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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2024 and 5/27/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 13-17 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (US 20220330051 A1), hereinafter Peng.
Regarding Claim 1:
Peng teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless device, information on (i) a first cell reselection priority associated with a first height range and (ii) a second cell reselection priority associated with a second height range ([0089] “the configuration information includes at least one piece of height information and a first parameter corresponding to the at least one piece of height information”; [0090] “the terminal device receives the configuration information from the first network device”; [0118] “the first parameter is a cell reselection/selection parameter”; [0072] “a cell reselection priority”; [0099] “parameter 1 and parameter 2 are different first parameters”; Table 1 provides their respective height ranges; Fig. 1);
monitoring, by a wireless device, a current height of the wireless device ([0086] “the terminal device determines, based on a current height, a height range in which the terminal device is located”);
determining, by wireless device, a cell reselection priority as the first cell reselection priority or the second cell reselection priority based on the current height ([0100] “the terminal device selects (or determines) a target parameter in operation 340 corresponding to a height of the terminal device from a plurality of sets of first parameters that are in a correspondence with height information”; see Table 1);
performing, by a wireless device, cell reselection based on the determined cell reselection priority ([0119] “After determining, from the first parameter in the configuration information, the cell reselection/selection parameter corresponding to the height information of the terminal device, the terminal device performs cell reselection/selection based on the cell reselection/selection parameter”).
Regarding Claim 2: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng further teaches wherein the cell reselection priority is determined as the first cell reselection priority based on the current height being in the first height range ([0100] “in response to the height of the terminal device being less than or equal to the height threshold T_hight1, a target parameter selected by the terminal device is parameter 1”; see Table 1; [0118] “the first parameter is a cell reselection/selection parameter”; [0072] “a cell reselection priority”; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng further teaches wherein the cell reselection priority is determined as the second cell reselection priority based on the current height being in the second height range ([0100] “in response to the height of the terminal device being greater than T_hight1, a target parameter selected by the terminal device is parameter 2”; see Table 1; [0118] “the first parameter is a cell reselection/selection parameter”; [0072] “a cell reselection priority”; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 13: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng further teaches wherein the wireless device is a mobile device capable of vertical mobility ([0060] “the terminal is fixed or mobile, and the terminal is deployed on land, in water, or in the air”; [0061] “the terminal device is alternatively an uncrewed aerial vehicle (unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV)”).
Regarding Claim 14: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng further teaches wherein the wireless device is in communication with at least one of a user equipment, a network, or an autonomous vehicle other than the wireless device ([0059] “the terminal device communicates with a base station supporting an LTE network, communicates with a base station supporting a 5G network”; [0090] “the terminal device receives the configuration information from the first network device”).
Regarding Claim 15:
Peng teaches a wireless device, comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, and adapted to ([0177], Fig. 6: “The at least one processor 601, the memory 602, and the transceiver apparatus 603 are coupled through the system bus 604”; “When the at least one processor invokes and executes the program instructions stored in the memory, the communication apparatus is enabled to implement a function of the terminal device in any design of the method 300”);
control the transceiver to receive information on (i) a first cell reselection priority associated with a first height range and (ii) a second cell reselection priority associated with a second height range; ([0090] “the terminal device receives the configuration information from the first network device”; [0089] “the configuration information includes at least one piece of height information and a first parameter corresponding to the at least one piece of height information”; [0099], Table 1: “parameter 1 and parameter 2 are different first parameters”; [0118] “the first parameter is a cell reselection/selection parameter”; [0072] “a cell reselection priority”; Fig. 1);
monitor a current height of the wireless device; ([0086] “the terminal device determines, based on a current height, a height range in which the terminal device is located”);
determine a cell reselection priority as the first cell reselection priority or the second cell reselection priority based on the current height ([0100], Table 1: “the terminal device selects (or determines) a target parameter … corresponding to a height of the terminal device from a plurality of sets of first parameters that are in a correspondence with height information,” using the reselection-priority parameter identified above); and
perform cell reselection based on the determined cell reselection priority ([0119] “After determining, from the first parameter in the configuration information, the cell reselection/selection parameter corresponding to the height information of the terminal device, the terminal device performs cell reselection/selection based on the cell reselection/selection parameter”).
Regarding Claims 16 and 17: Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 2 and 3, respectively, with the apparatus limitations and processor implementation identified in the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding Claim 32:
A base station, comprising: ([0059] “An example in which the network device is a base station is used for description below”).
a transceiver; a memory; and a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory, and adapted to ([0177], Fig. 6: “The at least one processor 601, the memory 602, and the transceiver apparatus 603 are coupled through the system bus 604”; “in response to the at least one processor invoking and executing the program instructions stored in the memory, the communication apparatus is enabled to implement a function of the network device”);
provide, to a wireless device, information on (i) a first cell reselection priority associated with a first height range and (ii) a second cell reselection priority associated with a second height range, ([0168] “the processing unit 520 is configured to determine a correspondence between a first parameter and height information, and the transceiver unit 510 is configured to send configuration information to the terminal device”; [0099], Table 1: “parameter 1 and parameter 2 are different first parameters”; [0118] “the first parameter is a cell reselection/selection parameter”; [0072] “a cell reselection priority”);
wherein the cell reselection priority is determined as the first cell reselection priority based on a current height of the wireless device being in the first height range ([0100], Table 1: “in response to the height of the terminal device being less than or equal to the height threshold … a target parameter selected by the terminal device is parameter 1”); and
wherein the cell reselection priority is determined as the second cell reselection priority based on a current height of the wireless device being in the second height range ([0100], Table 1: “in response to the height of the terminal device being greater than … a target parameter selected by the terminal device is parameter 2”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 4-5 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng, in view of Shi et al. (US 20200137646 A1), hereinafter Shi.
Regarding Claim 4: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng does not explicitly teach receiving, by a wireless device, information on a height range associated with a cell selection priority.
Shi teaches receiving, by a wireless device, information on a height range associated with a cell selection priority ([0295]: “cell access priorities” applicable when the terminal “selects or reselects a cell”), included in its air parameter configuration. Shi further teaches receipt of height-range information ([0261]: “receives a height threshold,” with heights above that threshold identifying airborne operation), receipt of network-sent configurations ([0324]: “the flight terminal receives”), and selection of the applicable configuration ([0328]: “based on the flight status”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Shi’s cell-selection priority in Peng’s received height-associated configuration so the terminal preferentially selects a cell operating on a frequency suited to airborne access (Shi [0296]).
Claim 18 recites the programmed wireless-device counterpart of claim 4. It is rejected for the same reasons and citations stated for claim 4, incorporating the apparatus and processor implementation identified for claim 15 (Peng [0177]).
Regarding Claim 5: Peng and Shi teach the method of claim 4.
Peng further teaches wherein the information on the height range includes information on a maximum threshold of the height range and/or a minimum threshold of the height range ([0110]: “the first network device sends a plurality of height thresholds”; [0107], Table 4: “the height of the terminal device being greater than 50 m and less than or equal to 150 m”).
Claim 19 recites the wireless-device counterpart of claim 5. It is rejected for the same reasons and citations stated for claim 5, incorporating the rejection of claim 18 for its inherited limitations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Shi, and further in view of Min et al. (WO 2023112180 A1), hereinafter Min.
Regarding Claim 6: Peng and Shi teach the method of claim 5.
Peng and Shi do not explicitly teach wherein the maximum threshold and/or the minimum threshold is configured per frequency.
Min teaches wherein the maximum threshold and/or the minimum threshold is configured per frequency (Fig. 9, “cellReselectionHeightThreshold” within “InterFreqCarrierFreqInfo”; corresponding English disclosure in EP 4 451 745 A1, [0104] “These information elements may be included in InterFreqCarrierFreqInfo, instead.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Peng and Shi’s height thresholds per frequency, as taught by Min, to direct terminals at different heights to suitable frequencies, improving downlink reception and reducing uplink interference (Min, corresponding English disclosure in EP 4 451 745 A1, [0078]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng, in view of Min.
Regarding Claim 7: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng does not explicitly teach wherein the first height range is common for multiple frequencies.
Min teaches wherein the first height range is common for multiple frequencies ([0094] “cellReselectionPriorityAltitude for each frequency is associated with each of the altitude ranges defined by the specific threshold”; [0095] and Fig. 7 show the same 0–50 m range applied to CarrierFreq#1–CarrierFreq#4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Min’s common height range across multiple frequencies in Peng’s configuration to favor height-appropriate frequencies, improving downlink reception and reducing uplink interference (Min [0078]).
Regarding Claim 8: Peng and Min teach the method of claim 7.
Peng does not explicitly teach wherein the second height range is configured for a specific frequency among the multiple frequencies.
Min teaches wherein the second height range is configured for a specific frequency among the multiple frequencies ([0104] “These information elements may be included in InterFreqCarrierFreqInfo, instead.”; Fig. 9 places the height-threshold and altitude-priority fields within that frequency-specific information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to supplement the common-range configuration with Min’s frequency-specific height threshold so that a particular frequency’s priority applies at suitable heights, improving downlink reception and reducing uplink interference (Min [0078]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Min, and further in view of Kazmi et al. (US 20200187031 A1), hereinafter Kazmi.
Regarding Claim 9: Peng and Min teach the method of claim 8.
Peng and Min do not explicitly teach wherein a part of the first height range is overlapped with the second height range.
Kazmi teaches wherein a part of the first height range is overlapped with the second height range, in the context of height ranges governing carrier measurements ([0063] “The altitude ranges may overlap or may be mutually exclusive” and “An overlapping range would permit a land based wireless device measuring signals from either cell frequency”; [0002] “the UE performs measurements for operations such as cell selection, cell reselection”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Kazmi’s overlapping-range arrangement to Peng and Min’s common and frequency-specific priority ranges, allowing frequencies associated with both ranges to remain candidates for reselection at shared heights (Kazmi [0002], [0063]).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Min and Kazmi, and further in view of ETSI TS 136 331 V16.1.1 (July 2020), corresponding to 3GPP TS 36.331 version 16.1.1 Release 16, hereinafter TS 36.331.
Regarding Claim 10:
Peng and Min and Kazmi do not expressly teach wherein the second cell reselection priority is selected for the specific frequency while the wireless device being in the overlapped part.
TS 36.331 supplies selection of the available alternative priority for an E-UTRA frequency (§ 5.3.8.3, p. 156, “apply the alternative cell reselection priority information”). Its SIB5 structure permits an alternative priority for an individual frequency (§ 6.3.1, pp. 472–475, InterFreqCarrierFreqInfo-v1610 and optional altCellReselectionPriority-r16). It does not itself supply height ranges.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply this alternative-priority rule to the second priority when its height condition is satisfied, including within the overlap, so the specific frequency uses its applicable alternative priority. This resolves simultaneous applicability through a defined selection rule (TS 36.331, § 5.3.8.3, p. 156).
Regarding Claim 11:
Peng and Min and Kazmi do not expressly teach wherein the first cell reselection priority is selected for one or more frequencies other than the specific frequency among the multiple frequency while the wireless device being in the overlapped part.
TS 36.331 supplies the fallback for a frequency without an alternative (§ 5.3.8.3, p. 156, “otherwise apply the cell reselection priority broadcast in the system information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to retain the first priority for one or more other frequencies having no alternative while the device remains in the common first range, including the overlap. This preserves applicable priorities for frequencies unaffected by the specific-frequency configuration (TS 36.331, § 5.3.8.3, p. 156).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Peng, in view of Sebire et al. (US 20230276324 A1), hereinafter Sebire.
Regarding Claim 12: Peng teaches the method of claim 1.
Peng does not explicitly teach receiving, by a wireless device from a network, a configuration of a cell reselection priority for slice-based cell reselection associated with a height range.
Sebire teaches receiving, by a wireless device from a network, a configuration of a cell reselection priority for slice-based cell reselection ([0054], Fig. 2, operation 210; [0109] “Slice-specific, or CAG-specific cell reselection-related priority information”; [0110] “may be indicated or identified via SIBs or system information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Sebire’s slice-specific priorities in Peng’s height-associated configuration so that reselection favors cells appropriate to the terminal’s height that also support its network slice (Sebire [0112]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights