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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed .06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, on page 2 third paragraph, that Ericsson fails to teach or suggest receiving a configuration indicating whether (and, if so, when) the UE is allowed to change its relaxation state on its own, as is recited by independent Claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees The claim does not recite “the UE changes its relaxation state on its own”. However, Ericsson disclosing “the UE can bypass the prohibit timer” and “The relaxation must be stopped quickly” indicates that the UE is configured to change its relaxation state on its own.
Applicant argues again, on page 8 first paragraph, that Ericsson does not mean that the UE is allowed to change its relaxation state on its own. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated above, the claim does not recite “UE is allowed to change its relaxation state on its own”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., UE is allowed to change its relaxation state on its own) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant argues further, on the same paragraph, that Ericsson also fails to teach or suggest the second alternative of "while a UE assistance information prohibit timer is running". The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ericsson disclosing “the UE can bypass the prohibit timer” and “The relaxation must be stopped quickly” indicates that the UE can change its state while the timer is running.
Applicant argues, on page 8 second paragraph, that Ericsson and Shi cannot be properly combined. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ericsson teaches changing the relaxation state when the timer is running but is silent when the timer is not started. However, Shi [0052] teaches when changing the relaxation status, the reporting prohibition timer is not considered, thus including the case when the timer is not started (Shi [0047] ) in addition to Ericsson case when it is running. Therefore, by combining Shi to Ericsson, all timer cases are included for changing the relaxation status.
Applicant argues, on page 8 third paragraph, that Ericsson and Shi cannot properly be combined since Ericsson assumes that any change of measurement relaxation is under network control (as outlined above), while Shi is able to assume that the UE could change its relaxation state on its own. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In both Ericsson and SHI, the UE is configured to change its measurement relaxation status on its own when it detects whether a criterion is met or not.
Applicant argues, on page 8 last paragraph to page 9 first paragraph that the citation to Shi is internally inconsistent by purporting to combine two different cases and therefore inappropriate. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites changing a measurement relaxation status change to another measurement relaxation status change. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the relaxation status change” in the claim includes any of the cases in Shi [0047] or Shi [0052]. Applicant further argues, on page 9 first paragraph, that Shi fails to teach or suggest the occurrence "before the measurement relaxation related event" in the manner recited by independent Claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Shi [0047] discloses changing the relaxation status before the timer expiration where the event is interpreted as the timer expiration..
Applicant argues, on page .9 second paragraph, that Ericsson fails to teach or suggest that the UE is caused to determine to change the relaxation state, irrespective of the condition for this functionality. The claim does not recite “change the relaxation state, irrespective of the condition for this functionality”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., change the relaxation state, irrespective of the condition for this functionality) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues, on page 9 second paragraph, that Ericsson does not envisage and, as such, does not teach or suggest that the UE itself is able to change its relaxation state in the manner recited by independent Claim 17, but, instead, such determination is to be performed by the network. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The response to this argument was discussed above regarding claim 1 and will not be repeated here.
Applicant argument, on page 9 last paragraph, with respect to claims 17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on citation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues, on page 10 regarding the dependent claims, that the dependent claims are patentable for including the recitation of the independent claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the independent claims are maintained rejected, the independent claims are not patentable bud pendency.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 report transmission or 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 before the measurement relaxation related event takes place (SHI [0052] when exiting the relaxed measurement state, the reporting prohibition timer is not considered. 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) 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 reporting prohibition timer is not running, it means that the timer is not currently started or has expired. That is, 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 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 (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. Note: the measurement relaxation related event is interpreted as the expiry of the UE assistance information prohibit timer according to claim)
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 saved power using the measurement relaxation status.
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])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ericsson in view of SHI et al., and in further view of Yiru et al. (WO2021204002 A).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Ericsson and SHI et al. teaches A UE according to claim 1, but does not teach
wherein the measurement relaxation status and said another measurement relaxation status comprise at least one of Radio Link Monitoring (RLM), and Beam Failure Detection (BFD) measurement relaxation statuses.
In a similar endeavor, Yiru et al. teach
wherein the measurement relaxation status and said another measurement relaxation status comprise at least one of Radio Link Monitoring (RLM) (Yiru [0009] relaxing or not relaxing the RLM measurement), and Beam Failure Detection (BFD) measurement relaxation statuses
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 Yiru et al RLM measurement relaxation to arrive at the invention
The motivation of doing so would have reduced power consumption of the UE (See Yiru [0004]).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights