DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on February 10, 2026.
Claims 1, 4-17, and 19-34 are pending in the application. Claims 2, 3, and 18 have been canceled.
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 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on February 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the Reply, filed February 10, 2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1, 17, and 31 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
In view of the Board decision on December 23, 2025, the rejection of claims 9-15, 24-29, and 32 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art references.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 16, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 34 recites limitation “the L1/L2 based mobility signaling MAC CE cell switch command is not a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message,” which does not have basis in the original disclosure. MPEP §2173.05(i).
The original disclosure does not disclose an RRC reconfiguration message or any RRC signaling. At most, the original disclosure describes an RRC-configured serving cell ID and an RRC-configured physical cell indicator (PCI) in paragraph [0052]. However, a person skilled in the art would not understand the aforementioned negative limitation to necessarily be present in the original disclosure. Therefore, claim 34 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9, 11, 24, 25, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0337370 (newly cited, hereinafter “Wang”).
Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests:
regarding claims 9 and 32, a method and an apparatus comprising:
at least one memory having executable instructions stored thereon (see at least paragraph 202, memory); and
one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions in order to cause the apparatus to (see at least paragraph 202, processor):
receive, via physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer signaling, an update to a timing advance (TA) group (TAG) ID, the TAG associated with the TAG ID including one or more serving cells associated with a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 12, S1205, paragraph 77, paragraph 82, paragraph 93, and paragraph 102, the TN-gNB forwards the ID of the allocated TAG, which is received by the UE, where TA information including TAG ID received by the UE is carried in MAC CE including a TAG ID field); and
apply the update while communicating in the one or more serving cells (see at least Fig. 12, S1206, and paragraph 102, the UE updates the TAG ID stored in the UE); and
regarding claim 11, the signaling comprises a MAC control element (CE) (see at least paragraph 93, MAC CE).
Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests:
regarding claim 24, a method for wireless communications by a network entity, the method comprising:
determining an update to a timing advance (TA) group (TAG) ID, the TAG associated with the TAG ID including one or more serving cells associated with a user equipment (UE) (see at least Fig. 2, Fig. 12, S1203, paragraph 77, paragraph 82, paragraph 93, and paragraph 102, in a procedure to update a TAG ID of a UE, an NTN-gNB determines and allocates a TAG for the UE based on location information of the UE); and
sending the update to the UE, via physical (PHY) layer or medium access control (MAC) layer signaling (see at least Fig. 12, S1204 and S1205, paragraph 82, paragraph 93, and paragraph 102, the NTN-gNB transmits an ID of the allocated tag to the UE via a TN-gNB, where the TN-gNB forwards the ID of the allocated TAG to the UE, where TA information including TAG ID received by the UE is carried in MAC CE including a TAG ID field); and
regarding claim 25, the signaling comprises at least one of a downlink control information (DCI) or MAC control element (CE) (see at least paragraph 93, MAC CE).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0263570 (newly cited, hereinafter “Wang_2”).
Regarding claims 10, Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests a MAC CE, as described in relation to claim 9 above, but Wang does not explicitly disclose the signaling comprising downlink control information (DCI) signaling.
However, in an analogous art, Wang_2 discloses, teaches, or suggests that the signaling may be downlink control information (DCI), group DCI, a media access control control element (MAC CE) (see at least paragraph 235).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace MAC CE signaling of Wang with DCI signaling of Wang_2 because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results were reasonably predictable.
Claims 12, 14, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0007499 (newly cited, hereinafter “Da Silva”).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests a MAC CE, as described in relation to claims 9 and 24 above, but Wang does not explicitly disclose the signaling identifying the one or more serving cells via at least one of a physical cell ID (PCI) or a serving cell ID.
However, in an analogous art, Da Silva, discloses, teaches, or suggests a MAC CE including a serving cell ID field for indicating the identity of the serving cell for which the MAC CE applies (see at least paragraph 55).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a serving cell ID field as taught by Da Silva in the MAC CE of Wang in order to correctly identify the serving cell the MAC CE is applied for.
Regarding claims 14 and 28, Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the subject matter of claims 12 and 26, as described above, but Wang does not explicitly disclose that the signaling indicates multiple TAG IDs with multiple serving cells or PCIs per TAG ID.
However, in an analogous art, Da Silva, discloses, teaches, or suggests that the signaling indicates multiple TAG IDs with multiple serving cells or PCIs per TAG ID (see at least paragraphs 92-98, the TA command MAC CE comprises TAG ID A to TAG ID B, where two TAG defined for different cell groups can be associated, or a TA command MAC CE can be transmitted across cell groups, where, upon receiving a TA command MAC CE comprising this TAG ID, the UE may apply the TA command to all serving cells that belong to this TAG).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a serving cell ID field as taught by Da Silva in the MAC CE of Wang in order to correctly identify the serving cell the MAC CE is applied for.
Claims 13, 15, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Da Silva, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0417728 (newly cited, hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claims 13 and 27, Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the subject matter of claims 12 and 26, as described above, but Wang does not explicitly disclose that each PCI configured for each serving cell is assigned a TAG ID and that a common TA is applied to all PCIs with the same TAG ID.
However, in an analogous art, Da Silva, discloses, teaches, or suggests that each serving cell is assigned a TAG ID and that a common TA is applied to all serving cells with the same TAG ID (see at least paragraphs 92-95, a serving cell, which is a physical cell, may be configured with a TAG ID to indicate the TAG of the serving cell belongs to and, upon receiving a TA command MAC CE comprising this TAG ID, the UE may apply the TA command to all serving cells that belong to this TAG).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a serving cell ID field as taught by Da Silva in the MAC CE of Wang in order to correctly identify the serving cell the MAC CE is applied for.
Furthermore, Wang, as modified by Da Silva, does not explicitly disclose that a PCI is configured for each serving cell. However, Wu, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses that the serving cell ID may be physical cell identifier (PCI) (see at least paragraph 7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the serving cell ID of Wang, as modified by Da Silva, with the PCI as taught by Wu in order to use the PCI to differentiate between a plurality of cells, especially in areas where a plurality of cells operate on the same frequency.
Regarding claims 15 and 29, Wang discloses, teaches, or suggests all of the subject matter of claims 12 and 26, as described above, but Wang does not explicitly disclose that a serving cell is configured with one or multiple PCIs and the UE also receives updates to one or more PCIs that serve the UE via PHY layer or MAC layer signaling.
However, in an analogous art, Da Silva, discloses, teaches, or suggests that the UE also receives updates to one or more serving cells that serve the UE via PHY layer or MAC layer signaling (see at least paragraphs 92-98, a serving cell may be configured with a TAG ID to indicate the TAG of the serving cell belongs to, where the BS may configure a serving cell of cell group B with a TAG ID defined for cell group A via a MAC CE, where the BS may configure the serving cell B with a cell group ID of cell group A along with TAG ID defined for cell group A).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the technique as taught by Da Silva in to the invention of Wang in order to support uplink time alignment across cell group.
Furthermore, Wang, as modified by Da Silva, does not explicitly disclose that a serving cell is configured with one or multiple PCIs. However, Wu, from the same or similar fields of endeavor, discloses that the serving cell ID may be physical cell identifier (PCI) (see at least paragraph 7, serving cell ID may be physical cell identifier (PCI)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the serving cell ID of Wang, as modified by Da Silva, with the PCI as taught by Wu in order to use the PCI to differentiate between a plurality of cells, especially in areas where a plurality of cells operate on the same frequency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4-8, 17, 19-23, 31, and 33 are allowed.
Claims 16 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Pawaris Sinkantarakorn whose telephone number is (571)270-1424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached at (571) 270-3618. 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.
/PAO SINKANTARAKORN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409 04/03/2026