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 Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 line 2 recites “the Redcap UE searching for inter-frequency cells and/ inter-RAT” should change to “the Redcap UE searching for inter-frequency cells and[[/]] inter-RAT”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim recites “the Redcap UE reporting an A2 event earlier after detecting there are intra-frequency…” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear earlier to respect to what. The support seems to be found in applicant specification paragraph 31, but the claim does not specify the “what” such early schedule report, thus the claim is indefinite.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, GUMMADI discloses A method of handling network coexistence associated with a reduced capability (Redcap) feature, comprising:
a Redcap user equipment (UE) (paragraph [0092], "when the network redirects the RedCap UE to a target cell blindly, the RedCap UE may determine, based on the two databases, whether the target cell is a RedCap cell or not." and paragraph [0095], Fig.4A, "As shown by reference number 408, the network node 406 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, RedCap support information. The RedCap support information may be associated with at least one cell associated with (e.g., provided by) the network node 406 and may indicate whether the at least one cell supports RedCap communications. RedCap support information may be any information that is indicative of whether a cell supports RedCap communications." and paragraph [0097], "As shown by reference number 416, the network node 404 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, a blind handover initiation communication. The blind handover initiation communication may indicate a frequency that the RedCap 402 may search to identify a best cell in that frequency…For example, in some aspects, the RedCap UE 402 may perform a wireless communication operation associated with the target cell based on whether the cell ID is indicated in the first database 412." (i.e., searching for cells supported by a network node that support or not support RedCap UE. Does not explicitly disclose camping, the examiner will rely on another prior art to teach camping.));
storing related search information as a database in the Redcap UE (paragraph [0096], Fig.4, "As shown by reference number 410, the RedCap UE 402 may store, based on the RedCap support information, at least one RedCap support indication and/or non-RedCap support indication in a first database 412 or a second database 414, respectively." (i.e., storing if the base station supports RedCap or does not support RedCap UE.));
the Redcap UE marking each detected neighboring cell covered by any base station of the second type as a barred cell (paragraph [0095], "RedCap support information may be any information that is indicative of whether a cell supports RedCap communications." and paragraph [0096], Fig.4A, "As shown by reference number 410, the RedCap UE 402 may store, based on the RedCap support information, at least one RedCap support indication and/or non-RedCap support indication in a first database 412 or a second database 414, respectively." (i.e., second database that stores cell information that does not support RedCap UE. Other limitation was given no patentable weight as “and/or” was read as an “or”.));
and the Redcap UE performing a mobility decision based on the database (paragraph [0092], "when the network redirects the RedCap UE to a target cell blindly, the RedCap UE may determine, based on the two databases, whether the target cell is a RedCap cell or not." and paragraph [0097], Fig.4A,"As shown by reference number 418, the RedCap UE 402 may perform a wireless communication operation. For example, in some aspects, the RedCap UE 402 may perform a wireless communication operation associated with the target cell based on whether the cell ID is indicated in the first database 412. In some aspects, for example, performing the wireless communication operation may include initiating, based on the cell ID being indicated in the first database 412, a RACH handover procedure associated with the target cell. In some aspects, performing the wireless communication operation may include updating the first database 412 and/or the second database 414."),
wherein: the first base station of the first type is a Redcap base station configured to cover the first cell which supports the Redcap feature (paragraph [0095], "RedCap support information may be any information that is indicative of whether a cell supports RedCap communications." and paragraph [0096], Fig.4A, "As shown by reference number 410, the RedCap UE 402 may store, based on the RedCap support information, at least one RedCap support indication and/or non-RedCap support indication in a first database 412 or a second database 414, respectively." (i.e., storing RedCap support.));
and the base station of the second type is a regular base station configured to cover a regular neighboring cell which does not support the Redcap feature (paragraph [0095], "RedCap support information may be any information that is indicative of whether a cell supports RedCap communications." and paragraph [0096], Fig.4, "As shown by reference number 410, the RedCap UE 402 may store, based on the RedCap support information, at least one RedCap support indication and/or non-RedCap support indication in a first database 412 or a second database 414, respectively." (i.e., storing non-redcap support.)).
However, GUMMADI does not explicitly disclose a Redcap user equipment (UE) currently camping on a first cell covered by a first base station of a first type searching for one or more neighboring cells covered by a base station of a second type.
Kim discloses a Redcap user equipment (UE) currently camping on a first cell covered by a first base station of a first type searching for one or more neighboring cells covered by a base station of a second type (paragraph [0062], Fig.3, “In a network consisting of a RedCap UE 3A-01, a base station 3A-03 and an AMF 3A-05, the RedCap UE receives system information, determines whether to bar a cell, performs cell reselection, monitors a paging message, selects and applies cell common configuration information and transmits and receives RRC control messages.” and paragraph [0063], "In step 3A-11, the RedCap UE camps on a cell managed by the base station by performing cell selection or cell reselection. The RedCap UE selects a cell having a good reception signal from among cells of the highest priority frequency in consideration of cell reselection priority and the like." and paragraph [0064], " In step 3A-13, the RedCap UE receives the MIB in the selected cell." (i.e., camped RedCap UE performing a search.)).
GUMMADI and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method Kim as it would enable GUMMADI when not receive certain information to determined the cell is barred thus reducing the chances of a redcap UE camping on a wrong cell as its desirable for a RedCap UE to only camp on allowed indicated cells (Kim, paragraph [0147], “If the reduced capability terminal does not receive SIB1, it is determined that the first NR cell is a barred cell, and exclude the first NR cell from the candidates for cell selection and cell reselection for 300 seconds, consider the second IFRI is identical to the first IFRI and determined whether to include or exclude the second NR cell of the same frequency as the first NR cell as a candidate for cell selection/reselection.” ).
Regarding Claim 2, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses further comprising: the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell decoding a System Information Block (SIB) of the one or more neighboring cells during a mobility procedure (paragraph [0091], "Some aspects provide for handover from an LTE cell to an NR RedCap cell via a blind handover procedure or a measurement-based handover procedure" and paragraph [0092], "when the network redirects the RedCap UE to a target cell blindly…If the target cell is not in the one of the two databases, the RedCap UE may read system information (e.g., SIB1) to determine whether the target cell is a RedCap cell." and Fig.4A (i.e., during the mobility if the RedCap does not find information stored in the database the RedCap UE can decode SIB1 to determine if the target cell a RedCap cell.));
the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell determining whether the one or more neighboring cells covered by any base station of the second type can be detected based on the decoded SIB of each neighboring cell (paragraph [0092], Fig.4A, "when the network redirects the RedCap UE to a target cell blindly…If the target cell is not in the one of the two databases, the RedCap UE may read system information (e.g., SIB1) to determine whether the target cell is a RedCap cell." and paragraph [0095], Fig.4, "In some aspects, the lack of an explicit indication that the cell supports RedCap communications may be RedCap support information indicating that the cell does not support RedCap communications. In some aspects, for example, the network node 406 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, system information (e.g., a SIB1) that includes the RedCap support information." (i.e., UE reading SIB1 to determine if the target cell supports RedCap.)).
Regarding Claim 2 (Alternative), GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Kim discloses further comprising: the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell decoding a System Information Block (SIB) of the one or more neighboring cells during a mobility procedure (paragraph [0063], Fig.3, " In step 3A-11, the RedCap UE camps on a cell managed by the base station by performing cell selection or cell reselection. The RedCap UE selects a cell having a good reception signal from among cells of the highest priority frequency in consideration of cell reselection priority and the like." and paragraph [0068], “In steps 3A-15, the RedCap UE receives SIB1. The RedCap UE stores the acquired SIB1. SIB1 includes ServingCellConfigCommon, which is common configuration information of a serving cell, and a second intraFreqReselection. The second intraFreqReselection is defined as enumerated with one of Allowed and notAllowed. It is also called IFRI_SIB.” (i.e., UE decoding SIB1 during cell reselection.));
the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell determining whether the one or more neighboring cells covered by any base station of the second type can be detected based on the decoded SIB of each neighboring cell (paragraph [0068], “In steps 3A-15, the RedCap UE receives SIB1. The RedCap UE stores the acquired SIB1. SIB1 includes ServingCellConfigCommon, which is common configuration information of a serving cell, and a second intraFreqReselection. The second intraFreqReselection is defined as enumerated with one of Allowed and notAllowed. It is also called IFRI_SIB.” And paragraph [0090], “In step 3A-17, the RedCap UE determines whether the current cell is a barred cell or an allowed cell, in consideration of MIB and SIB1.” (i.e., UE reading SIB1 to determine if the target cell supports RedCap.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding Claim 4, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses and/or the database contains at least one of (paragraph [0096], Fig.4, "As shown by reference number 410, the RedCap UE 402 may store, based on the RedCap support information, at least one RedCap support indication and/or non-RedCap support indication in a first database 412 or a second database 414, respectively…The second database 414 may include at least one non-RedCap support indication associated with at least one additional cell that indicates that the at least one additional cell does not support RedCap communications." (i.e., Examiner reading and/or as an "or" and contains the barred status of neighboring cell.)).
Regarding Claim 5, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses wherein the Redcap UE marking each detected neighboring cell covered by any base station of the second type as the barred cell includes: the Redcap UE marking a third neighboring cell as the barred cell after receiving information (paragraph [0055], "At the network node 110, a transmit processor 220 may receive data, from a data source 212, intended for the UE 120 (or a set of UEs 120). The transmit processor 220 may select one or more MCSs for the UE 120 based at least in part on one or more channel quality indicators (CQIs) received from that UE 120. " and paragraph [0095], Fig.4A, "In some aspects, the lack of an explicit indication that the cell supports RedCap communications may be RedCap support information indicating that the cell does not support RedCap communications. In some aspects, for example, the network node 406 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, system information (e.g., a SIB1) that includes the RedCap support information." (i.e., Application Processor (AP) reading as a node processor sending information to the RedCap UE as disclosed in Fig.4A. See also application specification paragraph 25.)).
Regarding Claim 6, the case scenario directed towards marking a frequency associated with the barred cell as a barred frequency in the database no patentable wight in the claims upon which they depend, hence, the limitation's further defining the optional case scenario are given no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 7, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses wherein the Redcap UE performing the mobility decision based on the database includes: the Redcap UE excluding all barred cells (paragraph [0092], "when the network redirects the RedCap UE to a target cell blindly, the RedCap UE may determine, based on the two databases, whether the target cell is a RedCap cell or not." and paragraph [0097], "As shown by reference number 418, the RedCap UE 402 may perform a wireless communication operation. For example, in some aspects, the RedCap UE 402 may perform a wireless communication operation associated with the target cell based on whether the cell ID is indicated in the first database 412. In some aspects, for example, performing the wireless communication operation may include initiating, based on the cell ID being indicated in the first database 412, a RACH handover procedure associated with the target cell. In some aspects, performing the wireless communication operation may include updating the first database 412 and/or the second database 414." (i.e., UE performing mobility to avoid cell that is in the second database but perform handover when the cell is in the first database.)).
Regarding Claim 10, the case scenario directed towards marking a frequency associated with the barred cell as a barred frequency in the database no patentable wight in the claims upon which they depend, hence, the limitation's further defining the optional case scenario are given no patentable weight.
Regarding Claim 11, the case scenario directed towards marking a frequency associated with the barred cell as a barred frequency in the database no patentable wight in the claims upon which they depend, hence, the limitation's further defining the optional case scenario are given no patentable weight.
Claim(s) 3, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1) in further view of KOTA (US 20180167911 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses further comprising: the Redcap UE (paragraph [0095], Fig.4A, "As shown by reference number 408, the network node 406 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, RedCap support information. The RedCap support information may be associated with at least one cell associated with (e.g., provided by) the network node 406 and may indicate whether the at least one cell supports RedCap communications. RedCap support information may be any information that is indicative of whether a cell supports RedCap communications…" and paragraph [0097], "As shown by reference number 416, the network node 404 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, a blind handover initiation communication." (i.e., UE decoding SIB for mobility.));
the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell determining whether the one or more neighboring cells covered by any base station of the second type can be detected based on the decoded SIB of each neighboring cell (paragraph [0095], Fig.4, "In some aspects, the lack of an explicit indication that the cell supports RedCap communications may be RedCap support information indicating that the cell does not support RedCap communications. In some aspects, for example, the network node 406 may transmit, and the RedCap UE 402 may receive, system information (e.g., a SIB1) that includes the RedCap support information." (i.e., UE reading SIB1 to determine if the target cell supports RedCap.)).
Kim further discloses further comprising: the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell decoding a System Information Block (SIB) of each neighboring cell (paragraph [0063], Fig.3, "In step 3A-11, the RedCap UE camps on a cell managed by the base station by performing cell selection or cell reselection. The RedCap UE selects a cell having a good reception signal from among cells of the highest priority frequency in consideration of cell reselection priority and the like." and paragraph [0064], " In step 3A-13, the RedCap UE receives the MIB in the selected cell." and paragraph [0068], "In steps 3A-15, the RedCap UE receives SIB1. The RedCap UE stores the acquired SIB1. SIB1 includes ServingCellConfigCommon, which is common configuration information of a serving cell, and a second intraFreqReselection. The second intraFreqReselection is defined as enumerated with one of Allowed and notAllowed. It is also called IFRI_SIB." (i.e., camped UE. This citation is to again show talking about the same UE that is camped.)).
However, GUMMADI does not disclose further comprising: the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell decoding a System Information Block (SIB) of each neighboring cell in advance of a mobility procedure when the Redcap UE is in an idle mode.
KOTA discloses further comprising: the Redcap UE currently camping on the first cell decoding a System Information Block (SIB) of each neighboring cell in advance of a mobility procedure when the Redcap UE is in an idle mode (paragraph [0060], Fig.6, "At block 610, method 600 includes detecting, by a user equipment (UE), a trigger event for decoding one or more system information blocks (SIBs) received from a first cell. For example, in an aspect, the UE 104 and/or the SIB component 420 may include a trigger event detection component 422, such as a specially programmed processor module, or a processor executing specially programmed code stored in a memory to detect a trigger event for decoding one or more SIBs received from a first cell, e.g., cell 530 (FIG. 5) when performing a cell selection or cell reselection from cell 540 to cell 530. The trigger event, for example, may be a UE cell selection, a cell reselection, a power-on, a handover completion, or a return from out of coverage, etc. as these events required decoding of a MIB and/or one or more SIBs at the UE. For instance, the trigger event may be a cell selection (e.g., the UE 104 in an IDLE RRC state)" (i.e., UE on IDLE RRC state that can decode SIB on the cell the UE is camping on.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and KOTA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method of KOTA because there was a need of improvements in decoding SIBs in a wireless communications and reducing the frequency of updating the SIBs and ensuring the UEs have the most recent SIBs (KOTA, paragraph [0004], “In wireless networks (e.g., LTE or UMTS networks), decoding of system information blocks (SIBs) consumes a significant amount of power and time (e.g., processing resources) at a UE. For example, when a UE is mobile, the UE may frequently perform cell reselections and read (e.g., decode) the SIBs broadcasted from the cells. In some cases, even stationary UEs, e.g., utility meters, that are camped on a particular cell may need to re-read SIBs as the stored system information becomes invalid after a certain time (e.g., three hours in LTE and six hours in UMTS). In some cases, a UE may be required to decode a SIB even when the information contained in SIB is not useful to the UE…” And paragraph [0005], “As such, improvements in decoding of SIBs in a wireless communications system are needed.” And paragraph [0050], “This mechanism improves the performance of the wireless communications system 400, e.g., UE 104, as the UE has to decode the SIBs less frequently (and ensuring at the same time the UEs have the most recent SIBs that are transmitted from base station).”).
Regarding Claim 12, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, GUMMADI does not disclose further comprising: the Redcap UE determining whether a barred status of each cell in the database should be updated based on indicators including a time elapse from a last update; and when a specific cell in the database is determined to be updated, the Redcap UE decoding a SIB of the specific cell; and the Redcap UE updating the barred status of the specific cell based on a validity and a content of the decoded SIB.
KOTA discloses further comprising: the Redcap UE determining whether a barred status of each cell in the database should be updated based on indicators including a time elapse from a last update (paragraph [0055], Fig.5, "The UE 104 passes through coverage areas of cells 520, 530, and 540 as the UE 104 moves from location A to location B. For example, when UE 104 moves from cell 510 to cell 520, the UE 104 may perform a cell selection or a cell reselection which may require decoding of a master information block (MIB) and one or more system information blocks (SIBs) broadcasted from cell 520. The UE 104 may decode (or read) the MIB broadcasted from cell 520 and/or one or more SIBs broadcasted from cell 520 and store (or save) the decoded SIB information (e.g., information relayed in the SIB) in a SIB database 428 located at the UE 104…In an additional aspect, a UE may consider the stored SIB information invalid (e.g., not valid any more) once the validity duration is over. That is, if the validity duration of a SIB it set to 12 hours, the SIB may be considered invalid after 12 hours. In such a scenario, the UE 104 may decode the SIBs again (e.g., re-read) and store the SIB information in the SIB database 428." (i.e., The validity of SIB information has expired reads on the last update of receiving SIB. Other limitation was given no patentable weight as claim recites “and/or” that was read as “or”.));
and when a specific cell in the database is determined to be updated, the Redcap UE decoding a SIB of the specific cell (paragraph [0055], Fig.5, "In an additional aspect, a UE may consider the stored SIB information invalid (e.g., not valid any more) once the validity duration is over. That is, if the validity duration of a SIB it set to 12 hours, the SIB may be considered invalid after 12 hours. In such a scenario, the UE 104 may decode the SIBs again (e.g., re-read) and store the SIB information in the SIB database 428." (i.e., decoding a SIB reads as re-read the SIB.));
and the Redcap UE updating the barred status of the specific cell based on a validity and a content of the decoded SIB (paragraph [0055], Fig.5, "In an additional aspect, a UE may consider the stored SIB information invalid (e.g., not valid any more) once the validity duration is over. That is, if the validity duration of a SIB it set to 12 hours, the SIB may be considered invalid after 12 hours. In such a scenario, the UE 104 may decode the SIBs again (e.g., re-read) and store the SIB information in the SIB database 428." (i.e., store the updated information in the SIB database after decoding the SUBs again.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and KOTA are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method of KOTA because there was a need of improvements in decoding SIBs in a wireless communications and reducing the frequency of updating the SIBs and ensuring the UEs have the most recent SIBs (KOTA, paragraph [0004], “In wireless networks (e.g., LTE or UMTS networks), decoding of system information blocks (SIBs) consumes a significant amount of power and time (e.g., processing resources) at a UE. For example, when a UE is mobile, the UE may frequently perform cell reselections and read (e.g., decode) the SIBs broadcasted from the cells. In some cases, even stationary UEs, e.g., utility meters, that are camped on a particular cell may need to re-read SIBs as the stored system information becomes invalid after a certain time (e.g., three hours in LTE and six hours in UMTS). In some cases, a UE may be required to decode a SIB even when the information contained in SIB is not useful to the UE…” And paragraph [0005], “As such, improvements in decoding of SIBs in a wireless communications system are needed.” And paragraph [0050], “This mechanism improves the performance of the wireless communications system 400, e.g., UE 104, as the UE has to decode the SIBs less frequently (and ensuring at the same time the UEs have the most recent SIBs that are transmitted from base station).”).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1) in further view of Pu et al. (US 20160381610 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim do not disclose the Redcap UE reporting an A2 event earlier after detecting there are intra-frequency neighboring cells covered by any base station of the second type and are causing interference.
Pu et al. discloses the Redcap UE reporting an A2 event earlier after detecting there are intra-frequency neighboring cells covered by any base station of the second type and are causing interference (paragraph [0025], "…As is conventional in many cellular networks, mobile communication network 100 may utilize a frequency reuse factor of 1. Accordingly, active air interfaces 120, 126, and 128 currently in use between UEs 102-106 and eNBs 110-112 may all utilize substantially the same radio frequency. As a result, air interfaces 126 and 128 may impose significant interference on air interface 120, thereby contributing to further degradation of the radio link of UE 102. UE 102 may therefore be a victim UE." and paragraph [0036], "…There exist numerous such “events”, each identified by an alphanumerical identifier such as A1, A2, . . . , A6, B1, B2, etc." and paragraph [0052], Fig.2, "In 204, the measurements may be provided to a critical scenario predictor/detector, which may be able to predict or detect one or more critical scenarios associated with increased interference based on the provided measurements." and paragraph [0055], Fig.2, "The alternate measurement reporting protocols of 210 may also utilize the measurement report controller used for default measurement reporting in 208. However, the alternate measurement reporting protocols may include the measurement report controller adjusting one or more parameters, such as the event-triggered parameters. The measurement report controller may accordingly perform measurement reporting according to the modified parameters, which may lead to earlier triggering of measurement events." (i.e., GUMMADI discloses base station of the second type and in combination with Pu et al. teaches a UE can report A2 measurement earlier due to a significant increase in interference.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and Pu et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method of Pu et al. of early measurement reporting to reduce handover latency (Pu et al., paragraph [0017], “A user equipment (UE) may experience radio link conditions during communication over a cellular network where handover procedures are excessively delayed. Handover procedures should therefore be completed in a short period of time in order to avoid radio link failure. Accordingly, it may be possible to execute procedures to reduce handover latency, i.e. to reduce the amount of time before a handover is initiated and/or completed. The associated procedures may therefore be associated with reduced expected handover latency than default procedures, i.e. have a lower expected time before a handover is initiated and/or completed than the expected time before a handover is initiated and/or completed according to the default procedures.”).
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1) in further view of XU'610 (US 20210144610 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses further: the Redcap UE informing an application processor of a failure to connect to an intra-frequency neighboring covered by any base station of the second type (paragraph [0092], Fig.4A, "If the target cell is a RedCap cell, the RedCap UE may perform a random access channel (RACH) handover procedure to reestablish coverage on the target cell and, if not, the RedCap UE may declare early RLF and search for a RedCap cell." and paragraph [0100], "If the cell ID is indicated in the second database 414, as shown by reference number 436, the RedCap UE 402 may declare RLF and, as shown by reference number 438, may perform a full search. In some aspects, for example, the RedCap UE 402 may perform a search for a RedCap cell that is indicated in the first database 412." (i.e., this claim is being read as failure to connect to a base station that does not support RedCap UE.)).
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim do not disclose and the Redcap UE reporting a radio link failure (RLF) when instructed by the application processor.
XU'610 discloses and the Redcap UE reporting a radio link failure (RLF) when instructed by the application processor (paragraph [0073], Fig.3, "Step 303: The base station 2 requests the UE to report the RLF report, and the UE transmits the UE RLF report to the base station 2." and paragraph [0074], "The base station 2 may also indicate, to the UE, the RLF report of which radio access technology is requested. For example, the base station 2 requests the UE to report the LTE RLF report or the NR RLF report…" (i.e., base station requesting UE to report RLF.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and XU'610 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method described in XU'610 of reporting RLF in order for the base station to address the issues in a timely manner (XU'610, paragraph [0050], “The method for supporting self-configuration and self-optimisation provided by the present disclosure may address the problem about mobility robustness when a UE moves or handovers between different RATs, reduce the time for the UE to store the RLF report, and avoid the problem that base stations of different radio access technologies understand each other's RRC message, which ensures that failure events between different RATs are found timely so that the aim of self-configuration and self-optimisation is achieved.”).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1) in further view of Ziren (US 20180288663 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim do not disclose further: the Redcap UE marking an intra-frequency neighboring cell as the barred cell and/or marking a frequency of the intra-frequency neighboring cell as the barred frequency in the database after encountering an RLF with the intra-frequency neighboring cell; and the Redcap UE connecting to another frequency or another radio access technology (RAT).
Ziren discloses further: the Redcap UE marking an intra-frequency neighboring cell as the barred cell (paragraph [0182], “If the UE is in RRC Idle state and uses the original cell as serving cell, the eNB can either: page the UE forcing it to RRC Connected state and then perform a handover or a release with re-direct for the UE from the original cell to the target cell as in the above; or move the UE while in IDLE using current signaling. Such a move is performed by: first updating the system information in the original cell with: the target cell's frequency as a neighbor frequency (SIB5), information that the original cell is barred (SIB1), and information that intra-frequency cell reselection is not allowed (SIB1), and then page the UE to re-read system information. The eNB may alternatively move the UE while in IDLE using new signaling through e.g. dedicated paging messages and/or broadcast information.” and paragraph [0221], "the network node may determine if the one or more wireless communication device is in RRC Idle state and uses the original cell as serving cell. If such is the case, the network node may move the one or more wireless communication device while in RRC IDLE state through the steps of updating a system information in the original cell with the target cell's frequency as a neighbor frequency (SIB5), information that the original cell is barred (SIB1) and/or information that intra-frequency cell reselection is not allowed (SIB1) and paging the one or more wireless communication device to re-read the system information of the original cell." (i.e., UE obtaining information the cells with intra-frequency are barred.));
and the Redcap UE connecting to another frequency (paragraph [0221], "the network node may determine if the one or more wireless communication device is in RRC Idle state and uses the original cell as serving cell. If such is the case, the network node may move the one or more wireless communication device while in RRC IDLE state through the steps of updating a system information in the original cell with the target cell's frequency as a neighbor frequency (SIB5), information that the original cell is barred (SIB1) and/or information that intra-frequency cell reselection is not allowed (SIB1) and paging the one or more wireless communication device to re-read the system information of the original cell." and paragraph [0222], "Thus, when a terminal in idle mode wakes up it will read the new system information and know that it should connect to the cell on another frequency." (i.e., UE obtaining information the cells with intra-frequency are barred.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and Ziren are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method described in Ziren of barring from inter-frequency in order to enable the base station to move the UE in order fix interference thus providing users with reliable connectivity (Ziren, paragraph [0178], “Starting when an eNB, such as the eNB of FIG. 9, shall change frequency of one or multiple cells (original cell) due to detection of high interference in the spectrum, detection of wireless system with higher access priority to the spectrum, or being ordered by an administration system to stop operating on the spectrum. A method executed by the eNB will be disclosed with simultaneous reference to FIG. 11.”).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1) in further view of XU'818 (US 20200084818 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses further: the Redcap UE marking the first cell as the barred cell (paragraph [0096], Fig.4A;4B, "As shown by reference number 410, the RedCap UE 402 may store, based on the RedCap support information, at least one RedCap support indication and/or non-RedCap support indication in a first database 412 or a second database 414, respectively." (i.e., RedCap UE marking cells as barred)).
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim do not explicitly disclose and the Redcap UE connecting to another frequency or another radio access technology (RAT).
XU'818 discloses and the Redcap UE connecting to (paragraph [0119], "Similarly, if the UE 106 has barred a first RAT, e.g., LTE, the UE 106 may attempt to connect using a different RAT (e.g., UMTS). Cell selection, cell reselection, or PLMN selection procedures may be used to identify and establish the second connection, among various possibilities." (i.e., connecting to another RAT.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and XU'818 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method of XU'818 as its desirable to reduce connection rejections and improvement on user experience such as a case of using another RAT technology as described in par.119 in XI’818 (XU'818, paragraph [0004], “As wireless communication technologies and wireless devices implementing those technologies are developed and updated over time, there can be potential for new or updated features, configurations, software, etc., that further increase demands on network devices such as base stations. Further, various circumstances may lead to multiple rejections of connection requests, e.g., radio resource control (RRC) rejections. Multiple connection rejections may harm the user experience. Accordingly, improvements in the field are desired.”).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUMMADI (US 20240224132 A1) in view of Kim (US 20230072886 A1) in view of Lu (US 20230319658 A1) in further view of MATTAM (US 20220110041 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
GUMMADI further discloses wherein the Redcap UE performing the mobility decision based on the database includes: (paragraph [0100], Fig.4B, "If the cell ID is not indicated in the first database 412, as shown by reference number 428, the RedCap UE 402 may determine whether the cell ID is indicated in the second database 414. If the cell ID is not indicated in the second database 414, as shown by reference number 430, the RedCap UE 402 may receive system information…" (i.e., using the database to determine if the cell is second database meaning barring RedCap equipment.));
and the Redcap UE camping on the second cell after verifying that the second cell with the better signal quality is not the barred cell (paragraph [0100], Fig.4B, "As shown by reference number 432, the RedCap UE 402 may determine, based on the RedCap support information, whether the target cell is a RedCap cell. If the target cell is a RedCap cell, as shown by reference number 426, the RedCap UE 402 may camp on the target cell." (i.e., if the cell ID is not a barred cell, the UE camps on the target cell.)).
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim do not disclose wherein the Redcap UE performing the mobility decision based on the database includes: the Redcap UE performing a cell selection procedure or a cell re-selection procedure; after detecting a second cell with a better signal quality than the first cell.
Lu discloses the Redcap UE performing a cell selection procedure or a cell re-selection procedure (paragraph [0043], Fig.2, "FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram of an illustrative process 200 for performing smart UE cell selection and reselection according to the disclosed embodiments." (i.e., UE performing cell selection or reselection.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method described in Lu as the method discloses of efficiently performing cell selection and/or reselection as well as reducing power consumption (Lu, paragraph [0008], “This disclosure is directed in part to systems and techniques for more efficiently performing user equipment (UE) cell selection and/or reselection.” And paragraph [0029], “the methods and systems described herein may be more efficient and/or more robust than conventional techniques, as they may increase the efficiency of UE and network resource utilization by reducing unnecessary signaling on the network and power usage by the UE.”).
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim in further view of Lu do not explicitly disclose after detecting a second cell with a better signal quality than the first cell.
MATTAM discloses after detecting a second cell with a better signal quality than the first cell (paragraph [0151], "At operation S804a, at least one of a first neighboring cell and a second neighboring cell are identified from a plurality of neighboring cells having the signal strength above the signal strength of the serving cell." and paragraph [0152], Fig., "At operation S806a, it is determined that the first neighboring cell supports the next generation network and the second neighboring cell does not support the next generation network based on a SIB 2 type message broadcasted by the at least first neighboring cell and the second neighboring cell. At operation S808a, the signal strength of the serving cell is detected to be below a pre-defined threshold. The signal strength of the serving cell to be below the pre-defined threshold may be detected based on an A5 event configured by the wireless communication system (4000)." and paragraph [0153], "At operation S810a, the measurement report is sent by prioritizing the first neighboring cell over the second neighboring cell to initiate a handover to the first neighboring cell." (i.e., UE initiating handover based on signal strength of the target cell better than the serving cell.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim in further view of Lu and MATTAM are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method of MATTAM of moving UE to another cell when the serving cell signal strength falls below the neighboring cell order to improve user experience (MATTAM, paragraph [0167], “The proposed method can be used to maximize the chances to maintain the service continuity on 5G NR when a user of the UE (400) is already on the NR session. The proposed method can be used to maintain a balance in NR service continuity and user maintaining an active connection without dropping the existing connection. The timers added in the proposed method are based on analytical data. The method can be used to improve the user experience with a NR connection since the UE (400) allows the user to stay on ENDC supported cell for maximum utilization of NR 5G. The proposed method can be used to ensure that the UE does not move to 5G/ENDC cell and stays on 4G only cell during handover if at all required during any scenario.”).
Regarding Claim 9, GUMMADI in view of Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim do not explicitly disclose wherein the Redcap UE performing the mobility decision based on the database includes: the Redcap UE performing a cell selection procedure or a cell re-selection procedure; after detecting a second cell with a better signal quality than the first cell, the Redcap UE determining whether a frequency of the second cell is the barred frequency based on the database; and the Redcap UE camping on the second cell after verifying that the frequency of the second cell with the better signal quality is not the barred frequency.
Lu discloses wherein the Redcap UE performing the mobility decision based on the database includes: the Redcap UE performing a cell selection procedure or a cell re-selection procedure (paragraph [0043], Fig.2, "FIG. 2 shows a flow diagram of an illustrative process 200 for performing smart UE cell selection and reselection according to the disclosed embodiments." (i.e., UE performing cell selection or reselection.));
(paragraph [0045], "At block 204, the UE may determine whether the frequency band and TAC indicated in the SIB correspond to one or more entries in the UE's barred list." and paragraph [0046], "If, at block 204, the UE determines that the frequency band and TAC indicated in the SIB do not correspond to one or more entries in the UE's barred list, at block 206 the UE may evaluate the information indicated in the SIB to determine whether to attempt to camp or otherwise operate in the cell indicated in the SIB." and paragraph [0048], Fig.2, "The UE may be capable of recognizing that sub-band identifier and therefore may be capable of camping in the associated cell. Alternatively, the UE and the cell may operate using the entirety of the band indicated in the SIB (e.g., there may be no sub-band identifier in the SIB). If the UE and the base station of the cell indicated in the SIB can successfully communicate, the process 200 may proceed to the block 214 where the UE camps on the cell indicated in the SIB and/or otherwise operates in the cell." (i.e., step 204 checking if the frequency is the barred list.));
and the Redcap UE camping on the second cell after verifying that the frequency of the second cell with the better signal quality is not the barred frequency (paragraph [0048], Fig.2, "The UE may be capable of recognizing that sub-band identifier and therefore may be capable of camping in the associated cell. Alternatively, the UE and the cell may operate using the entirety of the band indicated in the SIB (e.g., there may be no sub-band identifier in the SIB). If the UE and the base station of the cell indicated in the SIB can successfully communicate, the process 200 may proceed to the block 214 where the UE camps on the cell indicated in the SIB and/or otherwise operates in the cell." (i.e., camping on the associated cell as shown in Fig.2.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method described in Lu as the method discloses of efficiently performing cell selection and/or reselection as well as reducing power consumption (Lu, paragraph [0008], “This disclosure is directed in part to systems and techniques for more efficiently performing user equipment (UE) cell selection and/or reselection.” And paragraph [0029], “the methods and systems described herein may be more efficient and/or more robust than conventional techniques, as they may increase the efficiency of UE and network resource utilization by reducing unnecessary signaling on the network and power usage by the UE.”).
However, GUMMADI in view of Kim in further view of Lu after detecting a second cell with a better signal quality than the first cell.
MATTAM discloses after detecting a second cell with a better signal quality than the first cell (paragraph [0151], "At operation S804a, at least one of a first neighboring cell and a second neighboring cell are identified from a plurality of neighboring cells having the signal strength above the signal strength of the serving cell." and paragraph [0152], Fig., "At operation S806a, it is determined that the first neighboring cell supports the next generation network and the second neighboring cell does not support the next generation network based on a SIB 2 type message broadcasted by the at least first neighboring cell and the second neighboring cell. At operation S808a, the signal strength of the serving cell is detected to be below a pre-defined threshold. The signal strength of the serving cell to be below the pre-defined threshold may be detected based on an A5 event configured by the wireless communication system (4000)." and paragraph [0153], "At operation S810a, the measurement report is sent by prioritizing the first neighboring cell over the second neighboring cell to initiate a handover to the first neighboring cell." (i.e., UE initiating handover based on signal strength of the target cell better than the serving cell.)).
GUMMADI in view of Kim in further view of Lu and MATTAM are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Hand-off or reselection arrangements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified GUMMADI to implement the method of MATTAM of moving UE to another cell when the serving cell signal strength falls below the neighboring cell order to improve user experience (MATTAM, paragraph [0167], “The proposed method can be used to maximize the chances to maintain the service continuity on 5G NR when a user of the UE (400) is already on the NR session. The proposed method can be used to maintain a balance in NR service continuity and user maintaining an active connection without dropping the existing connection. The timers added in the proposed method are based on analytical data. The method can be used to improve the user experience with a NR connection since the UE (400) allows the user to stay on ENDC supported cell for maximum utilization of NR 5G. The proposed method can be used to ensure that the UE does not move to 5G/ENDC cell and stays on 4G only cell during handover if at all required during any scenario.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
Other Pertinent References
Palle Venkata; Naveen Kumar R et al. "Network Configuration Options For Reduced Capability Device Coexistence With Legacy New Radio Devices." (US 20230027953 A1), Filed 2022-07-07.
Chen; Pei-Jung. "METHOD OF HANDLING SERVING CELL BECOMING BARRED STATUS, BASE STATION USING THE SAME, AND USER EQUIPMENT USING THE SAME." (US 20160119893 A1), Filed 2015-06-24.
SAWHNEY; Salil et al. "OPTIMIZED LTE MIB/SIB COLLECTION LOGIC AFTER LTE HANDOVER." (US 20160269956 A1), Filed 2015-03-12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erkin S. Abdullaev whose telephone number is (571)272-4135. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday - 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571)272-7867. 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.
ERKIN S. ABDULLAEV
Examiner
Art Unit 2648
/ERKIN ABDULLAEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights