. If it is determined that the sum does not meet the performance requirement of the maximum quantity of measured frequencies of the user equipment, the UE may determine to execute a measurement on the frequency to be measured and determine to stop executing a cell reselection measurement on frequencies with lower priorities or frequencies with poor signal quality in the cell reselection measurement, so that a sum of a quantity of remaining frequencies in the cell reselection measurement and a quantity of the frequency to be measured meet the performance requirement of the maximum quantity of measured frequencies of the user equipment…”
Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection as proper and is hereby made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 10-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhi et al. US Patent No.: 9,338,684., hereinafter, ‘Zhi’.
Consider Claim 8 and as applied to the Method of Claim 1, Zhi teaches, a User Equipment, UE (e.g., see col. 5 lines 13-24- a “user equipment is provided”), comprising: a communication interface comprising a transmitter (col. 5 line 22) and a receiver (col. 5 line 14); and processing circuitry (col. 5. line 18)associated with the communication interface, the processing circuitry configured to cause the UE to: receive, from a network node, a measurement configuration that comprises one or more priority indications for two or more frequencies (see at least S12 of figure 1, and s22 of figure 1, “receiving a report indication from a radio network controller by using one message of an SIB message and a radio resource control (RRC) message, where the report indication specifies a condition for reporting a measurement result” – col. 4 -lines 37-50 – “the radio network controller may generate additional frequency information. The additional frequency information indicates additional frequencies”– “Optionally, the additional frequencies may be defined to have the highest reporting priority among all frequencies of a same measurement type”, “The radio network controller may send the reporting precedence order information to the UE by using an SIB message or an RRC message. For example, the reporting precedence order information may be sent with the report indication (and/or the additional frequency information) in a same message (an SIB message or an RRC message”– col. 11 line 29- col. 12, line 17); perform measurements on the two or more frequencies in accordance with the one or more priority indications for the two or more frequencies (e.g., see S16 of figure 1); and transmitting, to the network node, one or more measurement reports comprising the measurements performed on the two or more frequencies (e.g., see S20 of figure 1).
Consider Claim 17 and as applied to the Method of claim 10, Zhi teaches a network node (e.g., see col. 5 lines 26-36):comprising processing circuitry(e.g., see col. 5 lines 26-36) configured to cause the network node to: transmit, to a User Equipment, UE, a measurement configuration that comprises one or more priority indications for two or more frequencies (see at least S12 of figure 1, and s22 of figure 1, “receiving a report indication from a radio network controller by using one message of an SIB message and a radio resource control (RRC) message, where the report indication specifies a condition for reporting a measurement result” – col. 4 -lines 37-50 – “the radio network controller may generate additional frequency information. The additional frequency information indicates additional frequencies”– “Optionally, the additional frequencies may be defined to have the highest reporting priority among all frequencies of a same measurement type” , “The radio network controller may send the reporting precedence order information to the UE by using an SIB message or an RRC message. For example, the reporting precedence order information may be sent with the report indication (and/or the additional frequency information) in a same message (an SIB message or an RRC message”– col. 11 line 29- col. 12, line 17); and receive, from the UE, one or more measurement reports comprising measurements performed on the two or more frequencies in accordance with the measurement configuration (e.g., see S20 of figure 1).
Consider Claim 2, Zhi teaches wherein performing the measurements on the two or more frequencies in accordance with the one or more priority indications for the two or more frequencies comprises performing the measurements on the two or more frequencies in a chronological order that is defined by the one or more priority indications for the two or more frequencies (see at least S12 of figure 1, and s22 of figure 1, “receiving a report indication from a radio network controller by using one message of an SIB message and a radio resource control (RRC) message, where the report indication specifies a condition for reporting a measurement result” – col. 4 -lines 37-50 – “the radio network controller may generate additional frequency information. The additional frequency information indicates additional frequencies”– “Optionally, the additional frequencies may be defined to have the highest reporting priority among all frequencies of a same measurement type” , “The radio network controller may send the reporting precedence order information to the UE by using an SIB message or an RRC message. For example, the reporting precedence order information may be sent with the report indication (and/or the additional frequency information) in a same message (an SIB message or an RRC message”– col. 11 line 29- col. 12, line 17).
Consider Claims 3 and 13, Zhi teaches wherein the UE is in connected mode (e.g., see at least col. 11 lines 13-15 - the measurement information element may be transmitted in an uplink signaling message such as an RRC connection request message).
Consider Claim 5, Zhi teaches wherein the one or more priority indications comprise a separate priority indication for each of the two or more frequencies (e.g., see at least col. 12 lines 5-17 “… the reporting precedence order information may also be sent individually in an SIB message or an RRC message different from a message in which the report indication is sent. Specifically, the radio network controller may send a specified reporting precedence order to the UE by using many manners…”).
Consider Claim 11, Zhi teaches the claimed invention further comprising performing one or more actions based on the received measurement report(s) (e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 20-25 “By using the foregoing solutions, a radio network controller on a network side can be assisted efficiently in making a redirection, handover, or cell change decision, which reduces a probability of failure of a redirection, handover, or cell change operation”).
Consider Claim 12, Zhi teaches wherein performing the one or more actions comprises transmitting a handover command to the UE, initiating a secondary cell setup procedure for the UE, or initiating a dual connectivity setup procedure for the UE(e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 20-25 “By using the foregoing solutions, a radio network controller on a network side can be assisted efficiently in making a redirection, handover, or cell change decision, which reduces a probability of failure of a redirection, handover, or cell change operation”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zhi et al. US Patent No.: 9, 338,684., hereinafter, ‘Zhi’ in view of Dai US Patent No.: 11,178,672 B2.
Consider Claims 4 and 14, Zhi teaches the claimed invention except further comprising transmitting, to the network node, a capability indication that indicates an ability of the UE to perform measurements in a configurable chronological order that is defined based on priorities of associated frequencies.
In analogous art, Dai teaches transmitting, to the network node (e.g., see 1406, figure 14 “the UE transmits the UE Capability Information 1406 back to the eNB based on the priority band list assembled by the APBD methods”), a capability indication that indicates an ability of the UE to perform measurements in a configurable chronological order that is defined based on priorities of associated frequencies (i.e., “the priority bands in the database may be supplemented (i.e. updated) in order to keep the UE up to date with network conditions.” …every time a cell is changed (e.g. during cell selection, cell re-selection, handover, etc.)” – e.g., see at least col. 6 lines 14-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try transmitting, to the network node, a capability indication that indicates an ability of the UE to perform measurements in a configurable chronological order that is defined based on priorities of associated frequencies for the purpose of prioritizing frequencies and preventing link failures.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130035085 A1 discloses a base station generates and sends measurement configuration to a wireless terminal. The measurement configuration indicates the measurements to be made by the wireless terminals and to report on the performed measurements to the base station. The measurement configuration indicates that the measurements are to be performed and to be reported based on a prioritization level. The prioritization can be indicated at various levels including the measurement identities level, the measurement objects level, and the reporting configurations level.
US 20210204158 A1 – discloses a measurement configuration method, applied to a network side device, where the measurement configuration method includes: sending measurement configuration information to UE, where the measurement configuration information is used to indicate priorities of M pieces of measurement indication information, the measurement configuration information is used by the UE to measure a to-be-measured frequency corresponding to target measurement indication information, and M is an integer greater than or equal to 1.
Conclusion
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