DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-24 have been examined and are pending.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 9/25/2024 has been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/25/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
7. Claims 2-24 (hereinafter “Application”) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,906 B2 (hereinafter “Patent”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the Application are transparently found in the Patent with observable wording variations, and therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Take an example of comparing claim 2 of the Application and claim 1 of the Patent:
Application, Claim 2:
A mobility management method for a user equipment (UE) device comprising:
processing first data generated from multiple beams to perform beam selection/consolidation
to identify a first set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with a first cell and a second set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with a second cell and to determine respective cell quality values at the UE device for the first cell based on the identified first set of one or more beams and for the second cell based on the identified second set of one or more beams;
applying filtering to the respective cell quality values, the filtering being separate from the beam selection/consolidation;
determining, responsive to the first data,
respective beam quality values for a plurality of beams of the multiple beams, each beam associated with the first cell or with a base station of the first cell;
reporting N of the respective beam quality values for N respective beams of the plurality of beams,
where N is an integer greater than one;
and reporting the cell quality value of at least one of the first cell or the second cell,
wherein the beam selection/consolidation comprises applying at least one of a highest beam measurement quality value and an average of the highest beam measurement quality values above a threshold.
Patent, Claim 1:
A mobility management method for a user equipment (UE) device comprising:
processing layer 1 (L1) data generated from multiple beams to perform beam selection/consolidation responsive to configured parameters
to identify a first set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with a first cell and a second set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with a second cell and to determine respective cell quality values at the UE device for the first cell based on the identified first set of one or more beams and for the second cell based on the identified second set of one or more beams;
applying layer 3 (L3) filtering, consistent with configured parameters, to the respective cell quality values, the L3 filtering being separate from the beam selection/consolidation;
determining, responsive to L1 data and separately from the determining of the respective cell quality values,
respective beam quality values for a plurality of beams of the multiple beams, each beam associated with the first cell or with a base station of the first cell;
reporting N of the respective beam quality values for N respective beams of the plurality of beams,
where N is an integer greater than one;
and reporting the cell quality value of at least one of the first cell or the second cell,
wherein the beam selection/consolidation comprises applying at least one of a highest beam measurement quality value and an average of the highest beam measurement quality values above a threshold.
Claims 3-7 of the Application corresponds to claims 2-6 of the Patent, respectively;
Claim 8 of the Application corresponds to claim 1 of the Patent;
Claims 9-14 of the Application correspond to claims 7-12 of the Patent, respectively;
Claim 15 of the Application corresponds to claim 9 of the Patent;
Claims 16-21 of the Application corresponds to claims 13-18 of the Patent, respectively;
Claim 22 of the Application corresponds to claim 1 of the Patent;
Claim 23 of the Application corresponds to claim 9 of the Patent; and
Claim 24 of the Application corresponds to claim 13 of the Patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
12. Claims 2-6, 8-13, 15-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0208494 A1 to Moon et al. (hereinafter “Moon”) in view of non-patent literature document “Consolidation of Multiple Beams for DL Measurements” to MediaTek, Inc. (hereinafter “NPL”).
Regarding Claim 2, Moon discloses a mobility management method for a UE device comprising:
processing first data generated from multiple beams to perform beam selection…to identify a first set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with a first cell (Moon: [0062-0065] – UE determines cell quality from beam quality from the plurality of beams from a serving 5G-NB and a neighbor 5G-NB, thus deriving a set of beams from a first cell and a set of beams from a second cell; [0098-0104], [0131-0140], [0149] – UE performs L1 filtering to generate a plurality of metrics (parameters) for beam selection in a first cell. [0053] – describing “5G-NB” as a base station; [0062-0066] – describes the UE operable to measure quality metrics of BRS, or beam reference signals, transmitted from the 5G-NB, thereby creating and measuring a plurality of downlink reference signals; [0098] – UE performs Layer 1 filtering on the plurality of BRS.) and a second set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with a second cell (Moon: [0062-0065] – UE determines cell quality from beam quality from the plurality of beams from a serving 5G-NB and a neighbor 5G-NB, thus deriving a set of beams from a first cell and a set of beams from a second cell; [0098-0104], [0131-0140], [0149] – UE performs L1 filtering to generate a plurality of metrics (parameters) for beam selection in a second cell.) and to determine respective cell quality values at the UE device for the first cell based on the identified first set of one or more beams and for the second cell based on the identified second set of one or more beams (Moon: [0064-0066] – corresponds to determining cell quality of both serving 5G-NB and neighboring 5G-NB (first and second cells) based on the measured first and second beams from the plurality of beam measurements that are derived from the received plurality of BRS measurements.);
applying filtering to the respective cell quality values (Moon: [0098-0107] – the result of the L1 filtering as an output value is input to L3 filtering of all the BRS measurements performed by the UE; [0294-0300] – filtering based on configured parameters is signaled to the UE from 5G-NB as signal strength metrics. See also [0234].), the filtering being separate from the…beam selection (Moon discloses in at least [0428-0432] that the 5G-NB may signal to the UE whether or not to perform L3 filtering at the time of determining beam measurement, and/or determining whether to perform L3 filtering at the time of performing the cell level measurement and the beam level measurement. [0433-0449] describe several examples of when the L3 filtering is turned on, in particular, a case where L3 filtering is turned off for beam measurements, but turned on for cell measurement, wherein the cell measurement is derived from the beam measurement.);
determining, responsive to the first data, respective beam quality values for a plurality of beams of the multiple beams (Moon: [0354-0359] – corresponds to each 5G-NB (base station) being one cell comprising one TRP, or one cell comprising a plurality of TRPs. The system may use one or more beams of a TRP to derive the representative value of the cell level. Moon further discloses determining separate cell qualities and beam qualities in at least [0359-0380] – “Further, the UE may differentiate the cell and the beam using a cell ID and a beam ID that are exclusively allocated to the cell and the beam. Even in the case of the TRP, if there is a TRP ID exclusively allocated to the TRP, the UE may differentiate different TRPs. Calculation method to be applied when the UE derives (i) the cell representative signal strength, (ii) the representative signal strength for the 5G-NB's beam, or (iii) the representative signal strength for the UE's beam.” Examiner notes any measure of signal strength is a quality measurement, as is known in the art. Examiner further notes Moon discloses at least L1 (as an inherent feature to the plurality of filtering) filtering in [0373-0379], describing the application of cell and beam filtering for deriving signal strengths.);
reporting N of the respective beam quality values for N respective beams of the plurality of selected beams, where N is an integer greater than one (Moon: [0063-0066] – the measured values (quality) determined by the UE based on the received BRS beams are reported to the 5G-NB; [0136-0140] – discloses the beam pair quality values are an integer value and may be set by the 5G-NB.);
reporting the cell quality value of at least one of the first cell or the second cell (Moon: [0116-0118] – describes the reporting configuration sent by the 5G-NB to the UE, wherein information to be reported by the UE includes at least the cell measurement information. In [0124] – the UE determines that a reporting condition is satisfied and sends the report (with cell measurements) to the 5G-NB.); and
wherein the beam selection…comprises applying at least one of a highest beam measurement quality value and an average of the highest beam measurement quality values above a threshold (Moon: [0064-0066] – an event such as determining or enacting a handover to a target cell are mobility events in which a beam/cell quality is determined to be of a higher quality than another beam or cell.).
Although Moon discloses beam selection, Moon does not expressly disclose beam consolidation, nor does Moon disclose that filtering may be separate from beam consolidation.
These features cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of NPL. NPL is also concerned with multi-beam quality and management (NPL: page 1). NPL discloses performing beam consolidation (NPL: Page 2, Proposal 1) and further discloses the L3 filtering being separate from the beam consolidation (NPL: page 2, Option 2: Consolidation after layer-1 filtering on each beam; see also Figure 1),
PNG
media_image1.png
545
1150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, it is clear that NPL may perform beam consolidation and the L3 filtering is performed after beam consolidation (i.e., separate from beam consolidation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the mobility management method of Moon in view of the method of NPL to perform beam consolidation and separately perform L3 filtering for the reasons of choosing “the beam with highest RSRP/RSRQ after layer-1 filtering (i.e. at point B) and feed into layer-3 filter. The output of layer-3 filter is used for cell evaluation.” (NPL, page 3).
Claim 9, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 2, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected based on the same grounds as claim 2. Please see above rejection of claim 2. Moon further discloses the apparatus with a processor and memory in at least Figure 21 with [0038] (see also Figure 22 with [0039]).
Claim 13, directed to an article of manufacture embodiment of claim 2, recites similar features as claim 2 and is therefore rejected based on the same grounds as claim 2. Please see above rejection of claim 2. Moon further discloses the medium in [0052]).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, Moon further discloses detecting a mobility event that includes determining that the reporting of the cell quality value meets configured mobility criteria for switching the UE device from a beam in the first set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with the first cell to a beam in the second set of one or more beams of the multiple beams associated with the second cell (Moon: [0064-0065] – corresponds to “…the UE measures the BRS and then may derive cell quality from beam quality of the serving 5G-NB and neighbor 5G-NBs. As a result, if it is determined that the cell quality of the serving 5G-NB is higher than that of the neighbor 5G-NBs, the determined result may be notified to the 5G-NB. The 5G-NB receiving such information may perform an operation for handing over the UE to the neighbor 5G-NB.”.).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Moon further discloses detecting a mobility event that includes switching the UE device from a first beam of a transmission reception point (TRP) to a second beam of the TRP, wherein the first and second beams are beams of the multiple beams associated with the first cell (Moon: [0354-0359] – corresponds to each 5G-NB (base station) being one cell comprising one TRP, or one cell comprising a plurality of TRPs. The system may use one or more beams of a TRP to derive the representative value of the cell level. Moon further discloses determining separate cell qualities and beam qualities in at least [0359-0380] – “Further, the UE may differentiate the cell and the beam using a cell ID and a beam ID that are exclusively allocated to the cell and the beam. Even in the case of the TRP, if there is a TRP ID exclusively allocated to the TRP, the UE may differentiate different TRPs. Calculation method to be applied when the UE derives (i) the cell representative signal strength, (ii) the representative signal strength for the 5G-NB's beam, or (iii) the representative signal strength for the UE's beam.” Examiner notes any measure of signal strength is a quality measurement, as is known in the art. Examiner further notes Moon discloses at least L1 (as an inherent feature to the plurality of filtering) filtering in [0373-0379], describing the application of cell and beam filtering for deriving signal strengths.).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, Moon further discloses the first and second cells are associated with respective first and second next generation Node Bs (gNBs); the first data comprises level 1 (L1) data; filtering is performed using level 3 (L3) data; and wherein reporting uses L1 data, L3 data, or both the L1 and L3 data (Moon: [0112] – a value comprising at least L1 data and L3 data is included with cell measurements. See also [0234-0242].).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Moon further discloses detecting a mobility event that includes switching from a first pair of transmit (Tx) and receive (Rx) beams of the multiple beams to a second pair of Tx and Rx beams of multiple beams and the method includes generating the first data describing aligned beam pairs (Moon: [0069] – “…it is assumed that the 5G-NB forms N.sub.BS beams and selects all or some of the N.sub.BS beams to communicate with the UE. Further, it is assumed that the UE forms N.sub.UE beams and selects all or some of the N.sub.UE beams to communicate with the 5G-NB. Therefore, a total of N.sub.BS*N.sub.UE beam pairs (hereinafter, beam pair) consisting of the 5G-NB's beam and the UE's beam are present between the 5G-NB and the UE and the UE may select the best beam pair in terms of the received signal strength if all BRS received signal strengths for the N.sub.BS N.sub.UE beam pairs are measured.”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 15, Moon further discloses wherein beam quality values are determined separately from cell quality values (Moon: [0116-0118] – describes the reporting configuration sent by the 5G-NB to the UE, wherein information to be reported by the UE includes at least the cell measurement information. In [0124] – the UE determines that a reporting condition is satisfied and sends the report (with cell measurements) to the 5G-NB.).
Regarding Claims 22-24, Moon further discloses wherein each beam of the first set of one or more beams is associated with a base station of the first cell (Moon: [0064-0065] – corresponds to “…the UE measures the BRS and then may derive cell quality from beam quality of the serving 5G-NB and neighbor 5G-NBs. As a result, if it is determined that the cell quality of the serving 5G-NB is higher than that of the neighbor 5G-NBs, the determined result may be notified to the 5G-NB. The 5G-NB receiving such information may perform an operation for handing over the UE to the neighbor 5G-NB.”.).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 7, 14, and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (please see non-statutory double patenting rejection above).
Conclusion
14. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 August 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights