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 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 16, 25, and 30, Applicant argues as amended ‘…Frenne provides no description that the first and second measurement objects are ordered relative to one another by "using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof," as claimed…’ Examiner disagrees. Frenne most certainly does provide an order. Fig. 5 discloses a method which is numbered s502, s504, s506, s508, s510; this is an order of operation. Second, the UE selects a first RS measurement object to measure before selecting a second RS measurement. The steps are ordered. However, to further prosecution, Examiner has provided prior art Axell to assuage any concerns.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085).
Regarding claim 1, Hoidis discloses a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Hoidis fig. 4; 402 UE in wireless communication; fig. 7; UE with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receiving a first control message indicating respective measurement configurations for a plurality of measurement objects; (See Hoidis para. 49; UE receives a measurement configuration received from the base station for measuring signal strengths of multiple serving cells (e.g. plurality of measurement objects))
performing a measurement of a first measurement object from the plurality of measurement objects (See Hoidis para. 49; UE measures signal strength of target cell 418)
transmitting a first measurement report for the first measurement object based at least part on one or more reporting conditions being satisfied, the first measurement report being transmitted in accordance with the measurement order. (See Hoidis para. 51; UE sends MRMs, measurement report message, (e.g. a first measurement report) based on a prioritization order; para. 50; UE sends MRMs based upon triggering condition (e.g. reporting condition being satisfied))
Hoidis does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE performs measurements according to a measurement order determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference or any combination thereof. However, Axell does disclose wherein the UE performs measurements according to a measurement order determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference or any combination thereof. (See Axell para. 80-81; measurement priority for each measurement object wherein MO1 has the highest priority and MO4 the lowest priority; para. 42; network sends the UE a measurement prioritization to be performed; para. 77; measIdPriority IE would serve as identity prioritization parameter (e.g. parameter);para. 33; UE moving towards the cell measurements should be prioritized over other measurements (e.g. current state of UE ; para. 32; performance does not delay mobility measurement (e.g. services at UE)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein the UE performs measurements according to a measurement order determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference or any combination thereof of Axell with the motivation being to utilize the best configuration which will yield the best chance of successful transmission and further to optimize wireless conditions based upon the transmission/reception point being used and further to meet end user goals of delay, jitter, and throughput by customizing reception/transmission parameters to meet the transmission/reception point.
Regarding claim 5, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting a message comprising an indication of the determined measurement order. (See Hoidis para. 51; UE transmits MRMs (e.g. a message) that indicates an order by transmitting MRM of cell with stronger signal strength first)
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Sreenivasa (2021/0076270).
Regarding claim 2, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1. Hoidis does not explicitly disclose generating a metric for each measurement object of the plurality of resources based at least in part on the set of parameters; and sorting the plurality of resources according to the generated metrics, wherein the resource order is determined based at least in part on the sorting. However, Sreenivasa does disclose generating a metric for each measurement object of the plurality of resources based at least in part on the set of parameters; and sorting the plurality of resources according to the generated metrics, wherein the resource order is determined based at least in part on the sorting. (See Sreenivasa fig. 11, 16A, 16B; UE ranks plurality of neighboring cells based upon capabilities of frequency bands supported by UE, achievable throughput of plurality of neighboring cells (e.g. metrics) ; cell selection is based upon priorities) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of generating a metric for each measurement object of the plurality of resources based at least in part on the set of parameters; and sorting the plurality of resources according to the generated metrics, wherein the resource order is determined based at least in part on the sorting of Sreenivasa with the motivation being to meet end user goals (e.g. the user has knowledge of what it will be demanding in terms of throughput base upon what the UE is doing at the time of the selection) and further to ensure meeting real time data requirements for delay free and jitter free, video and calls, etc. and further to ensure selecting the most optimal cell/connection based upon capabilities of the network and device.
Regarding claim 3, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Sreenivasa discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the set of parameters includes one or more of a throughput parameter, a latency parameter, a battery status parameter, a voice communications parameter, or a mobility parameter. (See Sreenivasa fig. 11, 16A, 16B; UE ranks plurality of neighboring cells based upon capabilities of frequency bands supported by UE, achievable throughput of plurality of neighboring cells (e.g. metrics) ; cell selection is based upon priorities) The motivation being to meet end user goals (e.g. the user has knowledge of what it will be demanding in terms of throughput base upon what the UE is doing at the time of the selection) and further to ensure meeting real time data requirements for delay free and jitter free, video and calls, etc. and further to ensure selecting the most optimal cell/connection based upon capabilities of the network and device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Sreenivasa (2021/0076270) and further in view Sikes (2022/0159784).
Regarding claim 4, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Sreenivasa discloses the method of claim 2. Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Sreenivasa do not explicitly disclose wherein at least one parameter of the set of parameters is weighted according to the user preference. However, Sikes does disclose wherein at least one parameter of the set of parameters is weighted according to the user preference. (See Sikes para. 33; weights applied to user preferences) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis in view of Frenne in view of Sreenivasa to include the teaching of wherein at least one parameter of the set of parameters is weighted according to the user preference of Sikes with the motivation being to meet end user goals and further to flexibly allow for user input affecting performance and further to extend battery life. (See Sikes para. 33)
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Lee (2021/0337432).
Regarding claim 6, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1. Hoidis does not explicitly disclose initiating a first timer based at least in part on transmitting the first measurement report; and monitoring for a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement report. However, Lee does disclose initiating a first timer based at least in part on transmitting the first measurement report; and monitoring for a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement report. (See Lee fig. 2; timer 214 is started when sending measurement report and waiting for HO command 222; para. 49; UE waiting for HO command before expiration of timer; see also para. 50-51) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of initiating a first timer based at least in part on transmitting the first measurement report; and monitoring for a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement report of Lee with the motivation being to allow an appropriate time for the handover to occur before the UE declares an issue and takes corrective action that may require more resources (signaling and battery power) to complete and further to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data.
Regarding claim 7, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising:
receiving the second control message indicating the configuration associated with the first measurement report;
stopping the first timer based at least in part on receiving the second control message; and
performing a handover procedure based at least in part on the second control message indicating the configuration associated with the first measurement report. (See Lee fig. 2, para. 50; HO command 222 received before expiration of the timer (e.g. timer is stopped); para. 50; UE handover to the target eNB based upon the sending of the measurement report and the measurements which were configured therein) The motivation being to allow an appropriate time for the handover to occur before the UE declares an issue and takes corrective action that may require more resources (signaling and battery power) to complete and further to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Sreenivasa (2021/0076270).
Regarding claim 12, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1. Hoidis do not explicitly disclose selecting the first a cell based at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for high data rates, low latency, low mobility, or any combination thereof, wherein the measurement order is determined based at least in part on the priority. However, Sreenivasa does disclose selecting the first a cell based at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for high data rates, low latency, low mobility, or any combination thereof, wherein the measurement order is determined based at least in part on the priority. (See Sreenivasa fig. 11, 16A, 16B; UE ranks plurality of neighboring cells based upon capabilities of frequency bands supported by UE, achievable throughput of plurality of neighboring cells; cell selection is based upon priorities) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of selecting the first a cell based at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for high data rates, low latency, low mobility, or any combination thereof, wherein the measurement order is determined based at least in part on the priority of Sreenivasa with the motivation being to meet end user goals (e.g. the user has knowledge of what it will be demanding in terms of throughput base upon what the UE is doing at the time of the selection) and further to ensure meeting real time data requirements for delay free and jitter free, video and calls, etc. and further to ensure selecting the most optimal cell/connection based upon capabilities of the network and device.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Wang (WO2020/199228).
Regarding claim 13, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1. Hoidis does not explicitly disclose selecting the mode based at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for a low battery mode, voice over new radio communications, high mobility, or any combination thereof, wherein the mode is determined based at least in part on the priority. However, Wang does disclose selecting the mode based at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for a low battery mode, voice over new radio communications, high mobility, or any combination thereof, wherein the mode is determined based at least in part on the priority. (See Wang para. 84; 5GNR is not used due to UE having a battery level below a threshold (e.g. low battery mode)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of selecting the mode based at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for a low battery mode, voice over new radio communications, high mobility, or any combination thereof, wherein the mode is determined based at least in part on the priority of Wang with the motivation being to conserve battery power when a UE is low and further to extend connectivity by reducing power usage and further to extend the time a UE is operational by limiting some connectivity options which may be faster but may also cause too much battery drainage.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Chandrasekhar (2019/0277957).
Regarding claim 14, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1. Hoidis do not explicitly disclose wherein channel/beam selection is based upon at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for voice over new radio communications, low mobility, or both, wherein the measurement order. However, Chandrasekhar does disclose wherein channel/beam selection is based upon at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for voice over new radio communications, low mobility, or both, wherein the measurement order. (See Chandrasekhar para. 3; low speed users (e.g. low mobility) are given different resources than high mobile users and optimizing beam sweeping) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein channel/beam selection is based upon at least in part on the set of parameters indicating a priority for voice over new radio communications, low mobility, or both, wherein the measurement order of Chandrasekhar with the motivation being for spectral efficiency (See Chandrasekhar para. 3) and further to increase throughput and reduce delay while meeting end user demands and further to maximize limited wireless resources by assigning resources based upon the mobility of a device to minimize excessive handovers.
9. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Liu (2017/0026962).
Regarding claim 15, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 1. Hoidis do not explicitly disclose wherein each resource of the plurality of resources is associated with a millimeter wave frequency band, a time division duplex frequency band, or a frequency division duplex frequency band. However, Liu does disclose wherein each resource of the plurality of resources is associated with a millimeter wave frequency band, a time division duplex frequency band, or a frequency division duplex frequency band. (See Liu para. 21; mmWave, TDD, FDD) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein each resource of the plurality of resources is associated with a millimeter wave frequency band, a time division duplex frequency band, or a frequency division duplex frequency band of Liu with the motivation being to utilize the resource that best meets the end users needs (e.g. mmWave offers high capacity throughput, TDD is more spectrally efficient, FDD offers the best coverage) and further to maximize limited wireless spectrum by choosing the best technology to meet the end user’s situation (e.g. mmWave suffers poor penetration, TDD is flexible but requires strict sync, FDD enable simultaneous traffic but offers lower speeds than mmWave).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085).
Regarding claim 16, Hoidis discloses a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising: (See Hoidis fig. 4; 402 UE in wireless communication; fig. 7; UE with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receiving a first control message indicating respective measurement configurations for a plurality of measurement objects; (See Hoidis para. 49; UE receives a measurement configuration received from the base station for measuring signal strengths of multiple serving cells (e.g. plurality of measurement objects))
performing measurements of each of the plurality of measurement objects; and (See Hoidis para. 49; UE measures signal strength of target cells 418 and 420)
transmitting a first measurement report for a first measurement object based at least part on one or more reporting conditions being satisfied (See Hoidis para. 51; UE sends MRMs, measurement report message, (e.g. a first measurement report) based on a prioritization order; para. 50; UE sends MRMs based upon triggering condition (e.g. reporting condition being satisfied))
Hoidis discloses sending measurement report messages based upon priority. (See Hoidis para. 51) Hoidis does not explicitly disclose wherein this priority is in accordance with a measurement order that is determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof. However, Axell does disclose wherein this priority is in accordance with a measurement order that is determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof. (See Axell para. 80-81; measurement priority for each measurement object wherein MO1 has the highest priority and MO4 the lowest priority; para. 42; network sends the UE a measurement prioritization to be performed; para. 77; measIdPriority IE would serve as identity prioritization parameter (e.g. parameter);para. 33; UE moving towards the cell measurements should be prioritized over other measurements (e.g. current state of UE ; para. 32; performance does not delay mobility measurement (e.g. services at UE)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein this priority is in accordance with a measurement order that is determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof of Axell with the motivation being to utilize the best configuration which will yield the best chance of successful transmission and further to optimize wireless conditions based upon the transmission/reception point being used and further to meet end user goals of delay, jitter, and throughput by customizing reception/transmission parameters to meet the transmission/reception point.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Lee (2021/0337432).
Regarding claim 17, Hoidis in view of Axell discloses the method of claim 16. Hoidis in view of Frenne do not explicitly disclose initiating a first timer based at least in part on transmitting the first measurement report; and monitoring for a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement report. However, Lee does disclose initiating a first timer based at least in part on transmitting the first measurement report; and monitoring for a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement report. (See Lee fig. 2; timer 214 is started when sending measurement report and waiting for HO command 222; para. 49; UE waiting for HO command before expiration of timer; see also para. 50-51) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of initiating a first timer based at least in part on transmitting the first measurement report; and monitoring for a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement report of Lee with the motivation being to allow an appropriate time for the handover to occur before the UE declares an issue and takes corrective action that may require more resources (signaling and battery power) to complete and further to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data.
Regarding claim 18, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 17, further comprising:
receiving the second control message indicating the configuration associated with the first measurement report;
stopping the first timer based at least in part on receiving the second control message; and
performing a handover procedure based at least in part on the second control message indicating the configuration associated with the first measurement report. (See Lee fig. 2, para. 50; HO command 222 received before expiration of the timer (e.g. timer is stopped); para. 50; UE handover to the target eNB based upon the sending of the measurement report and the measurements which were configured therein) The motivation being to allow an appropriate time for the handover to occur before the UE declares an issue and takes corrective action that may require more resources (signaling and battery power) to complete and further to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Lee (2021/0337432) and further in view of Sreenivasa (2021/0076270).
Regarding claim 22, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 17. Hoidis do not explicitly disclose wherein the configurations indicate the set of parameters corresponding to the current state of the UE, the one or more services at the UE, the user preference, or any combination thereof. However, Sreenivasa does disclose wherein the configurations indicate the set of parameters corresponding to the current state of the UE, the one or more services at the UE, the user preference, or any combination thereof. (See Sreenivasa fig. 11, 16A, 16B; UE ranks plurality of neighboring cells based upon capabilities of frequency bands supported by UE, achievable throughput of plurality of neighboring cells; cell selection is based upon priorities) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein the configurations indicate the set of parameters corresponding to the current state of the UE, the one or more services at the UE, the user preference, or any combination thereof of Sreenivasa with the motivation being to meet end user goals (e.g. the user has knowledge of what it will be demanding in terms of throughput base upon what the UE is doing at the time of the selection) and further to ensure meeting real time data requirements for delay free and jitter free, video and calls, etc. and further to ensure selecting the most optimal cell/connection based upon capabilities of the network and device.
Regarding claim 23, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Lee in view of Sreenivasa discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the set of parameters includes one or more of a throughput parameter, a latency parameter, a battery status parameter, a voice communications parameter, or a mobility parameter. (See Sreenivasa fig. 11, 16A, 16B; UE ranks plurality of neighboring cells based upon capabilities of frequency bands supported by UE, achievable throughput of plurality of neighboring cells; cell selection is based upon priorities) The motivation being to meet end user goals (e.g. the user has knowledge of what it will be demanding in terms of throughput base upon what the UE is doing at the time of the selection) and further to ensure meeting real time data requirements for delay free and jitter free, video and calls, etc. and further to ensure selecting the most optimal cell/connection based upon capabilities of the network and device.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Lee (2021/0337432) and further in view of Sreenivasa (2021/0076270) and further in view Sikes (2022/0159784).
Regarding claim 24, Hoidis in view of Axell in view of Lee in view of Sreenivasa discloses the method of claim 22. Hoidis does not explicitly disclose that parameters are weighted according to the user preference. However, Sikes does disclose that parameters are weighted according to the user preference. (See Sikes para. 33; weights applied to user preferences) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of that parameters are weighted according to the user preference of Sikes with motivation being to meet end user goals and further to flexibly allow for user input affecting performance and further to extend battery life. (See Sikes para. 33)
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.
Claims 26, 27, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085) and further in view of Talukdar (2016/0212680) and further in view of Lee (2021/0337432).
Regarding claim 25, Hoidis discloses a method for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising: (See Hoidis fig. 4; 406 network entity)
transmitting a control message indicating respective measurement configurations for a plurality of measurement objects; (See Hoidis para. 49; UE receives a measurement configuration received from the base station for measuring signal strengths of multiple serving cells (e.g. plurality of measurement objects))
receiving a first measurement report for a first measurement object from the plurality of measurement objects based at least part on one or more reporting conditions being satisfied, the first measurement report being received in accordance with the measurement order; and (See Hoidis para. 51; UE sends MRMs, measurement report message, (e.g. a first measurement report) based on a prioritization order; para. 50; UE sends MRMs based upon triggering condition (e.g. reporting condition being satisfied))
Hoidis discloses sending measurement report messages based upon priority. (See Hoidis para. 51) Hoidis does not explicitly disclose wherein this priority is in accordance with a measurement order that is determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof. However, Axell does disclose wherein this priority is in accordance with a measurement order that is determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof. (See Axell para. 80-81; measurement priority for each measurement object wherein MO1 has the highest priority and MO4 the lowest priority; para. 42; network sends the UE a measurement prioritization to be performed; para. 77; measIdPriority IE would serve as identity prioritization parameter (e.g. parameter);para. 33; UE moving towards the cell measurements should be prioritized over other measurements (e.g. current state of UE ; para. 32; performance does not delay mobility measurement (e.g. services at UE)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein this priority is in accordance with a measurement order that is determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference, or any combination thereof of Axell with the motivation being to utilize the best configuration which will yield the best chance of successful transmission and further to optimize wireless conditions based upon the transmission/reception point being used and further to meet end user goals of delay, jitter, and throughput by customizing reception/transmission parameters to meet the transmission/reception point.
Hoidis do not explicitly disclose wherein a message is received that indicates a rank order list of available resources. However, Talukdar does disclose wherein a message is received that indicates a rank order list of available resources. (See Talukdar para. 52) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis in view of Frenne to include the teaching of wherein a message is received that indicates a rank order list of available resources of Talukdar with the motivation being to allow for faster rerouting and connections and further to allow the network to be aware of possible preferred connections available to the UE and further to reduce down time.
Hoidis discloses wherein the measurement report comprises indication of one or more quality metrics. (See Hoidis para. 45; RSSI, RSCP)
Hoidis do not explicitly disclose comparing one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object to respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE. However, Lee does disclose comparing one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object to respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE. (See Lee para. 42; enb uses the info in the measurement report to determine if a handover is required to maintain an adequate level of service (e.g. a threshold)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of comparing one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object to respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE of Lee with the motivation being to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data and further to determine the best resources of the available resources to ensure meeting user goals.
Regarding claim 26, Hoidis in view of Axel in view of Talukdar in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 25, further comprising:
determining that the one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object satisfy the respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE; (See Lee para. 42; enb uses the info in the measurement report to determine if a handover is required to maintain an adequate level of service (e.g. a threshold))
transmitting a second control message indicating a configuration associated with the first measurement object; and
performing a handover procedure based at least in part on the second control message indicating the configuration associated with the first measurement object. (See Lee fig. 2, para. 50; HO command 222 (e.g. a control message which indicates handover to a specific resource with a specific config) is received by UE (e.g. transmitted by network); para. 50; UE handover to the target eNB based upon the sending of the measurement report and the measurements which were configured therein)
The motivation being to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data and further to determine the best resources of the available resources to ensure meeting user goals and further to let the UE know when to specifically handover and to which resource which prevents confusion.
Regarding claim 27, Hoidis in view of Axel in view of Talukdar in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 25, further comprising:
receiving a second measurement report for a second measurement object from the plurality of measurement objects based at least part on the one or more reporting conditions being satisfied, the second measurement report being transmitted in accordance with the measurement order; and(See Hoidis para. 51; UE sends MRMs, measurement report message, (e.g. a second measurement report) based on a prioritization order; 418 is sent before 420; para. 50; UE sends MRMs based upon triggering condition (e.g. reporting condition being satisfied))
Hoidis do not explicitly disclose comparing one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object to respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE. However, Lee does disclose comparing one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object to respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE. (See Lee para. 42; enb uses the info in the measurement report to determine if a handover is required to maintain an adequate level of service (e.g. a threshold)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of comparing one or more quality metrics associated with the first measurement object to respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE of Lee with the motivation being to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data and further to determine the best resources of the available resources to ensure meeting user goals.
Regarding claim 28, Hoidis in view of Axel in view of Talukdar in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 27, further comprising:
determining that the one or more quality metrics associated with the second measurement object satisfy the respective thresholds for performing a handover of the UE; (See Lee para. 42; enb uses the info in the measurement report to determine if a handover is required to maintain an adequate level of service (e.g. a threshold))
transmitting a third control message indicating a configuration associated with the second measurement object; and
performing a handover procedure based at least in part on the third control message indicating the configuration associated with the second measurement object. (See Lee fig. 2, para. 50; HO command 222 (e.g. a control message which indicates handover to a specific resource with a specific config) is received by UE (e.g. transmitted by network); para. 50; UE handover to the target eNB based upon the sending of the measurement report and the measurements which were configured therein)
The motivation being to allow the network to properly configure network resources to meet end user goals before handover occurs to ensure seamless transferring of connectivity which prevents dropped calls and interruptions to real-time data and further to determine the best resources of the available resources to ensure meeting user goals and further to let the UE know when to specifically handover and to which resource which prevents confusion.
Regarding claim 29, Hoidis in view of Axel in view of Talukdar in view of Lee discloses the method of claim 27, further comprising receiving a third measurement report for a third measurement object from the plurality of measurement objects based at least part on the one or more reporting conditions being satisfied, the third measurement report being received in accordance with the measurement order. (See Axell para. 66; table 1; MO3 (e.g. third measurement object); para. 54; each measurement object and reporting config are linked and when measurement object satisfies the reporting criterion the UE sends the report; see also para. 90, 48-51) The motivation being to utilize the best configuration which will yield the best chance of successful transmission and further to optimize wireless conditions based upon the transmission/reception point being used and further to meet end user goals of delay, jitter, and throughput by customizing reception/transmission parameters to meet the transmission/reception point.
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoidis (2017/0272988) and further in view of Axell (2013/0035085).
Regarding claim 30, Hoidis discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a processor;
memory coupled with the processor; and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: (See Hoidis fig. 4; 402 UE in wireless communication; fig. 7; UE with processor executing an algorithm stored in memory)
receive a first control message indicating respective measurement configurations for a plurality of measurement objects; (See Hoidis para. 49; UE receives a measurement configuration received from the base station for measuring signal strengths of multiple serving cells (e.g. plurality of measurement objects))
perform a measurement of a first measurement object from the plurality of measurement objects (See Hoidis para. 49; UE measures signal strength of target cell 418)
transmit a first measurement report for the first measurement object based at least part on one or more reporting conditions being satisfied, the first measurement report being transmitted in accordance with the measurement order. (See Hoidis para. 51; UE sends MRMs, measurement report message, (e.g. a first measurement report) based on a prioritization order; para. 50; UE sends MRMs based upon triggering condition (e.g. reporting condition being satisfied))
Hoidis does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE performs measurements according to a measurement order determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference or any combination thereof. However, Frenne does disclose wherein the UE performs measurements according to a measurement order determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference or any combination thereof. (See Axell para. 80-81; measurement priority for each measurement object wherein MO1 has the highest priority and MO4 the lowest priority; para. 42; network sends the UE a measurement prioritization to be performed; para. 77; measIdPriority IE would serve as identity prioritization parameter (e.g. parameter);para. 33; UE moving towards the cell measurements should be prioritized over other measurements (e.g. current state of UE ; para. 32; performance does not delay mobility measurement (e.g. services at UE)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Hoidis to include the teaching of wherein the UE performs measurements according to a measurement order determined using a set of parameters corresponding to a current state of the UE, one or more services at the UE, a user preference or any combination thereof of Axell with the motivation being to utilize the best configuration which will yield the best chance of successful transmission and further to optimize wireless conditions based upon the transmission/reception point being used and further to meet end user goals of delay, jitter, and throughput by customizing reception/transmission parameters to meet the transmission/reception point.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 and 19-21 are 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights