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 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 should be amended to read, ….at least one significantly better cell when the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells around the user device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “feature output module configured to output” in claims 19 and 20.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of specification (see e.g., para. [0014]; FIG. 2) shows that “feature output module configured to output” is the component of AI engine that appears to be software.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding Claims 19-20, claim elements “feature output module configured to output" is limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Based on the specification, corresponding structure appears to be AI engine, i.e. software. It appears that a general-purpose computer cannot performed claimed function of “feature output module configured to output”. However, the specification does not provide sufficient description for claimed function other than “feature output module configured to output” outputs area type of the user device according to the similarity feature (contrastive loss information) (e.g., para. [0013]; FIG. 2). Therefore, there is no corresponding structure for claimed means plus function. (See MPEP 2181 1A and B).
Applicant may:
a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function.
For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 9-12 and 19-20 claim recites, “area type of a user device”. It is not clear what this term means as UE is a device that is not associated with area type.
For prior art rejection purpose, Examiner interpreted this to be an area type in which UE is located.
Regarding Claims 1,8,11,16 and 18, the term “significantly better cell” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “significantly better” is not defined by the claim, the specification (spec para. [0015]) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because of the uncertainty in claim scope, prior art rejection was not made in this action.
Regarding Claims 1,2,11 and 12 the term “intensive cell change” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “intensive” is not defined by the claim, the specification (spec para. [0026]) does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because of the uncertainty in claim scope, prior art rejection was not made in this action.
Additionally, regarding Claim 11, the claim recites, “A mobility pattern-based cell change control system comprising; a user device; a current serving cell linked to the user device; and a plurality of neighboring cells around the current serving cell of the user device; wherein user device collects…”. Although claim recites UE performing certain functions, it is not clear which component of UE is performing steps such as “collects”, “restrict” or “switches”. Thus, this yields the scope of claims to be indefinite.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired…” The first observed data and the second observed data are of signal quality of respective historic time series. Therefore, it is not clear what “contrastive loss” is referring to when the data is regarding signal quality in terms of measured RSSI, RSRP, RSRQ, RINR, and intra-frequency neighboring cell number (para. [0012]).
Claims 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected for the dependency to claim 1 or claim 11, respectively.
Claim Analysis under 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 11 were analyzed under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. However, claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because claims include other elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea.
As per Claim 1, although the claim is directed to a method, the limitation “collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series” and “predicting an area type of a user device according to the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series” are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong one:
Claim recites limitations, “predicting an area type of a user device according to the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series” is a mental process as predicting can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A, prong two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements limitation “collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series” is directed to a step of data gathering for use in subsequent prediction step and recited in high level generality. Therefore, this collecting step does not integrate the abstract idea identified in Step 2A, prong 1 into a practical application. However, the additional elements, “restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state” and “switching the mobility of the user device from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, or forcing the user device to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted “ provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field as it provides a way to prevent intensive cell changes in less time consuming and simpler way (see para. [0003] [0030] of Application Publication)- see MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B:
The claim further includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements limitation “collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series” is directed to a step of data gathering for use in subsequent prediction step and recited in high level generality. Therefore, this collecting step is not indicative of inventive concept. However, the additional elements, “restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state” and “switching the mobility of the user device from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, or forcing the user device to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted “ are considered significantly more as they are directed to inventive concept of preventing intensive cell changes in less time consuming and simpler way (see para. [0003] [0030] of Application Publication). Furthermore, these limitations are considered as other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d) rendering the claim eligible.
As per Claim 11, although the claim is directed to an apparatus, the limitation “collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series” and “predicting an area type of a user device according to the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series” are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong one:
Claim recites limitations, “predicting an area type of a user device according to the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series” is a mental process as predicting can be performed in the human mind.
Step 2A, prong two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional elements limitation “collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series” is directed to a step of data gathering for use in subsequent prediction step and recited in high level generality. Therefore, this collecting step does not integrate the abstract idea identified in Step 2A, prong 1 into a practical application. However, the additional elements, “restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state” and “switching the mobility of the user device from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, or forcing the user device to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted “ provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field as it provides a way to prevent intensive cell changes in less time consuming and simpler way (see para. [0003] [0030] of Application Publication)- see MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B:
The claim further includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements limitation “collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series” is directed to a step of data gathering for use in subsequent prediction step and recited in high level generality. Therefore, this collecting step is not indicative of inventive concept. However, the additional elements, “restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state” and “switching the mobility of the user device from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, or forcing the user device to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted “ are considered significantly more as they are directed to inventive concept of preventing intensive cell changes in less time consuming and simpler way (see para. [0003] [0030] of Application Publication). Furthermore, these limitations are considered as other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d) rendering the claim eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1)and further in view of Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Santhanam et al. teaches a mobility pattern-based cell change control method (Santhanam et al., Fig.5) comprising; collecting network signal quality information of at least one historic time series (The method may include receiving cell information from more than one UE in the wireless communication network, the cell information identifying one or more problematic cells (Santhanam et al., para. [0011]). A problematic cell may refer to a cell that is associated with a history of ping-pong events that includes frequent handovers or reselection between a pair of cells during a preceding time period. A problematic cell also may refer to a cell that is associated with a history of data transmission errors, such as frequent occurrences of congestion or signal loss [Examiner’s Note: Signal loss reads to signal quality information] during a preceding time period that is collected (Santhanam et al., para. [0034])); predicting an area type of a user device according to the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series (The apparatus may monitor one or more cells including at least a first cell of a wireless communication network in association with at least a first criterion. The first criterion may be associated with a history of ping-pong events or a history of data transmission errors indicative of problematic cells (Santhanam et al., FIG. 5; STEP 510, para. [0088]). The list of problematic cells may include location data indicating a location of a cluster of problematic cells (Santhanam et al., para. [0092]). The wireless communication apparatus may utilize the location data to determine that the UE is in an area associated with a cluster of problematic cells (Santhanam et al., para. [0039])).
Santhanam et al. does not explicitly teach restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state and switching the mobility of the user device from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, or forcing the user device to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted.
However, Jeong et al. teaches restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state (UE changes its serving cell more than non-HCS- Ncr times for a predetermined period non-HCS- Tcrmax, it considers itself a high-speed UE. The period of time Treselection, which the UE receives in an SIB, is set so as to prevent the UE from reselecting to an instantly higher-ranked cell and thus avoiding a "ping-pong effect", that is, the repeated handover between cells in a relatively short time (Jeong et al., para. [0010] [0011]); when UE enters a handover region where cell areas are overlapped and becomes stationary or moves slowly, the number of cell changes increases due to frequent cell reselection (para. [0012], indicating the area type) and switching the mobility of the user device from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, (If a neighbor cell is maintained higher in ranking than the serving cell for the scaled-down Treselection, the UE reselects to the neighbor cell as a new serving cell (Jeong et al., para. [0056])) [Examiner’s Note: reselecting to high ranked neighbor cell corresponds to switching to better cell] or forcing the user device to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted(UE receives in an SIB, is set so as to prevent the UE from reselecting to an instantly higher-ranked cell and thus avoiding a "ping-pong effect", that is, the repeated handover between cells in a relatively short time (Jeong et al., para. [0010])) [Examiner’s Note: By preventing the UE from reselection, it can be inherently inferred that UE remains on the current serving cell].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s cell change method with restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state and switching from the current serving cell to the better cell or forcing the user device to remain on current serving cell taught by Jeong et al. Doing so, allows the UE to avoid ping-pong effect and improve cell reselection procedure (Jeong et al., para. [0008] [0010]).
Regarding Claim 11, Santhanam et al. teaches a mobility pattern-based cell change control system (Santhanam et al., FIG. 6) comprising: a user device (UE 120; FIG.6); a current serving cell linked to the user device (FIG.6; STEP. 610); and a plurality of neighboring cells around the current serving cell of the user device (FIG. 6; STEP. 612); wherein the user device collects network signal quality information of at least one historic time series(The method may include receiving cell information from more than one UE in the wireless communication network, the cell information identifying one or more problematic cells (Santhanam et al., para. [0011]). A problematic cell may refer to a cell that is associated with a history of ping-pong events that includes frequent handovers or reselection between a pair of cells during a preceding time period. A problematic cell also may refer to a cell that is associated with a history of data transmission errors, such as frequent occurrences of congestion or signal loss [Examiner’s Note: Signal loss reads to signal quality information] during a preceding time period that is collected (Santhanam et al., para. [0034])); the user device predicts an area type of a user device according to the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series (The apparatus may monitor one or more cells including at least a first cell of a wireless communication network in association with at least a first criterion. The first criterion may be associated with a history of ping-pong events or a history of data transmission errors indicative of problematic cells (Santhanam et al., FIG. 5; STEP 510, para. [0088]). The list of problematic cells may include location data indicating a location of a cluster of problematic cells (Santhanam et al., para. [0092]). The wireless communication apparatus may utilize the location data to determine that the UE is in an area associated with a cluster of problematic cells (Santhanam et al., para. [0039])).
Santhanam et al. does not explicitly teach the user device restricts mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state and the user device switches the mobility from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell, or forces to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted.
However, Jeong et al. teaches the user device restricts mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state(UE changes its serving cell more than non-HCS- Ncr times for a predetermined period non-HCS- Tcrmax, it considers itself a high-speed UE. The period of time Treselection, which the UE receives in an SIB, is set so as to prevent the UE from reselecting to an instantly higher-ranked cell and thus avoiding a "ping-pong effect", that is, the repeated handover between cells in a relatively short time (Jeong et al., para. [0010] [0011]); when UE enters a handover region where cell areas are overlapped and becomes stationary or moves slowly, the number of cell changes increases due to frequent cell reselection (Jeong et al., para. [0012], indicating the area type) and the user device switches the mobility from a current serving cell to at least one significantly better cell (If a neighbor cell is maintained higher in ranking than the serving cell for the scaled-down Treselection, the UE reselects to the neighbor cell as a new serving cell (Jeong et al., para. [0056])) [Examiner’s Note: reselecting to high ranked neighbor cell corresponds to switching to better cell] or forces to remain on the current serving cell after the mobility of the user device has been restricted (UE receives in an SIB, is set so as to prevent the UE from reselecting to an instantly higher-ranked cell and thus avoiding a "ping-pong effect", that is, the repeated handover between cells in a relatively short time (Jeong et al., para. [0010])) [Examiner’s Note: By preventing the UE from reselection, it can be inherently inferred that UE remains on the current serving cell].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s cell change method with restricting mobility of the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in an intensive cell change state and switching from the current serving cell to the better cell or forcing the user device to remain on current serving cell taught by Jeong et al. Doing so, allows the UE to avoid ping-pong effect and improve cell reselection procedure (Jeong et al., para. [0008] [0010]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1) and Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1), and further in view of Jin (US 20230300703 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Santhanam et al. and Jeong et al. teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state (when UE enters a handover region where cell areas are overlapped and becomes stationary or moves slowly, the number of cell changes increases due to frequent cell reselection (Jeong et al., para. [0012], indicating the area type).
However, the references do not teach determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state.
Jin teaches determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state (The higher the RSRP value is, the stronger the signal quality strength is, and the terminal device obtains the RSRP of multiple adjacent cells, determines a cell having the largest RSRP value as the target cell, and connects to the target cell. For example, the terminal device scans and parses the measurement configuration message to obtain a cell list, and the cell list includes a cell identifier (Cell ID) obtained by scanning, an RSRP value, a frequency band, and other information (Jin, FIG. 1, para. [0062])) [Examiner’s Note: Jeong teaches overlapping region is where a high-speed UE makes the frequent cell change, and Jin teaches that this connection occurs in the overlapping coverage region].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state taught by Jin. Doing so, allows to improve cell switching and save terminal power consumption and increase the time of endurance (Jin, para. [0069]).
Regarding Claim 12, Santhanam et al. and Jeong et al. teach the system of claim 11, wherein the user device determines if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state when UE enters a handover region where cell areas are overlapped and becomes stationary or moves slowly, the number of cell changes increases due to frequent cell reselection (Jeong et al., para. [0012], indicating the area type).
However, the references do not teach, determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state.
Jin teaches determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state (The higher the RSRP value is, the stronger the signal quality strength is, and the terminal device obtains the RSRP of multiple adjacent cells, determines a cell having the largest RSRP value as the target cell, and connects to the target cell. For example, the terminal device scans and parses the measurement configuration message to obtain a cell list, and the cell list includes a cell identifier (Cell ID) obtained by scanning, an RSRP value, a frequency band, and other information (Jin, FIG. 1, para. [0062])) [Examiner’s Note: Jeong teaches overlapping region is where a high-speed UE makes the frequent cell change, and Jin teaches that this connection occurs in the overlapping coverage region].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with determining if the current serving cell is a highest quality cell by providing a reference signal received power (RSRP) higher than that of a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device when the area type of the user device is predicted to be in the intensive cell change state taught by Jin. Doing so, allows to improve cell switching and save terminal power consumption and increase the time of endurance (Jin, para. [0069]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1), Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1) and Jin (US 20230300703 A1), and further in view of Zheng et al. (US20220110032A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the method of claim 2, however, the references do not teach, further comprising: disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell.
Zheng et al. teaches disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell (the terminal device has measured the serving cell and the neighboring cells and has selected the cell 1 whose quality-of-service reference value is highest as the serving cell. When the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is less than the first threshold, it indicates that quality of service reference values of the neighboring cells is not greater than the first threshold either. In this case, the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover, and the terminal device may directly send the first measurement report, namely, report the event A1, to notify the network device that the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is greater than the first threshold. This prevents the network device from continuing to allocate a neighboring cell and a measurement gap to the terminal device. Alternatively, the terminal device may stop cell measurement (Zheng et al., para. [0085])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell taught by Zheng et al. Doing so, allows to avoid a resource waste caused because a terminal device needs to perform cell measurement even if the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover (Zheng et al., para. 0079]).
Regarding Claim 13, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the system of claim 11, however, the references do not teach, further comprising: the user device disables measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell.
Zheng et al. teaches disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell (the terminal device has measured the serving cell and the neighboring cells and has selected the cell 1 whose quality-of-service reference value is highest as the serving cell. When the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is less than the first threshold, it indicates that quality of service reference values of the neighboring cells is not greater than the first threshold either. In this case, the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover, and the terminal device may directly send the first measurement report, namely, report the event A1, to notify the network device that the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is greater than the first threshold. This prevents the network device from continuing to allocate a neighboring cell and a measurement gap to the terminal device. Alternatively, the terminal device may stop cell measurement (Zheng et al., para. [0085])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell taught by Zheng et al. Doing so, allows to avoid a resource waste caused because a terminal device needs to perform cell measurement even if the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover (Zheng et al., para. 0079]).
Claims 4,5,6,8,14,15,16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1), Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1), Jin (US 20230300703 A1) and further in view of Chockalingam et al. (US20160360462A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the method of claim 2, determining if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell; wherein the signal quality comprises a reference signal received power (RSRP) and a signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of the current serving cell(UE may perform signal quality measurements on signals received from the 5G serving cell of the BS and on signals received from one or more neighbor cells (which may be referred to as 5G neighbor cells). The signal quality measurements may be reference signal received power (RSRP) measurements, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurements, or signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements) (Santhanam et al., para. [0081])).
However, the references do not teach determining if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell.
Chockalingam et al. teaches determining if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell (when the serving cell satisfies a network-defined signal strength threshold for handover, such as an A2 event, (e.g., RSRP exceeds the A2 signal strength threshold) , the mobile device measures at least one neighbor cell. The mobile device computes a channel quality metric for the serving cell and for the at least one neighbor cell and compares the cells based on the computed channel quality metric. When the mobile device identifies a neighbor cell that offers higher channel quality than the serving cell, the mobile device modifies values of measurement reports sent to the serving cell of the eNodeB to trigger a handover to the neighbor cell. (Chockalingam et al., para. [0006]) [Examiner’s Note: Since the neighboring cell has better quality, it is determined that serving cell is not the highest quality cell].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s, Jeong’s and Jin’s cell change method with determining if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell taught by Chockalingam et al. Doing so, allows to transition a wireless communication between cells to provide for stable communication based on measured and/or estimated signal quality (Chockalingam et al., para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 5, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the method of claim 4, however,
Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin do not teach wherein the signal quality further comprises channel quality information of the current serving cell.
Chockalingam et al. teaches wherein the signal quality further comprises channel quality information of the current serving cell (the wireless communication device concludes that both the signal strength of the serving cell and the signal quality of the serving cell, which can be referred to jointly as a channel quality or a set of physical layer performance metrics for the serving cell, suffice to provide a stable connection with adequate performance for the wireless communication device (Chockalingam et al., para. [0052])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s, Jeong’s and Jin’s cell change method with the signal quality further comprises channel quality information of the current serving cell, taught by Chockalingam et al. The wireless communication device with improved channel quality results in more stable connection, lower error rates, higher audio quality etc. (Chockalingam et al. para. [0057])).
Regarding Claim 6, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the method of claim 4, however, the references do not teach, comprising: identifying if the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells when the signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than the quality threshold.
Chockalingam et al. teaches identifying if the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells when the signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than the quality threshold (A UE may be unable to handover to a neighbor cell when the RSRP of the serving cell exceeds a network-defined signal strength threshold, e.g., an A2 threshold, which can be set to −105 dBm. Unless the UE measures an RSRP below the network-defined signal strength threshold, a measurement report will not be sent to the eNodeB (at least based on an A2 event). The UE, in this scenario, remains on the serving cell rather than being handed over to a neighbor cell by the eNodeB, even though there may be other neighbor cells (e.g., within the same frequency band) having a similar RSRP but with a better SINR (Chockalingam, para. [0025]); wherein a reference signal received power (RSRP) or a signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of the at least one significantly better cell is higher than the current serving cell by a threshold (A representative channel quality for a cell can be both a measured signal strength for the cell, e.g., the RSRP, and a measured signal quality, e.g., the SINR. When a neighbor cell has better channel quality that the serving cell, e.g., the neighbor cell's RSRP exceeds the network-defined signal strength threshold and the neighbor cell's SINR exceeds the UE-defined signal quality threshold, the UE can send a modified measurement report to the eNodeB of the serving cell to trigger a handover from the serving cell to the neighbor cell (Chockalingam, para. [0026])[Examiner’s Note: Threshold is interpreted as “at least 1 unit” which enables the reference’s teaching of “when a neighbor cell has better channel quality” to be read on “is higher than the current serving cell by a threshold]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with identifying if the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells when the signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than the quality threshold, taught by Chockalingam et al. Doing so, allows the system to trigger a handover of a mobile device from a serving cell to a neighbor cell for stable communication (Chockalingam et al., para. [0005] [0006]).
Regarding Claim 8, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al., Jin and Chockalingam et al. teach the method of claim 6, and further the references teach releasing the at least one significantly better cell to form a candidate cell set so as to switch the mobility of the user device from the current serving cell to the at least one significantly better cell when the at least one significantly better cell is present among the a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device (the wireless communication device compares the computed channel quality metric of the serving cell and of the neighbor cells to determine whether at least one neighbor cell has a higher computed channel quality than the serving cell. When more than one neighbor cell has higher computed channel quality than the computed channel quality of the neighbor cell, the wireless communication device can compare neighbor cells to determine a best neighbor cell from a set of candidate neighbor cells for handover. In some embodiments, the wireless communication device compares the channel quality metrics of the serving cell and the neighbor cells determined in step 638 of FIG. 6B to determine whether at least one neighbor cell has a better channel quality metric value than the serving cell (Chockalingam et al., para. [0054])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s cell change method with releasing the at least one significantly better cell to form a candidate cell set so as to switch the mobility of the user device from the current serving cell to the at least one significantly better cell when the at least one significantly better cell is present among the a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device, taught by Chockalingam et al. Doing so , allows the wireless communication device to provide a stable, quality connection (Chockalingam et al., para. [0053]).
Regarding Claim 14, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the system of claim 12, and wherein the user device determines if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell; and the signal quality comprises a reference signal received power (RSRP) and a signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of the current serving cell(UE may perform signal quality measurements on signals received from the 5G serving cell of the BS and on signals received from one or more neighbor cells (which may be referred to as 5G neighbor cells). The signal quality measurements may be reference signal received power (RSRP) measurements, reference signal received quality (RSRQ) measurements, or signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) measurements) (Santhanam et al., para. [0081])).
However, the references do not teach the user device determines if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell.
Chockalingam et al. teaches the user device determines if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell (when the serving cell satisfies a network-defined signal strength threshold for handover, such as an A2 event, (e.g., RSRP exceeds the A2 signal strength threshold) , the mobile device measures at least one neighbor cell. The mobile device computes a channel quality metric for the serving cell and for the at least one neighbor cell and compares the cells based on the computed channel quality metric. When the mobile device identifies a neighbor cell that offers higher channel quality than the serving cell, the mobile device modifies values of measurement reports sent to the serving cell of the eNodeB to trigger a handover to the neighbor cell. (Chockalingam et al., para. [0006]) [Examiner’s Note: Since the neighboring cell has better quality, it is determined that serving cell is not the highest quality cell].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s, Jeong’s and Jin’s cell change method with determining if a signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than a quality threshold when the current serving cell is not the highest quality cell taught by Chockalingam et al. Doing so, allows to transition a wireless communication between cells to provide for stable communication based on measured and/or estimated signal quality (Chockalingam et al., para. [0005]).
Regarding Claim 15, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the system of claim 14, however, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin do not teach wherein the signal quality further comprises channel quality information of the current serving cell.
Chockalingam et al. teaches wherein the signal quality further comprises channel quality information of the current serving cell (the wireless communication device concludes that both the signal strength of the serving cell and the signal quality of the serving cell, which can be referred to jointly as a channel quality or a set of physical layer performance metrics for the serving cell, suffice to provide a stable connection with adequate performance for the wireless communication device (Chockalingam et al., para. [0052])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s, Jeong’s and Jin’s cell change method with the signal quality further comprises channel quality information of the current serving cell, taught by Chockalingam et al. The wireless communication device with improved channel quality results in more stable connection, lower error rates, higher audio quality etc. (Chockalingam et al. para. [0057])).
Regarding Claim 16, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Jin teach the system of claim 14, however, the references do not teach, comprising: identifying if the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells when the signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than the quality threshold.
Chockalingam et al. teaches identifying if the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells when the signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than the quality threshold (A UE may be unable to handover to a neighbor cell when the RSRP of the serving cell exceeds a network-defined signal strength threshold, e.g., an A2 threshold, which can be set to −105 dBm. Unless the UE measures an RSRP below the network-defined signal strength threshold, a measurement report will not be sent to the eNodeB (at least based on an A2 event). The UE, in this scenario, remains on the serving cell rather than being handed over to a neighbor cell by the eNodeB, even though there may be other neighbor cells (e.g., within the same frequency band) having a similar RSRP but with a better SINR (Chockalingam, para. [0025]); wherein a reference signal received power (RSRP) or a signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) of the at least one significantly better cell is higher than the current serving cell by a threshold (A representative channel quality for a cell can be both a measured signal strength for the cell, e.g., the RSRP, and a measured signal quality, e.g., the SINR. When a neighbor cell has better channel quality that the serving cell, e.g., the neighbor cell's RSRP exceeds the network-defined signal strength threshold and the neighbor cell's SINR exceeds the UE-defined signal quality threshold, the UE can send a modified measurement report to the eNodeB of the serving cell to trigger a handover from the serving cell to the neighbor cell (Chockalingam, para. [0026]) [Examiner’s Note: Threshold is interpreted as “at least 1 unit” which enables the reference’s teaching of “when a neighbor cell has better channel quality” to be read on “is higher than the current serving cell by a threshold]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with identifying if the at least one significantly better cell is present among the plurality of neighboring cells when the signal quality of the current serving cell is higher than the quality threshold, taught by Chockalingam et al. Doing so, allows the system to trigger a handover of a mobile device from a serving cell to a neighbor cell for stable communication (Chockalingam et al., para. [0005] [0006]).
Regarding Claim 18, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al., Jin and Chockalingam et al. teach the system of claim 16, and further the references teach releasing the at least one significantly better cell to form a candidate cell set so as to switch the mobility of the user device from the current serving cell to the at least one significantly better cell when the at least one significantly better cell is present among the a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device (the wireless communication device compares the computed channel quality metric of the serving cell and of the neighbor cells to determine whether at least one neighbor cell has a higher computed channel quality than the serving cell. When more than one neighbor cell has higher computed channel quality than the computed channel quality of the neighbor cell, the wireless communication device can compare neighbor cells to determine a best neighbor cell from a set of candidate neighbor cells for handover. In some embodiments, the wireless communication device compares the channel quality metrics of the serving cell and the neighbor cells determined in step 638 of FIG. 6B to determine whether at least one neighbor cell has a better channel quality metric value than the serving cell (Chockalingam et al., para. [0054])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s cell change method with releasing the at least one significantly better cell to form a candidate cell set so as to switch the mobility of the user device from the current serving cell to the at least one significantly better cell when the at least one significantly better cell is present among the a plurality of neighboring cells around the user device, taught by Chockalingam et al. Doing so , allows the wireless communication device to provide a stable, quality connection (Chockalingam et al., para. [0053]).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1), Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1) and Jin (US 20230300703 A1), Chockalingam and further in view of Zheng et al. (US20220110032A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al., Jin and Chockalingam et al. teach the method of claim 6, however, the references do not teach disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when no neighboring cell is able to provide a signal quality higher than the current serving cell.
However, Zheng et al. teaches disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when no neighboring cell is able to provide a signal quality higher than the current serving cell (the terminal device has measured the serving cell and the neighboring cells and has selected the cell 1 whose quality-of-service reference value is highest as the serving cell. When the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is less than the first threshold, it indicates that quality of service reference values of the neighboring cells is not greater than the first threshold either. In this case, the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover, and the terminal device may directly send the first measurement report, namely, report the event A1, to notify the network device that the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is greater than the first threshold. This prevents the network device from continuing to allocate a neighboring cell and a measurement gap to the terminal device. Alternatively, the terminal device may stop cell measurement (Zheng et al., para. [0085])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell taught by Zheng et al. Doing so, allows to avoid a resource waste caused because a terminal device needs to perform cell measurement even if the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover (Zheng et al., para. 0079]).
Regarding Claim 17, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al., Jin and Chockalingam et al. teach the system of claim 16, however, the references do not teach disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when no neighboring cell is able to provide a signal quality higher than the current serving cell.
However, Zheng et al. teaches disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when no neighboring cell is able to provide a signal quality higher than the current serving cell (the terminal device has measured the serving cell and the neighboring cells and has selected the cell 1 whose quality-of-service reference value is highest as the serving cell. When the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is less than the first threshold, it indicates that quality of service reference values of the neighboring cells is not greater than the first threshold either. In this case, the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover, and the terminal device may directly send the first measurement report, namely, report the event A1, to notify the network device that the quality-of-service reference value of the serving cell is greater than the first threshold. This prevents the network device from continuing to allocate a neighboring cell and a measurement gap to the terminal device. Alternatively, the terminal device may stop cell measurement (Zheng et al., para. [0085])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with disabling measurement reports and reselection candidate cells to force the user device to remain on the current serving cell when the current serving cell is the highest quality cell taught by Zheng et al. Doing so, allows to avoid a resource waste caused because a terminal device needs to perform cell measurement even if the terminal device does not need to perform cell handover (Zheng et al., para. 0079]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1) and Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1), and further in view of Li et al. (US20260222248A1) and Austin et al. (US 20240095583 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Santhanam et al. and Jeong et al. teach the method of claim 1, however, the references do not teach wherein collecting the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series comprises: collecting first observed data of a first network signal quality of a first historic time series; and collecting second observed data of a second network signal quality of a second historic time series; and wherein the method further comprises: acquiring contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data by two sub-machine learning models as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device.
However, Li et al. teaches collecting first observed data of a first network signal quality of a first historic time series; (UE may predict a first L1-RSRP value associated with a first resource of the plurality of resources and a second L1-RSRP value associated with a second resource of the plurality of resources based on a first ML model (Li et al., para. [0133]). The UE measures a time series of L1-RSRPs corresponding to different beams (Li et al., para. [0119])); and collecting second observed data of a second network signal quality of a second historic time series; (In another example, the UE may predict a first L1-SINR value associated with the first resource and a second L1-SINR value associated with the second resource based on a second ML model. (Li et al., para. [0133]). A user equipment (UE) or a network entity may perform machine learning (ML)-based beam prediction using continuously measured or reported channel characteristic values associated with different beams in a time domain (Li et al., para. [0115])) [Examiner’s Note: The channel characteristics, including SINR, are continuously measured or reported over time and used for ML-based prediction, thereby establishing a time series].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with a first sub-machine learning model configured to collect first observed data of a first network signal quality of a first historic time series and a second sub-machine learning model configured to collect second observed data of a second network signal quality of a second historic time series taught by Li et al. Doing so, allows to improves technical performance and reliability of wireless communication systems (Li et al., para. [0003]).
Furthermore, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al., Li et al. do not teach wherein the method further comprises: acquiring contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data by two sub-machine learning models as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device.
However, Austin et al. teaches acquiring contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data by two sub-machine learning models as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device (the new data structures include a plurality of matrices defining attributes of and relationships between each of the plurality of machine learning models of a prediction domain. The matrices, for example, may include a similarity matrix that describes an inferred similarity between each of the machine learning models and a prediction loss matrix that describes a relative predictive performance of the machine learning models (Austin et al., para. [0015])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired through the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device taught by Austin et al. Doing so, allows to improve the predictive performance across all machine learning models associated with the prediction domain and also improve the machine learning performance (e.g., accuracy, reliability, and/or the like as measured through one or more loss functions) of each of a plurality of machine learning models associated with the multitask environment (Austin et al., para. [0013] [0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1) and Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1), and further in view of Sen et al.( US20240259905A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Santhanam et al. and Jeong et al. teach the method of claim 1, however, the references do not teach further comprising: inputting the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series to a machine learning-based classification model to predict the area type of the user device.
However, Sen et al. teaches further comprising: inputting the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series to a machine learning-based classification model to predict the area type of the user device (The ML model may for example be trained using historic RSRP (Sen et al., para. [0069]). Figure shows historic RSRP data with respect to UE location relative to a radio access node (Sen et al., Fig. 21, para. [0164]). The ML model may comprise a random forest model [Examiner’s Note: Random Forest Model is a classification model], which is trained separately for each cell site. A graph showing the predicted RSRP values for a particular cell site, predicted using the trained random forest model, against the actual RSRP values for differing UE locations (Sen et al., Fig.22, para. [0165]). The trained ML model outputs a predicted RSRP value for the relevant cell. The value is the RSRP that is predicted to be received from the cell by the UE at its current location (Sen et al., para. [0138])) [Examiner’s Note: Historic RSRP data is linked with UE location and uses the trained ML model to output the location-dependent RSRP value for UE, hence, corresponds to UE’s area/location].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model, and configured to output the area type of the user device taught by Sen et al. Doing so, allows to reduce NR outage area by finding a suitable LTE and NR cell combination for a UE and triggering an LTE to LTE handover (Sen et al., para. [0170]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1) and Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1), and further in view of Li et al. (US20260222248A1), Sen et al.( US20240259905A1) and Austin et al. (US 20240095583 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Santhanam et al. and Jeong et al. teach the system of claim 11, , however, the references do not teach wherein the user device comprises: a first sub-machine learning model configured to collect first observed data of a first network signal quality of a first historic time series; a second sub-machine learning model configured to collect second observed data of a second network signal quality of a second historic time series, and a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model, and configured to output the area type of the user device; wherein contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired through the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device.
However, Li et al. teaches a first sub-machine learning model configured to collect first observed data of a first network signal quality of a first historic time series; (UE may predict a first L1-RSRP value associated with a first resource of the plurality of resources and a second L1-RSRP value associated with a second resource of the plurality of resources based on a first ML model (Li et al., para. [0133]). The UE measures a time series of L1-RSRPs corresponding to different beams (Li et al., para. [0119])); a second sub-machine learning model configured to collect second observed data of a second network signal quality of a second historic time series; (In another example, the UE may predict a first L1-SINR value associated with the first resource and a second L1-SINR value associated with the second resource based on a second ML model. (Li et al., para. [0133]). A user equipment (UE) or a network entity may perform machine learning (ML)-based beam prediction using continuously measured or reported channel characteristic values associated with different beams in a time domain (Li et al., para. [0115])) [Examiner’s Note: The channel characteristics, including SINR, are continuously measured or reported over time and used for ML-based prediction, thereby establishing a time series].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with a first sub-machine learning model configured to collect first observed data of a first network signal quality of a first historic time series and a second sub-machine learning model configured to collect second observed data of a second network signal quality of a second historic time series taught by Li et al. Doing so, allows to improves technical performance and reliability of wireless communication systems (Li et al., para. [0003]).
Santhanam et al., Jeong et al. and Li et al. do not teach a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model, and configured to output the area type of the user device; wherein contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired through the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model as a similarity feature.
However, Sen et al. teaches configuring to output the area type of the user device (The ML model may for example be trained using historic RSRP (Sen et al., para. [0069]). Figure shows historic RSRP data with respect to UE location relative to a radio access node (Sen et al., Fig. 21, para. [0164]). The ML model may comprise a random forest model, which is trained separately for each cell site. A graph showing the predicted RSRP values for a particular cell site, predicted using the trained random forest model, against the actual RSRP values for differing UE locations (Sen et al., Fig.22, para. [0165]). The trained ML model outputs a predicted RSRP value for the relevant cell. The value is the RSRP that is predicted to be received from the cell by the UE at its current location (Sen et al., para. [0138])) [Examiner’s Note: Historic RSRP data is linked with UE location and uses the trained ML model to output the location-dependent RSRP value for UE, hence, corresponds to UE’s area/location].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model, and configured to output the area type of the user device taught by Sen et al. Doing so, allows to reduce NR outage area by finding a suitable LTE and NR cell combination for a UE and triggering an LTE to LTE handover (Sen et al., para. [0170]).
Furthermore, Santhanam et al., Jeong et al., Li et al. and Sen et al. do not teach a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model, wherein contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired through the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model as a similarity feature.
However, Austin et al. teaches a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model (the disclosure provides a machine learning training approach that leverages a new learning framework for jointly training a plurality of models based on inferred similarities between the models. The plurality of machine learning models may include respective code-specific machine learning models individually tailored to generate respective prediction outputs for prior authorization requests (Austin et al., para. [0013] [0021])), wherein contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired through the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device (the new data structures include a plurality of matrices defining attributes of and relationships between each of the plurality of machine learning models of a prediction domain. The matrices, for example, may include a similarity matrix that describes an inferred similarity between each of the machine learning models and a prediction loss matrix that describes a relative predictive performance of the machine learning models (Austin et al., para. [0015])).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with contrastive loss information between the first observed data and the second observed data is acquired through the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model as a similarity feature to predict the area type of the user device taught by Austin et al. Doing so, allows to improve the predictive performance across all machine learning models associated with the prediction domain and also improve the machine learning performance (e.g., accuracy, reliability, and/or the like as measured through one or more loss functions) of each of a plurality of machine learning models associated with the multitask environment (Austin et al., para. [0013] [0015]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santhanam et al.(US20230319657A1) and Jeong et al.(US20060258386A1), and further in view of Sen et al.( US20240259905A1) and Munger et al. (US 20210125498 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, Santhanam et al. and Jeong et al. teach the system of claim 11, however, the references do not teach wherein the user device comprises: a machine learning-based classification model configured to receive the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series; and a feature output module linked to the machine learning-based classification model and configured to output the area type predicted by the machine learning-based classification model.
However, Sen et al. teaches wherein the user device comprises: a machine learning-based classification model configured to receive the network signal quality information of the at least one historic time series; (The ML model may for example be trained using historic RSRP (Sen et al., para. [0069]). The figure shows historic RSRP data with respect to UE location relative to a radio access node (Sen et al., Fig. 21, para. [0164]). The ML model may comprise a random forest model [Examiner’s Note: Random Forest Model is a classification model], which is trained separately for each cell site. A graph showing the predicted RSRP values for a particular cell site, predicted using the trained random forest model, against the actual RSRP values for differing UE locations (Sen et al., Fig.22, para. [0165]). The trained ML model outputs a predicted RSRP value for the relevant cell. The value is the RSRP that is predicted to be received from the cell by the UE at its current location (Sen et al., para. [0138])) [Examiner’s Note: Historic RSRP data is linked with UE location and uses the trained ML model to output the location-dependent RSRP value for UE, hence, corresponds to UE’s area/location].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with a feature output module linked to the first sub-machine learning model and the second sub-machine learning model, and configured to output the area type of the user device taught by Sen et al. Doing so, allows to reduce NR outage area by finding a suitable LTE and NR cell combination for a UE and triggering an LTE to LTE handover (Sen et al., para. [0170]).
However, the references do not teach and a feature output module linked to the machine learning-based classification model and configured to output the area type predicted by the machine learning-based classification model.
However, Munger et al. teaches a feature output module linked to the machine learning-based classification model and configured to output the area type predicted by the machine learning-based classification model (server is configured to generate a classification model generated based on training data utilizing the one or more aforementioned machine learning techniques, wherein the feature values are configured to be inserted into the classification model (Munger et al., para. [0040]). A server configured to utilize machine learning techniques in order to generate predictions of soon available occupied parking spaces and whether the current occupier is likely to occupy the parking space until the motorist arrives (Munger et al., para. [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to combine the teachings of Santhanam’s and Jeong’s cell change method with a feature output module linked to the machine learning-based classification model and configured to output the area type predicted by the machine learning-based classification model taught by Munger et al. Doing so, allows to improve the lives of motorist via generating ascertainable parking spaces in locations such as congested metropolitan areas (Munger et al., para. [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOHEED SIDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-3196. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-5pm.
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, Rebecca Song can be reached at (571) 270-3667. 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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2417
/Nishant Divecha/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419
Prosecution Insights