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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/050631 (international filing date: 01/13/2022) and does not claim priorities from any domestic application or to any foreign application.
Objections
Claim 2-8, 13, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities, and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 line 3-4, if the phrase “mobility related parameters” is referred back to claim 1 line 7, it should change to “the one or more mobility related parameters” for avoiding ambiguity issues. Otherwise, clarification is requested. Similar problems appear in each of claims 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 19.
Claim 3 line 2, if the phrase “a network” is referred back to claim 1 line 8, it should change to “the network” for avoiding ambiguity issues. Otherwise, clarification is requested.
Claim 6 line 3, if the phrase “one or more conditions” is referred back to claim 6 line 2, it should change to “the one or more conditions” for avoiding ambiguity issues. Otherwise, clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 8-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 line 2, the phrase “each of a plurality of different antenna panels" lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 8 line 5, “the identified cell" has no antecedent basis.
Claim 9 line 1-2, “the mobility parameters" has no antecedent basis. Similar problem appears in claims 10, 17, and 18.
Claim 11 line 8, the phrase “in response,” is unclear and ambiguous as to what is being “in response” to. For example, the phrase does not appear to connect to or in relation to anything prior that is being “in response” to. Clarification is requested. Similar problem appears in claim 13.
Claim 12 is rejected based on dependency from the rejected claim 11.
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 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 1-5, 7-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI et al. (US 20230009770 A1, as English translation of WO2021114276A1, hereinafter LI), in view of Kazmi et al. (US 20160242052 A1, hereinafter Kazmi).
Regarding claim 1,
LI teaches an apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (LI, see at least fig. 11, e.g. various components),
cause the apparatus at least to: determine sampling rate information which controls a rate at which an antenna panel of a communications device makes cell measurements (LI, in general, see fig. 2 and corresponding paragraphs; in particular, see at least para. 50 and 55 in view of at least para. 34-35, “...the beam measurement result of the neighbor cell reported by the terminal may be one or a combination of the following: a neighbor cell ID, an antenna panel ID, a group ID, a reference signal ID, L1-RSRP, L1-RSRQ, and L1-SINR...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...The RRM measurement value includes reference signal received power (RSRP) of layer 3, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of layer 3, signal to interference & noise ratio (SINR) of layer 3, etc. The value of layer 3 is obtained by averaging sampling values of many layers 1 and passing through the sliding window...”).
LI does not explicitly teach determine one or more mobility related parameters based on information received from a network entity about mobility related parameters for the determined sampling rate information.
Kazmi teaches determine one or more mobility related parameters based on information received from a network entity about mobility related parameters for the determined sampling rate information (Kazmi, in general, see fig. 11 and corresponding paragraphs, in particular, see at least para. 214 along with para. 270 and TABLE 1, “...The NW may also signal additional measurement parameters associated with the RSRQ measurement for first and second methods i.e. parameter values may depend upon the method. Examples of measurement parameters are signal hysteresis, time to trigger, time hysteresis, layer 3 filtering coefficient etc. The configuration can be done during initial setup of a call or during a call or at the time of cell change (e.g. handover—HO)...”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kazmi into LI for allowing measurement flexibility to result in better handovers.
Regarding claim 2,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 1.
LI does not explicitly teach wherein the apparatus is caused to determine for each of a plurality of different antenna panels of the communications device, respective sampling rate information and associated mobility related parameters
Kazmi teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to determine for each of a plurality of different antenna panels of the communications device, respective sampling rate information and associated mobility related parameters. (Kazmi, see at least TABLE 1, RSRQ measurement results)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kazmi into LI for allowing measurement flexibility to result in better handovers.
Regarding claim 3,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 1.
LI does not explicitly teach wherein the information received from a network about mobility related parameters comprises cell specific information.
Kazmi teaches wherein the information received from a network about mobility related parameters comprises cell specific information. (Kazmi, see at least para. 214, “...The NW may also signal additional measurement parameters associated with the RSRQ measurement for first and second methods i.e. parameter values may depend upon the method. Examples of measurement parameters are signal hysteresis, time to trigger, time hysteresis, layer 3 filtering coefficient etc. The configuration can be done during initial setup of a call or during a call or at the time of cell change (e.g. handover—HO). The configuration may be applicable to all cells in the device measurement set, but may also be configured independently for respective cell in the measurement set...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kazmi into LI for allowing measurement flexibility to result in better handovers.
Regarding claim 7,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 1.
LI further teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to send the measurement result report by the communications device to the network entity and in response to receive the information from the network entity about mobility related parameters for the measurement result report. (LI, see at least para. 50 and 55 in view of at least para. 34-35, “...the beam measurement result of the neighbor cell reported by the terminal may be one or a combination of the following: a neighbor cell ID, an antenna panel ID, a group ID, a reference signal ID, L1-RSRP, L1-RSRQ, and L1-SINR...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...The RRM measurement value includes reference signal received power (RSRP) of layer 3, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of layer 3, signal to interference & noise ratio (SINR) of layer 3, etc. The value of layer 3 is obtained by averaging sampling values of many layers 1 and passing through the sliding window...”).
LI does not explicitly teach to send the sampling rate information.
Kazmi teaches to send the sampling rate information. (Kazmi, see at least TABLE 1, RSRQ measurement results including sampling rate)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kazmi into LI for allowing measurement flexibility to result in better handovers.
Regarding claim 8,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 7.
LI further teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to send cell identity information associated with the measurement result report by the communications device to the network entity and in response to receive the information from the network entity about mobility related parameters for the determined measurement result report for the identified cell. (LI, see at least para. 50 and 55 in view of at least para. 34-35, “...the beam measurement result of the neighbor cell reported by the terminal may be one or a combination of the following: a neighbor cell ID, an antenna panel ID, a group ID, a reference signal ID, L1-RSRP, L1-RSRQ, and L1-SINR...”, note that para. 34 discloses “...The RRM measurement value includes reference signal received power (RSRP) of layer 3, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) of layer 3, signal to interference & noise ratio (SINR) of layer 3, etc. The value of layer 3 is obtained by averaging sampling values of many layers 1 and passing through the sliding window...”).
LI does not explicitly teach to send cell identity information associated with the sampling rate information.
Kazmi teaches to send cell identity information associated with the sampling rate information. (Kazmi, see at least TABLE 1, RSRQ measurement results including sampling rate and measured cells)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Kazmi into LI for allowing measurement flexibility to result in better handovers.
Regarding claim 9,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 1.
LI further teaches wherein the mobility parameters are handover related parameters. (LI, see at least para. 40 in view of para. 39, “...the triggering condition for performing the beam measurement on the neighbor cell may be configured separately by the network device to which the serving cell of the terminal belongs for the terminal, ... For example, the triggering condition that the absolute value of the difference between the RRM measurement result of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement result of the serving cell is less than the preset threshold may be configured independently by the network device to which the serving cell of the terminal belongs for the terminal...”, note that para. 39 discloses an example of handover condition, in part, “The absolute value of the difference between the RRM measurement result of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement result of the serving cell being less than the preset threshold refers to that the difference between the RRM measurement value of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement value of the serving cell is within a range, such as greater than offset1 and less than offset2. The offset1 can be greater than or equal to 0. Certainly, offset1 can be less than 0. The offset2 is greater than the offset1. The offset2 can be the offset value of the switch. That is, when the difference between the RRM measurement value of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement value of the serving cell is greater than or equal to offset2, the switch to the neighbor cell is performed by the terminal...”)
Regarding claim 10,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 1.
LI further teaches wherein the mobility parameters comprise one or more of time to trigger, a handover offset and a L3 filter coefficient. (for one non-limiting example, see claim 9 rejection above for handover offset)
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 11 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. Hence, examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 17, and 18, in view of claim 11 above, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 2, 8, 9, and 10, respectively,
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1. To be more specific, although reciting subject matters slightly different, one skilled in the art would have known claim 14 performs reverse (or corresponding) procedures of claim 1. Hence, examiner applies the same rejection reasoning as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, in view of claim 14 above, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 3.
Regarding claim 16,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 14.
LI further teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to send information about one or more conditions to the communications device, said one or more conditions being used by the communications device to determine which mobility parameters are to be used. (LI, see at least para. 47 along with para. 37-39, “...The network device to which the serving cell belongs sends the configuration of the triggering condition for performing the beam measurement on the neighbor cell and the measurement result reporting configuration. ... The triggering condition for performing the beam measurement on the neighbor cell may be that the RRM measurement result of the serving cell is less than the first threshold, or the beam measurement result of the serving cell is less than the second threshold, or the CQI measurement result of the serving cell is less than the third threshold, or the RRM measurement result of the neighbor cell is greater than the fourth threshold; or the absolute value of the difference between the RRM measurement result of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement result of the serving cell is less than the preset threshold...”, note that para. 39 discloses, for one non-limiting example, “...The offset1 can be greater than or equal to 0. Certainly, offset1 can be less than 0. The offset2 is greater than the offset1. The offset2 can be the offset value of the switch. That is, when the difference between the RRM measurement value of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement value of the serving cell is greater than or equal to offset2, the switch to the neighbor cell is performed by the terminal...”)
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1 except this claim is in method claim format.
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 19 except this claim is in computer-readable medium claim format.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI in view of Kazmi, and further in view of GUNDOGAN et al. (US 20230037650 A1, hereinafter GUNDOGAN).
Regarding claim 4,
LI in view of Kazmi teaches claim 1.
LI in view of Kazmi does not teach wherein the apparatus is caused to receive the information from the network entity about mobility related parameters for a plurality of different sample rates.
GUNDOGAN teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to receive the information from the network entity about mobility related parameters for a plurality of different sample rates. (GUNDOGAN, in general, see fig. 2 and 4 along with their paragraphs; in particular, see at least para. 37-38, “...As stated, L1 of the UE can be limited to measure at various sampling rate (i.e., Tsmp) depending on number of panels,... Thus, the UE may derive a new forgetting factor a′ for its sampling rate Tsmp based on the configured filter coefficient kL3 (leading to forgetting factor a) corresponding to a specified sample rate X... SSBs may be available, for example, every X=20 ms. Thus, if a UE has 4 panels, without any switching delay, and a round robin switching schedule, the sampling rate would be Tsmp=80 ms...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate GUNDOGAN into LI in view of Kazmi to reduce fluctuations in measurements caused by fast fading and measurement error.
Regarding claim 5,
LI in view of Kazmi and GUNDOGAN teaches claim 4.
LI in view of Kazmi further teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to receive the information from the network entity about mobility related parameters for a plurality of different cells. (LI, see at least para. 50 and 55 in view of at least para. 31, “... the reference signal configuration of the beam measurement includes one or a combination of the following: a neighbor cell identifier (ID), a neighbor cell TRP ID or a Panel ID, and may also include time-frequency resources position and period of the reference signal of the beam measurement, etc...”, note that para. 31 discloses “...examples of the disclosure provide a beam measurement method, to perform beam measurement on neighbor cells, such that different cells can simultaneously transmit data with the terminal based on beams...”; Kazmi, see at least TABLE 1, RSRQ measurement results including sampling rate and measured cells)
LI in view of Kazmi does not teach the plurality of different sample rates for a plurality of different cells.
GUNDOGAN teaches the plurality of different sample rates for a plurality of different cells. (GUNDOGAN, see at least para. 41 and 48, “...At 701, NE 720 may configure at least one L3 filter coefficient kL3. In various example embodiments, NE 720 may calculate the at least one L3 filter time constant Tcst_x according to at least one of at least one L3 filter time constant Tcst derived from the at least one L3 filter coefficient kL3, at least one input rate of L3 infinite impulse response filtering Tsmp , at least one sampling rate X,...”, note that para. 41 discloses “...For example, in baseline HO, once an A3 event (or other configured Ax event) condition is fulfilled, the UE may send a measurement report, and the serving cell may prepare the target cell (e.g., one of the cells indicated in the measurement report)...”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate GUNDOGAN into LI in view of Kazmi to reduce fluctuations in measurements caused by fast fading and measurement error.
Regarding claim 6,
LI in view of Kazmi and GUNDOGAN teaches claim 4.
LI further teaches wherein the apparatus is caused to receive information about one or more conditions and to use the information about one or more conditions to determine which mobility parameters are to be used. (LI, see at least para. 47 along with para. 37-39, “...The network device to which the serving cell belongs sends the configuration of the triggering condition for performing the beam measurement on the neighbor cell and the measurement result reporting configuration. ... The triggering condition for performing the beam measurement on the neighbor cell may be that the RRM measurement result of the serving cell is less than the first threshold, or the beam measurement result of the serving cell is less than the second threshold, or the CQI measurement result of the serving cell is less than the third threshold, or the RRM measurement result of the neighbor cell is greater than the fourth threshold; or the absolute value of the difference between the RRM measurement result of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement result of the serving cell is less than the preset threshold...”, note that para. 39 discloses, for one non-limiting example, “...The offset1 can be greater than or equal to 0. Certainly, offset1 can be less than 0. The offset2 is greater than the offset1. The offset2 can be the offset value of the switch. That is, when the difference between the RRM measurement value of the neighbor cell and the RRM measurement value of the serving cell is greater than or equal to offset2, the switch to the neighbor cell is performed by the terminal...”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights