5DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 6 second paragraph, that claim 1 is allowable for including claim 1 that was found allowable in the previous Office Action. However, considering the IDS references filed later, claim 1 is not allowable in view of one of the IDS references, namely SHI et al. (US 20240349105 A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson (Details on RRM relaxationR2-2110564, 3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #116-e, Electronic meeting, 2021-11-01 - 2021-11-01) in view of SHI et al. (US 20240349105 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Ericsson teaches A user equipment, UE, comprising at least one processing core and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory (Note: inherent in a user equipment) and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE at least to:
- determine that a change of a measurement relaxation status of the UE to another measurement relaxation status is triggered (Ericsson 2.2.2 when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion. The reason is that if the UE for example starts to move) ;
- determine whether to change the measurement relaxation status to said another measurement relaxation status (Ericsson 2.2.2 The relaxation must be stopped quickly since otherwise network performance could be degraded and the UE may experience failures, e.g. RLF) before a measurement relaxation related event takes place (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer. Note: changing the measurement relaxation status is interpreted as stopping the relaxation by bypassing the timer, where the event is interpreted as the expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer according to claim 2);
- transmit a report about said another measurement relaxation status to a wireless network node (Ericsson 2.2 An RSRP/RSRQ based stationarity criterion (Working Assumption: the same as in idle/inactive) can be configured for UEs in RRC Connected. If the criterion is met, this is reported to the network, 2.2.1 proposal 4 For CONNECTED mode RRM measurement relaxation report, the report is sent in the UE assistance information), and
- receive a configuration, the configuration indicating whether the UE is allowed to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE (Ericsson 2.2 When both lowMobilityEvalutation and cellEdgeEvalutation criteria are present in SIB2, this parameter configures the UE to fulfil both criteria in order to relax measurement requirements)
before transmitting the report about said another measurement relaxation status of the UE to the wireless network node, or
while a UE assistance information prohibit timer is running (Ericsson 2.2.2 A prohibit timer approach could work, assuming that the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion... The relaxation must be stopped quickly).
Ericsson does not teach
wherein the UE is caused to determine to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE before the measurement relaxation related event takes place when the UE assistance information prohibit timer was not started when a measurement relaxation condition was met and reported.
In a similar endeavor, SHI et al. teach
wherein the UE is caused to determine to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE (SHI [0052] In case that the terminal device in a relaxed measurement state for a certain relaxed measurement criterion does not meet the relaxed measurement criterion, the relaxed measurement state is exited, and the indication information that the relaxed measurement criterion is not met is sent to the network device according to a configuration switch) before the measurement relaxation related event takes place when the UE assistance information prohibit timer was not started when a measurement relaxation condition was met and reported (SHI [0047] in case that the terminal device is not in a relaxed measurement state for a certain relaxed measurement criterion, the terminal device currently meets the relaxed measurement criterion at the same time, and the reporting prohibition timer is not currently started or has expired, the terminal device is allowed to send the indication information that the relaxed measurement criterion is met to the network device). ,
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Ericsson by incorporating SHI et al. changing the relaxation status and sending the indication when the timer is not started to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have avoided a situation that the terminal device in the connected state cannot switch timely (see SHI [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the measurement relaxation related event is transmission of the report about said another measurement relaxation status to the wireless network node (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion... The relaxation must be stopped quickly) or expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the UE is in a measurement relaxation mode before the change and in a non-measurement relaxation mode after the change (Ericsson 2.2.2 . The relaxation must be stopped quickly), or the UE is in the non-measurement relaxation mode before the change and in the non-measurement relaxation mode after the change.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE to:
- determine whether the UE is allowed to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE based on a status of the UE assistance information prohibit timer (Ericsson 2.2.2 a prohibit timer ensures that the UE cannot send another report until after a time T has passed) and said another measurement relaxation status (Ericsson 2.2.2 when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion. The reason is that if the UE for example starts to move).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE to:
- determine whether to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE while the UE assistance information prohibit timer is running (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE to:
- determine to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE while the UE assistance information prohibit timer is running (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer). ; and
- change the measurement relaxation status to said another measurement relaxation status before the measurement relaxation related event takes place (Note: bypassing the timer where the event is interpreted as the expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE to:
- determine to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE (Ericsson 2.2.2 The relaxation must be stopped quickly since otherwise network performance could be degraded and the UE may experience failures, e.g. RLF) before a measurement relaxation related event takes place (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer. Note: changing the measurement relaxation status is interpreted as stopping the relaxation by bypassing the timer where the event is interpreted as the expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer according to claim 2) when a measurement relaxation condition is not met while the UE assistance information prohibit timer is running (2.2.2 A prohibit timer approach could work, assuming that the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion.); and
- change the measurement relaxation status to said another measurement relaxation status (Ericsson 2.2.2 The relaxation must be stopped quickly since otherwise network performance could be degraded and the UE may experience failures, e.g. RLF) before the measurement relaxation related event takes place (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer. Note: the event is interpreted as the expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer according to claim 2).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the measurement relaxation status and said another measurement relaxation status comprise at least one of Radio Resource Management (RRM) (Ericsson 2.2.3 how the RRM measurement relaxation is realized), Radio Link Monitoring (RLM), and Beam Failure Detection (BFD) measurement relaxation statuses.
Regarding claim 17, Ericsson teaches A user equipment, UE, comprising at least one processing core and at least one memory including computer program code, the at least one memory (Note: inherent in a user equipment) and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE at least to:
- determine that a change of a measurement relaxation status of the UE to another measurement relaxation status is triggered (Ericsson 2.2.2 when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion. The reason is that if the UE for example starts to move) ;
- determine whether to change the measurement relaxation status to said another measurement relaxation status (Ericsson 2.2.2 The relaxation must be stopped quickly since otherwise network performance could be degraded and the UE may experience failures, e.g. RLF) before a measurement relaxation related event takes place (Ericsson 2.2.2 the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer. Note: changing the measurement relaxation status is interpreted as stopping the relaxation by bypassing the timer, where the event is interpreted as the expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer according to claim 2);
- transmit a report about said another measurement relaxation status to a wireless network node (Ericsson 2.2 An RSRP/RSRQ based stationarity criterion (Working Assumption: the same as in idle/inactive) can be configured for UEs in RRC Connected. If the criterion is met, this is reported to the network, 2.2.1 proposal 4 For CONNECTED mode RRM measurement relaxation report, the report is sent in the UE assistance information), and
- receive a configuration, the configuration indicating whether the UE is allowed to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE (Ericsson 2.2 When both lowMobilityEvalutation and cellEdgeEvalutation criteria are present in SIB2, this parameter configures the UE to fulfil both criteria in order to relax measurement requirements)
before transmitting the report about said another measurement relaxation status of the UE to the wireless network node, or
while a UE assistance information prohibit timer is running (Ericsson 2.2.2 A prohibit timer approach could work, assuming that the UE can "by-pass" the prohibit timer when the UE should signal that it does no longer fulfill the relaxation-criterion... The relaxation must be stopped quickly).
wherein the UE is caused to :
- determine to change the measurement relaxation status of the UE after the measurement relaxation related event has taken place (Ericsson 2.2.2 a prohibit timer ensures that the UE cannot send another report until after a time T has passed.) when a measurement relaxation condition is met while the UE assistance information prohibit timer is running (Ericsson 2.2.2 proposal 6 a prohibit timer that ensures that the UE does not send another report claiming to be stationary while the timer is running or some other criterion applies).
However, Ericsson does not explicitly teach
- change the measurement relaxation status to said another measurement relaxation status after the measurement relaxation related event has taken place
In a similar endeavor, SHI et al. teach
change the measurement relaxation status to said another measurement relaxation status after the measurement relaxation related event has taken place (SHI [0052] In case that the terminal device in a relaxed measurement state for a certain relaxed measurement criterion does not meet the relaxed measurement criterion, the relaxed measurement state is exited. Note: the measurement relaxation related event is interpreted as not meeting the criterion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Ericsson by incorporating SHI et al. exiting the relaxation status after the event has taken place to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have avoided a situation that the terminal device in the connected state cannot switch timely (see SHI [0052]).
Claims 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of SHI et al., and in further view of RAMACHANDRA et al. (WO 2021206602 A1)
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, but does not teach
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE to:
- report that the measurement relaxation status of the UE was changed to said another measurement relaxation status before transmitting the report about said another measurement relaxation status to the wireless network node.
In a similar endeavor, RAMACHANDRA et al. teach
- report that the measurement relaxation status of the UE was changed to said another measurement relaxation status before transmitting the report about said another measurement relaxation status to the wireless network node (RAMACHANDRA [0106] configure the UE to not actually relax its RRM measurements, but still track the relaxed measurement criteria and report the time (e.g. time stamps) during which they entered/exited an RRM relaxation mode or sub-mode, e.g. (related to sub-mode)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. by incorporating RAMACHANDRA et al. time stamps to arrive at the invention
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the network to re-tune configuration p[parameters related to RRM (see RAMACHANDRA [0106]).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, but does not teach
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processing core, cause the UE to:
- report how long ago before transmitting the report about said another measurement relaxation status of the UE to the wireless network node the measurement relaxation status of the UE was changed.
In a similar endeavor, RAMACHANDRA et al. teach
- report how long ago before transmitting the report about said another measurement relaxation status of the UE to the wireless network node the measurement relaxation status of the UE was changed (RAMACHANDRA [0106] configure the UE to not actually relax its RRM measurements, but still track the relaxed measurement criteria and report the time (e.g. time stamps) during which they entered/exited an RRM relaxation mode or sub-mode, e.g. (related to sub-mode)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. by incorporating RAMACHANDRA et al. time stamps to arrive at the invention
The motivation of doing so would have enabled the network to re-tune configuration p[parameters related to RRM (see RAMACHANDRA [0106]).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, wherein the UE is allowed to relax measurements in the measurement relaxation mode (Ericsson 2.2 the UE is allowed to relax measurement requirements for cell reselection when either or both of the criteria are met.).
Ericsson implicitly teaches if both criteria are not met the UE is not allowed to relax measurements by interpreting the non- measurement relaxation mode as the case when both criteria are not met.
Ericsson does not explicitly teach
the UE is not allowed to relax measurements in the non- measurement relaxation mode.
In a similar endeavor, RAMACHANDRA et al. teach
the UE is not allowed to relax measurements in the non- measurement relaxation mode (RAMACHANDRA [0085] a UE at cell edge is not allowed to relax RRM while performing MDT whereas a UE close to the gNB (e.g. as per Rel- 15 relaxation criteria) is allowed to relax.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. by incorporating RAMACHANDRA et al. cell edge criterion to arrive at the invention
The motivation of doing so would have allowed the network to collect measurements about neighbor cells to build the coverage map (see [0085])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID M ELNOUBI whose telephone number is (571)272-9732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM to 6:00PM ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/SAID M ELNOUBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2644