Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This Office Action is in response to application filed on 08/21/2024. Claims 1-7, 15-27 were previously pending. Claims 1-7, 15-27 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024, 05/31/2025 is/are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4.1. 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.
4.2. 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.
4.3. Claim(s) 1-3, 15-18, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fan, (US 2023/0412258 A1) in view of Iwahashi et al., (“Iwa”, US 2021/0092017 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fan teaches, A method for determining a cell reselection priority, performed by a user equipment (120), comprising (Fan, FIG.1, communication system 100, terminal device (UE) 110, 120, network device 130, 140, [0032]: wireless communication system 100 includes at least two network devices, 130, 140, and at least two terminal devices 110, 120):
determining at least two relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies (Fan, S310, [0066-67]: obtaining, by a terminal device 110, a priority relationship between a priority of at least one neighboring cell frequency and a priority of a serving cell frequency. [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell of the first type may be specified by the protocol or pre-configured by the network to be higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency); and
(Fan, S320, [0130]: determining, by the UE 110, that the priority of a first neighboring cell frequency is higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency based on the priority relationship; [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell of the first type may be specified by the pre-configured by the network to be higher than the priority of the serving cell frequency, and the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell of the first type may be specified by the protocol or pre-configured by the network to be lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency).
Fan does not expressly teaches
in a case that there is a conflict between the
Iwa teaches
in a case that there is a conflict between the(Iwa, FIG.4, S105, [0042]: detects the conflict between policies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Fan, to detect whether there is a conflict between the relative frequency priorities determined by two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Iwa.
Doing so provides a method to determine at least one frequency priority strategy, and determine the relative frequency priority between the conflicting frequencies based on the determined frequency priority strategy (Iwa, FIG.4, S104-S105, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 2, Fan-Iwa teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the frequency priority strategy comprises at least one of:
a frequency priority determination rule determined based on a protocol (Fan, [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the protocol by the network to be higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency);
a frequency priority configuration based on a network-side configuration (Fan, [0077-82]: the first configuration information is configured through a system broadcast message or dedicated signaling sent by the network device; [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured by the network to be higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency).
Regarding Claim 3, Fan-Iwa teaches, The method of claim 2, wherein the conflict between the at least two relative frequency priorities, comprises:
a conflict between a relative frequency priority between at least two frequencies determined by a first frequency priority configuration based on the network-side configuration and a relative frequency priority between the at least two frequencies determined by a second frequency priority configuration based on the network-side configuration (Fan, [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured (“first rule”) by the network to be higher than the priority of the serving cell frequency. The priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured (“second rule”) to be lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency).
Regarding Claim 15, Fan teaches, A user equipment (110), comprising (Fan, FIG.1, communication system 100, terminal device (UE) 110, 120, network device 130, 140, [0032]: wireless communication system 100 includes at least two network devices, 130, 140, and at least two terminal devices 110, 120):
a processor (410); a transceiver (420); and a memory (430) storing programs executable by the processor (Fan, FIG.4, communication apparatus (UE) 400, processing unit 410, transceiver unit 420, memory unit 430, [0145-147]: the communication apparatus (UE) 400 may include a memory unit 430, which may be configured to store instructions or data, and executable by the processing unit 410),
wherein the processor is configured to:
determine at least two relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies (Fan, S310, [0066-67]: obtaining, by a UE 110, a priority relationship between a priority of at least one neighboring cell frequency and a priority of a serving cell frequency. [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the protocol or pre-configured by the network to be higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency); and
(Fan, S320, [0130]: determining, by the UE 110, that the priority of a first neighboring cell frequency is higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency based on the priority relationship; [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured by the network to be higher than the priority of the serving cell frequency, or the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured by the network to be lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency).
Fan does not expressly teaches
when there is a conflict between
Iwa teaches
when there is a conflict between (Iwa, FIG.4, S105, [0042]: detects the conflict between policies)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Fan, to detect whether there is a conflict between the relative frequency priorities determined by two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Iwa.
Doing so provides a method to determine at least one frequency priority strategy, and determine the relative frequency priority between the conflicting frequencies based on the determined frequency priority strategy (Iwa, FIG.4, S104-S105, [0042]).
Regarding Claim 16, Fan teaches, A non-transitory storage medium (430) having stored thereon executable programs that, when being executed by a processor (410), cause the processor (410) to implement a method for determining a cell reselection priority, wherein the method comprise (Fan, FIG.4, communication apparatus (UE) 400, processing unit 410, memory unit 430, [0145-147, 172]: the communication apparatus (UE) 400 may include a memory unit 430 (computer-readable storage medium), which may be configured to store instructions or data, and executable by the processing unit 410):
determining at least two relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies (Fan, S310, [0066-67]: obtaining, by a terminal device 110, a priority relationship between a priority of at least one neighboring cell frequency and a priority of a serving cell frequency. [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the protocol or pre-configured by the network to be higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency); and
(Fan, S320, [0130]: determining, by the UE 110, that the priority of a first neighboring cell frequency is higher or lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency based on the priority relationship; [0105]: the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured by the network to be higher than the priority of the serving cell frequency, and the priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured by the network to be lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency).
Fan does not expressly teaches
when there is a conflict between
Iwa teaches
when there is a conflict between (Iwa, FIG.4, S105, [0042]: detects the conflict between policies).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Fan, to detect whether there is a conflict between the relative frequency priorities determined by two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Iwa.
Doing so provides a method to determine at least one frequency priority strategy, and determine the relative frequency priority between the conflicting frequencies based on the determined frequency priority strategy (Iwa, FIG.4, S104-S105, [0042]).
Regarding Claims 17-18, see similar rejection to Claims 2-3 respectively.
Regarding Claims 23-24, see similar rejection to Claims 2-3 respectively.
4.4. Claim(s) 4-7, 19-22, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Fan, (US 2023/0412258 A1) in view of Iwahashi et al., (“Iwa”, US 2021/0092017 A1), and further in view of Fan et al., (“Fan2”, US 2023/0422122 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Fan-Iwa teaches, The method of claim 3, the second frequency priority determination rule comprises: determining the relative frequency priority between at least two frequencies based on a frequency priority between the at least two frequencies based on the network-side configuration (Fan, [0105]: The priority of the neighboring cell frequency corresponding to the neighboring cell may be specified by the pre-configured (“second rule”) to be lower than the priority of the serving cell frequency).
Fan does not expressly teach
wherein the first frequency priority determination rule comprises: determining the relative frequency priority between at least two frequencies based on a supported slice priority.
Fan2 teaches
wherein the first frequency priority determination rule comprises: determining the relative frequency priority between at least two frequencies based on a supported slice priority (Fan2, FIG.3, S202, [0117-119]: Based on the received first indication information sent by the network device, determine whether to apply the slice-based cell reselection metho. The first indication information is switch configuration information, that is, it directly indicates whether to apply the slice-based cell reselection method or not to apply the slice-based cell reselection method).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine relative frequency priorities between two frequencies based on two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Fan-Iwa, to determine the relative frequency priority between the frequencies based on a supported slice priority, as taught by Fan2.
Doing so provides a method to determine relative frequency priorities between two frequencies based on two frequency priority strategies, such as sliced-based cell reselection method (Fan2, FIG.3, [0115-119]).
Regarding Claim 5, Fan-Iwa-Fan2 teaches, The method of claim 4, wherein determining the at least one frequency priority strategy, and determining the relative frequency priority between the conflicting frequencies based on the determined frequency priority strategy, comprise:
determining the relative frequency priority between the at least two frequencies based on the supported slice priority (Fan2, [0119]: The first indication information is switch configuration information, that is, it directly indicates whether to apply the slice-based cell reselection method or not to apply the slice-based cell reselection method);
Regarding Claim 6, Fan-Iwa teaches, The method of claim 3.
Fan-Iwa does not expressly teach
wherein the first frequency priority configuration comprises: frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting a first slice or a first slice group based on the network-side configuration; and
the second frequency priority configuration comprises: frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting a second slice or a second slice group based on the network-side configuration.
Fan2 teaches
wherein the first frequency priority configuration comprises: frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting a first slice or a first slice group based on the network-side configuration (Fan2, Table 2, [0162]: Slicing priority information configured according to frequency point granularity. [0166-167]: obtaining slice-related information of Table 2 corresponding to the serving cell frequency point, and the relevant slice information supported by each frequency point in the target frequency point set from the network device through a system broadcast message or a dedicated signaling. [0171-177]: obtaining the serving cell frequency is F1, the absolute frequency point priority is 4, and the supported slices, and at least one neighboring cell frequency point F2, F3, F4, the absolute frequency point priority is 6, 6, 2, and the supported slices); and
the second frequency priority configuration comprises: frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting a second slice or a second slice group based on the network-side configuration (Fan2, Table 3, [0164]: Slicing priority information configured according to PCI (physical cell identity) granularity. [0166-167]: obtaining slice-related information of Table 3 corresponding to the serving cell frequency point, and the relevant slice information supported by each frequency point in the target frequency point set from the network device through a system broadcast message or a dedicated signaling. [0171-177]: obtaining the serving cell frequency is F1, the absolute frequency point priority is 4, and the supported slices, and at least one neighboring cell frequency point F2, F3, F4, the absolute frequency point priority is 6, 6, 2, and the supported slices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine relative frequency priorities between two frequencies based on two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Fan-Iwa, to determine frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting a first slice group based on the network-side configuration, as taught by Fan2.
Doing so provides a method to determine relative frequency priorities between two frequencies based on two frequency priority strategies, based on the supported slice group based on the network-side configuration (Fan2, FIG.4, [0136-141]).
Regarding Claim 7, Fan-Iwa teaches, The method of claim 6.
However Fan-Iwa does not expressly teach
wherein determining the at least one frequency priority strategy, and determining the relative frequency priority between the conflicting frequencies based on the determined frequency priority strategy, comprise:
in response to two slices or two slice groups with different priorities, determining the relative frequency priority between the at least two frequencies according to frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting a slice or a slice group with a higher priority based on the network-side configuration; or
in response to two slices or two slice groups with same priority, selecting one of the slices or slice groups, and determining the relative frequency priority between the at least two frequencies according to frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting the selected slice or slice group based on the network-side configuration.
Fan2 teaches
in response to two slices or two slice groups with same priority, selecting one of the slices or slice groups, and determining the relative frequency priority between the at least two frequencies according to frequency priorities of different frequencies supporting the selected slice or slice group based on the network-side configuration (Fan2, [0282]: the absolute frequency point cell reselection evaluation criterion includes [0285]: same-priority frequency point cell reselection evaluation criterion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine relative frequency priorities between at least two frequencies based on at least two frequency priority strategies, as taught by Fan, to select one of the slices when two slices with same priority, as taught by Fan2.
Doing so provides a method to determine at least one frequency priority strategy, select one of the slices when two slices with same priority then determine the relative frequency priority between the conflicting frequencies based on the determined frequency priority strategy (Fans2, [0282, 285]).
Regarding Claims 19-22, see similar rejection to Claims 4-7 respectively.
Regarding Claims 25-27, see similar rejection to Claims 4-6 respectively.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shih et al., US 2023/0030150 A1, Method for performing slice-based cell reselection e.g. slice-based intra-frequency cell reselection, in fifth-generation new radio wireless communication system, by using UE in e.g. enhanced mobile broadband application, involves receiving slice priority information from UE, FIG.3.
Venkataraman et al., US 2022/0377659 A1, Method for determining whether user equipment is located within coverage area of cell, involves determining whether measurement data corresponds to cell satisfies predetermined criteria, when measurement data satisfies criteria, FIG.4.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHHIAN (AMY) LING whose telephone number is (571)270-1074. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 ET.
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, MOO JEONG can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/C.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights