An exemplary embodiment is directed to a method for controlling control channel re-selection by a mobile communication station. More particularly, an exemplary embodiment relates to allowing the re-selection process to be conducted only with respect to those candidate control channels, onto which the mobile station is eligible to camp.
In the wireless communication environment it is known that as a mobile station moves throughout an area it is likely to encounter different cells that are serviced by different base stations. One example of a multi-cell wireless environment is illustrated in
Typically the base stations operate with distinct control channels, voice channels or data channels. It is known that during a communication, such as a call, as a mobile station passes from one cell to another it is handed off from one base station to another according to a certain protocol. However, in an activated state where a call is not in process, while the mobile station is in a cell, it is camped on a control channel, i.e., it is in essence tuned to that channel and prepared to engage in communications of control information over that channel. The mobile station must execute a process for selecting another control channel as the mobile station moves from cell to cell. This is called a re-selection process.
In the wireless environment) a known standard referred to as the IS-136 Standard defines protocols for digital wireless communications involving digital mobile stations. That standard defines a process by which the mobile station can re-select a control channel as it moves among the cells. In that process the mobile station is presumed to be “camped-on” to a first control channel. That control channel then transmits a list of the neighboring control channels, that is the list of control channels for the neighboring cells (or service providers). The mobile station receives the list and stores it. Then in accordance with a prescribed algorithm, the mobile station determines which one of the control channels on the list constitutes the primary candidate for re-selection. This determination is made based on such things as reading the RF (Radio Frequency) level of the various control channels in the list and determining which is the control channel that the mobile station should try to select next. For example, if the mobile station was in cell C2 moving towards cell C1, it may detect that the next strongest control channel among the neighbors of cell C2 originates from base station BS1 and therefore would deem that control channel to be the primary candidate for re-selection.
Further, in accordance with the algorithm described in the IS-136 standard once a primary candidate has been determined the mobile station attempts to re-select to that control channel. If the re-selection attempt is successful, then the mobile station camps onto the new control channel, receives a new list of neighboring control channels and begins the process all over with the new list of neighbors. If the attempt is unsuccessful, then the mobile station either selects the next appropriate candidate channel (that is a secondary candidate channel) or repeats the analysis of the entire list of candidate channels attempting to determine another primary candidate channel for re-selection.
A problem arises in that when the mobile station receives the neighbor list, it may include control channels with which the mobile station is simply incompatible. For example, the list may include one or more channels that are related to private systems and a mobile station may not be permitted access to those private systems. Alternatively, the mobile station may be seeking voice service and the control channels may be directed to data or fax services. Nonetheless, based on the parameters used in the analysis algorithm, these control channels with which the mobile station cannot truly interact are included in the analysis operation and one of these incompatible control channels could be selected as the primary candidate control channel. Naturally when this occurs, the attempt to re-select to that control channel will fail. Thus, the execution of the process has wasted time and resources toward the attempt to re-select an incompatible control channel. Furthermore, under the known algorithms, once the attempt to re-select to the incompatible control channel has failed that channel is still included in the next cycle of the re-selection process and could be once again selected as the primary candidate control channel. It is conceivable that the mobile station could get caught in an extended loop of determining an incompatible control channel to be the primary candidate control channel and making a failed attempt to re-select to that control channel.
In view of the shortcomings of the known re-selection process, it is desirable to provide further controls in the re-selection process to avoid the attempt to re-select to incompatible control channels. It is also desirable to avoid second attempts to re-select to control channels which are determined to be incompatible with the mobile station during a re-select attempt.
In accordance with the disclosure, a mobile station performs a method for controlling the re-selection of a control channel. In that method the mobile station, prior to performing an algorithm for selecting a primary candidate control channel, marks as ineligible, any one of the control channels identified on the neighbor list which are incompatible with the mobile station. The selection of a primary control channel then proceeds only with regard to those control channels which are determined to be eligible. Once a primary candidate control channel is selected the mobile station attempts to re-select to that primary candidate control channel. If the attempt to re-select is successful, then the mobile station camps on to this control channel. If, however, the attempt fails, then the mobile station determines why the attempt failed. If the failure arises from an incompatibility between the mobile station and the control channel, then that control channel is marked a ineligible in the neighbor list and when the re-selection process is repeated filth the same neighbor list, since that control channel has been marked ineligible it will not be a factor in the selection of a primary candidate control channel.
Examples of incompatibility are as follows. The mobile station may not have any access privileges with regard to private systems. In this case, the mobile station would scan the neighbor list and mark as ineligible any control channel identified as being related to a private system since the mobile station will not be permitted access to such stations. Alternatively, the mobile station may have access to only one private system. In such a case, then if a primary candidate control channel is a private system channel and the mobile station is not determined to have access to that particular private system, then the attempt to re-select to the private system will fail and the neighbor list will be modified to reflect that this channel is not eligible for analysis in a subsequent re-selection process.
As described above, the mobile station may be used in a wireless embodiment which is shows schematically in
When the mobile station receives the neighbor list from the control channel on which it is camped, it stores that neighbor list in memory. The mobile station may be a cellular phone which complies with the IS-136 standards. Such a mobile communications device 400 as illustrated if
An example of a correlation of the information presented by the control channel, in which the mobile station is camped, is shown in
This parameter information can then be used to modify or control the process by which an alternative control channel can be selected.
A flow chart illustrating the process for controlling re-selection using the received neighbor list is illustrated in
In step 300, the mobile station 400 receives the neighbor list from the control channel on which it is presently camped. In step 301, the mobile station 400 processor 420 scans the neighbor list in accordance with a stored control program and examines the entries in the list to determine whether any of the control channels (the candidate control channels) are ineligible because of a lack of compatibility between the mobile station and the control station. As an example, incompatibility could arise where the mobile station 400 does not have access to any private network or system. The mobile station memory 420, 430 would store system IDS for those systems with which the mobile station is allowed to communicate. It could also store a flag indicating whether the mobile station has access to any private system. Under those circumstances where there is access to private systems, any control channel which is related to a private system is incompatible with the mobile station. Similarly, if the mobile station seeks voice services, then any control channel associated with fax or data services would be incompatible with the mobile station.
Once a candidate control channel is detected or recognized to be ineligible in Step 302, then each of those ineligible control channels is marked as ineligible in the neighbor list. In particular, the processor in the mobile station modifies the neighbor list to somehow mark a control channel as ineligible. One way of doing this is to include an eligibility flag in the neighbor list. All control channels in the neighbor list would initially haste their eligibility flags set as indicated an eligible control channel. Then, when a control channel is marked as ineligible the flag would be reset to an ineligible state. Alternatively, it is possible that other steps could be taken to effectively remove the ineligible control channels from subsequent consideration in the re-selection process. In Step 304, a process, known in the prior art, is initiated for studying or analyzing candidate channels to try to select the optimal candidate channel for re-selection. This process is referred to in
As has been described above, a candidate channel could be ineligible because the control channel is associated with a private system, whereas the mobile station is not affiliated with any private system. Furthermore, a control channel may be deemed ineligible because of the tyke of service that it provides and the lack of compatibility between that service and the service of the mobile station. The predetermined criteria referred to in connection with step 309 can be any condition that causes the failure of a reselect attempt. Typically one such event would be where the primary candidate channel is associated with a private system and the mobile station is also associated with a private system. In that circumstance, then, the primary candidate channel would not then be marked ineligible in step 303. Then, during the reselect attempt the private system identifier associated with the primary candidate channel would be provided to the mobile station. If the mobile station private system identifier stored in memory does not match the private system ID received from the primary candidate channel during the attempt to re-select, then the mobile station will not get access to the private system associated with that primary, candidate channel. Therefore, there is an incompatibility between the mobile station and the system associated with that primary candidate channel. In view of this incompatibility, it is consistent with the exemplary embodiment to now mark this primary control channel as ineligible as in step 310. Then if it is necessary to analyze the neighbor list again (step 304) to find a candidate channel for re-selection, the newly designated ineligible control channel will not be analyzed.
In accordance with the alternative embodiments, other parameter information associated with a control channel could be used to determine whether the control channel is eligible for re-selection by this particular mobile station. Furthermore, modifications to the process of
Since an exemplary embodiment includes a method by which the mobile station selects an appropriate re-selection candidate and since it is implemented using software running on a processor within the mobile station, it must be recognized that variations on the order in which certain steps are performed and the specific techniques or parameters involved in the process could be modified while still falling within the spirit of the disclosure. For example, it is conceivable that in one variation the station microprocessor could scan the entire list of neighbors and adjust the eligibility status where appropriate for all ineligible control channels before proceeding with the analysis of the eligible control channels. In an alternative embodiment, the first time through the neighbor list the processor could first determine whether a given control channel is eligible and then, if it is eligible, perform the analysis with respect to that control channel. Then the microprocessor would turn to the next control channel on the list, determine whether it should be considered eligible and if so conduct the evaluation with respect to that control channel and so on. In this second configuration, the processor does not scan the entire list before beginning the evaluation process. Instead, in combines the marking and evaluation steps.
Other modifications might include other techniques for marking a control channel as ineligible.
In yet another embodiment it is conceivable that the mobile station could select for analysis a subset of the control channels form the neighbor list; the subset being based on any one or combination of parameters.
In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, a mobile station can more optimally control the process by which it selects alternative control channels. It provides the mobile station with a way to focus only on those candidate control channels with which the mobile station can effectively communicate.
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/262,513, filed Oct. 31, 2008 now U.S. Pat. No. 7,616,933, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/921,822, filed Aug. 20, 2004 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,447,487), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/206,963, filed Jul. 30, 2002 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,850,744), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/306,760, filed May 7, 1999 (now U.S. Pat. No. 6,501,951), which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/772,829, filed Dec. 24, 1996 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,995,834), the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3626112 | Henquet | Dec 1971 | A |
3898390 | Wells et al. | Aug 1975 | A |
4127744 | Yoshikawa et al. | Nov 1978 | A |
4612415 | Zdunek et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4829554 | Barnes et al. | May 1989 | A |
4905301 | Krolopp et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
4916728 | Blair | Apr 1990 | A |
5014348 | Boone et al. | May 1991 | A |
5276905 | Hurst et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5301357 | Thompson | Apr 1994 | A |
5329575 | Matsuda | Jul 1994 | A |
5353332 | Raith et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5363428 | Nagashima | Nov 1994 | A |
5408684 | Yunoki et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5442680 | Schellinger et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5526402 | Dent et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5551058 | Hutcheson et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5640677 | Karlsson | Jun 1997 | A |
5666655 | Ishikawa et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5675629 | Raffel et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5754956 | Abreu et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754959 | Ueno et al. | May 1998 | A |
5774807 | Yazaki et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5778316 | Persson et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5794147 | Huang | Aug 1998 | A |
5794157 | Haartsen | Aug 1998 | A |
5805581 | Uchida et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5842127 | Pashtan et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5870673 | Haartsen | Feb 1999 | A |
5884184 | Sheffer | Mar 1999 | A |
5903839 | Martila | May 1999 | A |
5907806 | Yamada et al. | May 1999 | A |
5911120 | Jarett et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5940743 | Sunay et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940760 | Uistola | Aug 1999 | A |
5953665 | Mattila | Sep 1999 | A |
5960354 | Einola | Sep 1999 | A |
5991622 | Henry, Jr. | Nov 1999 | A |
5995834 | Moore | Nov 1999 | A |
6094576 | Hakkinen et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6144653 | Persson et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6259915 | Raith | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6421328 | Larribeau et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6501951 | Moore | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6633754 | Raith | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6850744 | Moore | Feb 2005 | B2 |
7050771 | Uistola | May 2006 | B2 |
7447487 | Moore | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7616933 | Moore | Nov 2009 | B2 |
20010044301 | Moore | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020183061 | Moore | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20050020293 | Moore | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20090061867 | Moore | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20100041401 | Moore | Feb 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2134695 | May 1995 | CA |
2240262 | May 1996 | CA |
2163937 | Jun 1996 | CA |
Entry |
---|
Canadian Search Report (Mar. 23, 2001). |
Chang et al. “Performance of Personal Access Communications System Unlicensed B”, IEEE J on Selected Areas in Communications (May 1996). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100041401 A1 | Feb 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12262513 | Oct 2008 | US |
Child | 12603964 | US | |
Parent | 10921822 | Aug 2004 | US |
Child | 12262513 | US | |
Parent | 10206963 | Jul 2002 | US |
Child | 10921822 | US | |
Parent | 09306760 | May 1999 | US |
Child | 10206963 | US | |
Parent | 08772829 | Dec 1996 | US |
Child | 09306760 | US |