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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 and 27-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “determining, based on a type of a trigger event, a measurement operation of the UE for the trigger event”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because this limitation, “determining…” can be performed in mind with the aid of pencil and paper, thus directed towards a mental process (see MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-13, 27, 29-33 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 27, 28, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DA SILVA et al. (US 20200021336).
Regarding claims 1, 27, and 28, DA SILVA teaches determining, based on a type of a trigger event (Fig. 7, step 725, [0107] whether the beam reporting configuration message specifies only L1 reporting or both L1 and L3 reporting), a measurement operation of the UE for the trigger event (Fig. 7, step 730, [0108] If the beam reporting configuration specifies only L1 reporting, then at step 730 the wireless device generates a measurement report based on the cell quality derivation performed at step 720, Fig. 7, step 740, [0109] the wireless device selects one or more beams to be included in the measurement report).
Regarding claims 4 and 31, DA SILVA teaches wherein the type of the trigger event comprises a type of the trigger event for measurement reporting (Fig. 7, step 725).
Regarding claims 11, DA SILVA teaches based on the type of the trigger event for measurement reporting and a measurement result needing to be reported, determining the measurement operation of the UE for the trigger event (Fig. 7, step 730, [0108] If the beam reporting configuration specifies only L1 reporting, then at step 730 the wireless device generates a measurement report based on the cell quality derivation performed at step 720, Fig. 7, step 740, [0109] the wireless device selects one or more beams to be included in the measurement report).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 29, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DA SILVA et al. (US 20200021336) in view of Park et al. (US 20130100846).
Regarding claims 2 and 29, DA SILVA does not expressly teach determining, based on the type of the trigger event associated with a measurement identifier, the measurement operation of the UE for the trigger event associated with the measurement identifier. Park teaches [0081] (3) Measurement identify information: This information is in regards to a measurement identifier for determining when and in what type the UE will report a specific measurement object by associating the measurement object with a reporting configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Park in order to prevent data loss or service quality deterioration ([0006], Park).
Regarding claims 3 and 30, DA SILVA does not expressly teach the measurement operation for the trigger event associated with the measurement identifier comprises at least one of: the measurement operation determined based on reporting configuration information associated with the measurement identifier, wherein the reporting configuration information comprises a configuration of the trigger event; or the measurement operation of a measurement object associated with the measurement identifier, wherein the measurement object is associated with the trigger event, or
the measurement object is associated with the reporting configuration information including the configuration of the trigger event.
Park teaches the measurement object is associated with the reporting configuration information including the configuration of the trigger event [0081] (3) Measurement identify information: This information is in regards to a measurement identifier for determining when and in what type the UE will report a specific measurement object by associating the measurement object with a reporting configuration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Park in order to prevent data loss or service quality deterioration ([0006], Park).
Regarding claims 5 and 32, DA SILVA does not expressly teach wherein determining, based on the type of the trigger event, the measurement operation of the UE for the trigger event comprises at least one of:
based on that the type of the trigger event for conditional reconfiguration is a radio resource management (RRM)-based event, determining that the UE performs the measurement operation for the trigger event; or
based on that the type of the trigger event for conditional reconfiguration is not the RRM-based event, determining that the UE does not perform the measurement operation for the trigger event.
Park teaches based on that the type of the trigger event for conditional reconfiguration is a radio resource management (RRM)-based event, determining that the UE performs the measurement operation for the trigger event (Fig. 7 and [0076] measurement reporting for radio resource management (RRM) will be disclosed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Park in order to prevent data loss or service quality deterioration ([0006], Park).
14.-26. (canceled)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights