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 § 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 1-5, 15-19 and 32 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term 'condition' is used in the claim without context, making it vague and indefinite. Moving forward in the examination process, the examiner will interpret the condition as a threshold.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12-13, 15-18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva, Icaro Leonardo J. et al. (US 12356365 B2, hereinafter referred to as Da Silva) in view of Eklöf, Cecilia et al. (US 20220022121 A1, hereinafter referred to as Eklöf).
Regarding claim 1, Da Silva teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a wireless device from a network, a configuration of a conditional mobility for a target cell including at least one condition (Da Silva discloses a UE receiving a mobility configuration from the network node or base station. See paragraph [0214]);
acquiring, by the wireless device, a present measurement result for the target cell at a first time point (Da Silva discloses the UE acquiring measurements of the cell and placing them in a report. See paragraph [0214]);
deriving, by the wireless device, a predictive measurement result for the target cell for a second time point (Da Silva discloses the UE performing measurement predictions and placing them in the report. See paragraph [0214]).
Da Silva teaches all aspects of the claimed invention except performing, by the wireless device, the conditional mobility to the target cell based on both the present measurement result and the predictive measurement result satisfying the at least one condition.
In the same field of endeavor, Eklöf discloses the UE executing conditional handover based on conditions of a measurement report being fulfilled. See paragraphs [0163] and [0178].
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 modify Da Silva to incorporate having the UE as the device that performs the handover. The motivation to combine is to conduct faster reactions to local conditions in a dynamic environment which improves latency and reduces signaling overhead.
Regarding claim 2, Da Silva further teaches evaluating, by the wireless device, the at least one condition based on both the present measurement result and the predictive measurement result (Da Silva discloses that the UE evaluates the measurements, current and predicted, based on the event conditions. See paragraphs [0064-0065] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Da Silva further teaches wherein the at least one condition includes a first condition for the present measurement result and/or a second condition for the predictive measurement result (Da Silva discloses reporting predicted measurement values based on a condition. It is also disclosed that the UE is configured to take measurements based on triggering events. See paragraphs [0031] and [0101-0102]).
Regarding claim 4, Da Silva further teaches wherein the conditional mobility to the target cell is performed based on both the first condition and the second condition being satisfied (Da Silva discloses that the mobility decision is made based on the reports that contain both current and predicted measurements. See paragraph [0214]).
Regarding claim 6, Da Silva further teaches receiving, by the wireless device from the network, a measurement configuration including information on a measurement object (Da Silva discloses sending a measurement report configuration associated with a measurement object. See paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 7, Da Silva further teaches wherein the information on the measurement object includes information on at least one cell (Da Silva discloses that a measurement object includes an SSB Absolute Radio Frequency Channel Number (ARFCN). The ARFCN is a unique integer that maps to a specific RF channel center frequency. See paragraphs [0057] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 8, Da Silva further teaches wherein the information on the measurement object includes information on at least one reference signal and/or at least one Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) (Da Silva discloses that the mobility information includes RSRP, RSRQ and SSB identifier coverage. See paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 12, Da Silva further teaches configuring, by the wireless device, a prediction time window, wherein the prediction time window starts after a minimum time value from a current time point, and wherein the predictive measurement result is derived based on the prediction time window (Da Silva discloses a lower threshold that triggers the measurement report. The measurement report contain the predictive measurement. See paragraph [0071] and Figure 2, s202).
Regarding claim 13, Da Silva further teaches configuring, by the wireless device, a prediction time window, wherein the prediction time window ends before a maximum time value from a current time point, and wherein the predictive measurement result is derived based on the prediction time window (Da Silva discloses a higher threshold that denotes the measurement report timeframe closing and that only a handover can be executed. See paragraph [0081] and Figure 2, s207).
Regarding claim 15, Da Silva further teaches a wireless device comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and at least one processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (Da Silva discloses a wireless device or UE that includes a transceiver, memory and one or more processors. See paragraphs [0322-0323] and [0331]). The remaining limitation are rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 4.
Regarding claim 32, Da Silva further teaches a base station comprising: a transceiver; a memory; and a processor operatively coupled to the transceiver and the memory (Da Silva discloses a base station or network node that includes a transceiver, memory and one or more processors. See paragraphs [0350-0351]). The remaining limitation are rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 1.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Eklöf and further in view of Damnjanovic, Jelena et al. (US 11917474 B2, hereinafter referred to as Damnjanovic) and Shrestha, Bharat et al. (US 20220167223 A1, hereinafter referred to as Shrestha).
Regarding claim 5, Da Silva and Eklöf teach all aspects of the claimed invention except skipping, by the wireless device, performing the conditional mobility to the target cell based on that the first condition is satisfied but the second condition is not satisfied.
In the same field of endeavor, Damjanovic discloses the concept of using both predictive and current measurements to deduce if conditions are met in order to execute a conditional handover. The invention discloses doing an action when one condition for a measurement type is met and another condition for a different measurement type is not met. The measurement type is either a current measurement or a measurement prediction. See paragraph [0079]. Shrestha further discloses the UE ceasing or skipping execution of the conditional handover if a condition is satisfied. See paragraphs [0008-0009].
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 modify Da Silva and Eklöf to incorporate using the predictive measurement to evaluate if handover will be executed and skipping the handover based on a condition. The motivation to combine is to shift mobility management from a reactive approach to a proactive one. Skipping handover when needed improves service continuity and reduces power consumption.
Regarding claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons outlined in claim 5.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Eklöf and further in view of Damnjanovic.
Regarding claim 9, Da Silva and Eklöf teach all aspects of the claimed invention except configuring, by the wireless device, a machine learning model, wherein the predictive measurement result for the target cell is derived by using the machine learning model.
In the same field of endeavor, Damnjanovic discloses predicting measurement values using machine learning (ML)models. See paragraph [0079].
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 modify Da Silva and Eklöf to incorporate the use of an ML model to make predictions on measurements. The motivation to combine is to make accurate, efficient, adaptable and better-informed decisions for the system, which will reduce costs and risks.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Eklöf and further in view of Wang, Hua et al. (US 20210326726 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 10, Da Silva and Eklöf teach all aspects of the claimed invention except transmitting, by the wireless device to the network, information on the machine learning model.
In the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses a UE sending a base station information related to the ML model. See paragraph [0107].
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 modify Da Silva and Eklöf to incorporate transmitting ML model data to the base station. The motivation to combine is to enable continuous learning and network optimization.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Eklöf and further in view of Parichehrehteroujeni, Ali et al. (US 20220141725 A1, hereinafter referred to as Parichehrehteroujeni).
Regarding claim 11, Da Silva and Eklöf teach all aspects of the claimed invention except transmitting, by the wireless device to the target cell, information on the present measurement result and the predictive measurement result after performing the conditional mobility.
In the same field of endeavor, Parichehrehteroujeni discloses the concept of a UE sending a report with measurement data after the handover has been executed. See paragraphs [0088] and [0092-0093].
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 modify Da Silva and Eklöf to incorporate a post-handover measurement report that is transmitted to the network node for evaluation. The motivation to combine is to conduct a handover performance evaluation and improve mobility decisions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva in view of Eklöf and further in view of Jung, Sunghoon et al. (US 20210051524 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jung).
Regarding claim 14, Da Silva and Eklöf teach all aspects of the claimed invention except 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.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung discloses a wireless device that performs sidelink communication other wireless devices. See paragraph [0063].
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 modify Da Silva and Eklöf to incorporate a PC5 interface to communicate with a user equipment. The motivation to combine is to enable direct, low-latency, high-reliability communication between wireless devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMILLE J ETIENNE whose telephone number is (571)721-1789. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00- 7:00 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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at (571) 272-3139. 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.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights