DETAILED ACTION
This office action is a response to the application 17/806,926 filed on June 14th, 2022.
Claim Status
This office action is based upon claims received on 12/17/2025, which replace all prior or other submitted versions of the claims.
Claims 1 – 10, 20 – 25, and 31 – 44 are pending.
Claims 1 – 10, 20 – 25, and 31 – 44 are rejected.
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, filed on 12/17/2025, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments, see pages 11 – 13 of the Remarks, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1, 20, 31, and 41, and dependent claims 2 – 10, 21 – 25, 32 – 40, and 42 – 44, under applied prior art references of record in the office action dated 09/17/2025, particularly as regards the amended limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yeh et al. [US 20190364472 A1] and Liberg et al. [US 20220104084 A1]. Therefore, the rejection has been revised as set forth below according to the amended claims. See office action below.
All remaining arguments presented by Applicant not specifically addressed herein and directed to various dependent claims are found unpersuasive for the same reasons as stated herein, with regard to independent claims. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 8, 10, 20 – 22, 24 – 25, 31 – 35, 37 – 38, and 40 – 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. [WO 2021092583 A1] hereinafter Park, and further in view of Kalathil et al. [US 20190045406 A1] hereinafter Kalathil, and Yeh et al. [US 20190364472 A1] hereinafter Yeh.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (Park: Fig. 15, Fig, 22, and Fig. 26, ¶ 204; wireless device 1502 (UE)), comprising:
one or more memories (Park: Fig. 15, ¶ 204; memory 1524); and
one or more processors (Park: Fig. 15, ¶ 204 – 205; processor 1518), coupled to the one or more memories (Park: Fig. 15, ¶ 204; wherein the processor is coupled to the memory), configured to:
receive a configuration of one or more conditional handover conditions associated with one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities), wherein each of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 232; wherein the selection condition may be based on a height that the wireless device is located at. The wireless device may select and use, for the handover, one of the multiple handover execution conditions depending on whether the selection condition is being met); and
trigger a conditional handover procedure based at least in part on the height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 270; wherein the first execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a high altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to higher than the height/altitude threshold). The second execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a low altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to lower than the height/altitude threshold). Therefore, the UE will execute the conditional handover if the height of the UE is higher than or lower than a height/altitude threshold (i.e., the height being higher than the threshold or lower than the threshold is the trigger for the conditional handover)).
Park does not explicitly teach and wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a three-dimensional location of the UE.
Referring to the invention of Kalathil, Kalathil teaches wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a three-dimensional location of the UE (Kalathil: ¶ 83, ¶ 100-101; wherein the UE is configured as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (i.e., drone) for operation in a three-dimensional (3D) region, and the UE derives location information relating the UE's location in a defined three-dimensional geographic region …; wherein the derived location information indicates the UE's location in the defined three-dimensional geographic region as defined by longitude, latitude; and elevation coordinates; the UE then encodes the location information for transmission to an evolved Node B (eNB) or a next generation evolved Node B (gNB); then the UE receives a handover parameter set as a function of the location information. Each drone (i.e., the UE) flying in the area reports its handover parameters, cell strength measurements, and handover quality indicators to the serving cell (i.e., the base station). After collecting all such information in the whole region, an optimized target cell selection and handover parameter setting can be determined (i.e., the configuration of the conditional handover conditions is determined by the base station and then the configuration is sent to the UE)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the three-dimensional region teachings of Kalathil into the handover conditions configuration teachings of Park in order to improve handover performance and to have effective, successful and reliable handover operations in the context of UEs incorporated into unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, a.k.a., drones) (Kalathil: ¶ 14).
Although Park teaches that “the RAN 104 (i.e., the gNB or the base station) provides radio resource management (RRM) to the wireless device 106 (i.e., the UE) (¶ 58), and that “the first base station may determine, based on the measurement results, the first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition. The first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition may be based on RSRP/RSRQ/SINR of the cell and/or height/altitude of the wireless device in the measurement results (¶ 270), Park in view of Kalathil do not explicitly disclose the combination of wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions include one or more radio resource management (RRM) conditions parameterized by one or more height conditions, and wherein one or more measurement reports are triggered based at least in part on the one or more height conditions.
Referring to the invention of Yeh, Yeh teaches wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions include one or more radio resource management (RRM) conditions (Yeh: Fig. 1C, ¶ 30, ¶ 54; wherein any of the RAN nodes 111 and 112 can fulfill various logical functions for the RAN 110 including, but not limited to, radio network controller (RNC) functions such as radio bearer management, uplink and downlink dynamic radio resource management and data packet scheduling, and mobility management. Therefore, the conditional handover conditions configured by any of the RAN will include the RRM conditions) parameterized by one or more height conditions (Yeh: Fig. 3, ¶ 77-79, ¶ 81; wherein the UE can send (based upon a request) its height information to the serving cell, the height information may be encoded in 1-2 bits mapping to predefined height (i.e., the serving cell uses the height information (i.e., the height conditions), predefined for the UE or provided by the UE upon a request, to determine the uplink and downlink radio resource management and data packet scheduling conditions for the target cell and the UE during the conditional handover (CHO) procedure)), and wherein one or more measurement reports are triggered based at least in part on the one or more height conditions (Yeh: Fig. 3, ¶ 77-79, ¶ 81; wherein the request message may also contain a request to the UE when a change of height, the drone UE to report the elevation… a new measurement report may also be introduced with height evaluation triggering as a condition. For example, it is X meters higher than the last reporting, or it reaches Y meters as an absolute value. In some aspects, one or more height threshold values can be communicated to the UE during the measurement control configuration. The UE can then trigger reporting its aerial height (or altitude) when such height is above a first threshold or below a second threshold. In order words, the configuration signaling can include, for example, one or more thresholds for triggering drone height or altitude measurements for inclusion in a measurement report).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triggering of measurement report upon a height change if the UE teachings of Yeh into the combined conditional handover teachings of Park and Kalathil, in order for networks to improve on managing vertical mobility, optimizing beamforming, enhancing resource allocation, and improving user experience, particularly in dense urban and high-rise environments. Integrating such triggers increases both network efficiency and service reliability without unnecessarily increasing UE signaling burden.
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is further based at least in part on a measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the configuration of the conditional handover execution condition may comprise at least one of: the event A3, … the event A5, and for Event A3/C2 (Target becomes offset better than PCell/ PSCell): a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes offset better than a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell), while for Event A5 (PCell/ PSCell becomes worse than threshold 1 and target becomes better than threshold2): a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell) becomes worse than a value and a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes better than a value), and wherein triggering the conditional handover procedure is further based at least in part on the measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein since the event A3 or A5 is based on the measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells, the triggering of the conditional handover procedure of the event A3 or event A5 is further based on the measurement as well).
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more (RRM) conditions are associated with a conditional event A3 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the RRM conditions includes or is associated with the conditional event A3).
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more RRM conditions are associated with a conditional event A5 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the RRM conditions includes or is associated with the conditional event A5).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions are associated with one of a conditional event H1 or a conditional event H2 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold)).
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive multiple configurations of the one or more conditional handover conditions, wherein a first configuration, of the multiple configurations, is associated with a first height range of the UE, and wherein a second configuration, of the multiple configurations, is associated with a second height range of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 358, ¶ 363, ¶ 400-432; wherein a wireless device receives, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities. And wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold, (i.e., a first configuration associated with a height range of the UE being above a threshold, e.g., Height1 > H)) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold (i.e., a second configuration associated with a height range of the UE being below a threshold, e.g., Height2 < H))).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to select one of the first configuration or the second configuration based at least in part on the height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 238, ¶ 269-272, ¶ 316, ¶ 358; wherein The wireless device may monitor and/or determine whether the selection condition is met. The wireless device may determine, based on the selection condition being met, whether the first execution condition is met for the cell and/or for the at least one first beam. The wireless device may determine, based on the selection condition not being met, whether the second execution condition is met for the cell and/or for the at least one second beam. Since the condition involves the height of the UE, therefore, selecting the first or second configuration is based at least in part on the height of the UE).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more conditional handover conditions is further based at least in part on at least one of:
a measurement associated with a corresponding candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the configuration of the conditional handover execution condition may comprise at least one of: the event A3, and for Event A3/C2 (Target becomes offset better than PCell/ PSCell): a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes offset better than a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell)),
a time interval, or
a distance of the UE from a reference point.
Regarding claim 20, Park teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE), comprising:
receiving a configuration of one or more conditional handover conditions associated with one or more candidate cells(Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities), wherein each of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 232; wherein the selection condition may be based on a height that the wireless device is located at. The wireless device may select and use, for the handover, one of the multiple handover execution conditions depending on whether the selection condition is being met); and
triggering a conditional handover procedure based at least in part on the height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 270; wherein the first execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a high altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to higher than the height/altitude threshold). The second execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a low altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to lower than the height/altitude threshold). Therefore, the UE will execute the conditional handover if the height of the UE is higher than or lower than a height/altitude threshold (i.e., the height being higher than the threshold or lower than the threshold is the trigger for the conditional handover)).
Park does not explicitly teach and wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a three-dimensional location of the UE.
Referring to the invention of Kalathil, Kalathil teaches wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a three-dimensional location of the UE (Kalathil: ¶ 83, ¶ 100-101; wherein the UE is configured as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (i.e., drone) for operation in a three-dimensional (3D) region, and the UE derives location information relating the UE's location in a defined three-dimensional geographic region …; wherein the derived location information indicates the UE's location in the defined three-dimensional geographic region as defined by longitude, latitude; and elevation coordinates; the UE then encodes the location information for transmission to an evolved Node B (eNB) or a next generation evolved Node B (gNB); then the UE receives a handover parameter set as a function of the location information. Each drone (i.e., the UE) flying in the area reports its handover parameters, cell strength measurements, and handover quality indicators to the serving cell (i.e., the base station). After collecting all such information in the whole region, an optimized target cell selection and handover parameter setting can be determined (i.e., the configuration of the conditional handover conditions is determined by the base station and then the configuration is sent to the UE)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the three-dimensional region teachings of Kalathil into the handover conditions configuration teachings of Park in order to improve handover performance and to have effective, successful and reliable handover operations in the context of UEs incorporated into unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, a.k.a., drones) (Kalathil: ¶ 14).
Although Park teaches that “the RAN 104 (i.e., the gNB or the base station) provides radio resource management (RRM) to the wireless device 106 (i.e., the UE) (¶ 58), and that “the first base station may determine, based on the measurement results, the first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition. The first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition may be based on RSRP/RSRQ/SINR of the cell and/or height/altitude of the wireless device in the measurement results (¶ 270), Park in view of Kalathil do not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions include one or more radio resource management (RRM) conditions parameterized by one or more height conditions, and wherein one or more measurement reports are triggered based at least in part on the one or more height conditions.
Referring to the invention of Yeh, Yeh teaches wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions include one or more radio resource management (RRM) conditions (Yeh: Fig. 1C, ¶ 30, ¶ 54; wherein any of the RAN nodes 111 and 112 can fulfill various logical functions for the RAN 110 including, but not limited to, radio network controller (RNC) functions such as radio bearer management, uplink and downlink dynamic radio resource management and data packet scheduling, and mobility management. Therefore, the conditional handover conditions configured by any of the RAN will include the RRM conditions) parameterized by one or more height conditions (Yeh: Fig. 3, ¶ 77-79, ¶ 81; wherein the UE can send (based upon a request) its height information to the serving cell, the height information may be encoded in 1-2 bits mapping to predefined height (i.e., the serving cell uses the height information (i.e., the height conditions), predefined for the UE or provided by the UE upon a request, to determine the uplink and downlink radio resource management and data packet scheduling conditions for the target cell and the UE during the conditional handover (CHO) procedure)), and wherein one or more measurement reports are triggered based at least in part on the one or more height conditions (Yeh: Fig. 3, ¶ 77-79, ¶ 81; wherein the request message may also contain a request to the UE when a change of height, the drone UE to report the elevation… a new measurement report may also be introduced with height evaluation triggering as a condition. For example, it is X meters higher than the last reporting, or it reaches Y meters as an absolute value. In some aspects, one or more height threshold values can be communicated to the UE during the measurement control configuration. The UE can then trigger reporting its aerial height (or altitude) when such height is above a first threshold or below a second threshold. In order words, the configuration signaling can include, for example, one or more thresholds for triggering drone height or altitude measurements for inclusion in a measurement report).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the triggering of measurement report upon a height change if the UE teachings of Yeh into the combined conditional handover teachings of Park and Kalathil, in order for networks to improve on managing vertical mobility, optimizing beamforming, enhancing resource allocation, and improving user experience, particularly in dense urban and high-rise environments. Integrating such triggers increases both network efficiency and service reliability without unnecessarily increasing UE signaling burden.
Regarding claim 21, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions are associated with a conditional event H1 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold)).
Regarding claim 22, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions are associated with one of a conditional event H1 or a conditional event H2 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold)).
Regarding claim 24, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the method of claim 20, further comprising:
receiving multiple configurations of the one or more conditional handover conditions, wherein a first configuration, of the multiple configurations, is associated with a first height range of the UE, and wherein a second configuration, of the multiple configurations, is associated with a second height range of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 358, ¶ 363, ¶ 400-432; wherein a wireless device receives, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities. And wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold, (i.e., a first configuration associated with a height range of the UE being above a threshold, e.g., Height1 > H)) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold (i.e., a second configuration associated with a height range of the UE being below a threshold, e.g., Height2 < H))).
Regarding claim 25, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the method of claim 24, further comprising:
selecting one of the first configuration or the second configuration based at least in part on the height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 238, ¶ 269-272, ¶ 316, ¶ 358; wherein The wireless device may monitor and/or determine whether the selection condition is met. The wireless device may determine, based on the selection condition being met, whether the first execution condition is met for the cell and/or for the at least one first beam. The wireless device may determine, based on the selection condition not being met, whether the second execution condition is met for the cell and/or for the at least one second beam. Since the condition involves the height of the UE, therefore, selecting the first or second configuration is based at least in part on the height of the UE).
Claims 31 – 35, 37 – 40, and 41 – 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. [WO 2021092583 A1] hereinafter Park, and further in view of Liberg et al. [US 20220104084], hereinafter Liberg.
Regarding claim 31, Park teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to:
receive a configuration of one or more conditional handover conditions associated with one or more candidate cells(Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities), wherein each of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 232; wherein the selection condition may be based on a height that the wireless device is located at. The wireless device may select and use, for the handover, one of the multiple handover execution conditions depending on whether the selection condition is being met); and
trigger a conditional handover procedure based at least in part on the height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 270; wherein the first execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a high altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to higher than the height/altitude threshold). The second execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a low altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to lower than the height/altitude threshold). Therefore, the UE will execute the conditional handover if the height of the UE is higher than or lower than a height/altitude threshold (i.e., the height being higher than the threshold or lower than the threshold is the trigger for the conditional handover)).
Park does not explicitly teach apply the one or more conditional handover conditions based at least in part on the apparatus being within a geofenced zone at a time of day.
Referring to the invention of Liberg, Liberg teaches apply the one or more conditional handover conditions based at least in part on the apparatus being within a geofenced zone at a time of day (Liberg: Fig. 3, ¶ 122 – 128; wherein a UE may be required to determine its geographical location, and the absolute time of day, by means of a GNSS measurement; A handover command from the network node 105 may trigger the UE 101 to perform a GNSS measurement. The UE 101 may use this information to compute at least one of the timing pre-compensation and the frequency pre-compensation required to be applied for random access towards the target cell. When conditional handover triggering condition is satisfied, a GNSS measurement may be triggered to check if the conditional handover should be executed. Therefore, the UE determines it is within a geofenced zone at a particular time of day by performing a GNSS measurement and the GNSS measurement is then used to determine if the condition handover conditions should be executed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the geofenced/GNSS teachings of Liberg into the conditional handover conditions teachings of Park in order to achieve higher handover success rates, reduced latency, better resource management, enhanced security, and more predictable mobility performance, particularly in high-speed, edge-of-coverage, or non-terrestrial network scenarios.
Regarding claim 32, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is further based at least in part on a measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells(Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the configuration of the conditional handover execution condition may comprise at least one of: the event A3, … the event A5, and for Event A3/C2 (Target becomes offset better than PCell/ PSCell): a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes offset better than a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell), while for Event A5 (PCell/ PSCell becomes worse than threshold 1 and target becomes better than threshold2): a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell) becomes worse than a value and a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes better than a value), and wherein triggering the conditional handover procedure is further based at least in part on the measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein since the event A3 or A5 is based on the measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells, the triggering of the conditional handover procedure of the event A3 or event A5 is further based on the measurement as well).
Regarding claim 33, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions include one or more radio resource management (RRM) conditions parameterized by one or more height conditions (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the RAN 104 (i.e., the gNB or the base station) provides radio resource management (RRM) to the wireless device 106 (i.e., the UE), and that “the first base station may determine, based on the measurement results, the first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition. The first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition may be based on RSRP/RSRQ/SINR of the cell and/or height/altitude of the wireless device in the measurement results. Therefore, the configuration of the conditional handover procedure are considered part of the RRM conditions. The RRM conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold)).
Regarding claim 34, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 33, wherein the one or more RRM conditions are associated with at least one of a conditional event A3 or a conditional event A5 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein The RRM conditions includes or is associated with the conditional event A3 and/or conditional event A5).
Regarding claim 35, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions are associated with one of a conditional event H1 or a conditional event H2 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold)).
Regarding claim 37, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to receive multiple configurations of the one or more conditional handover conditions, wherein a first configuration, of the multiple configurations, is associated with a first height range of the UE, and wherein a second configuration, of the multiple configurations, is associated with a second height range of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 358, ¶ 363, ¶ 400-432; wherein a wireless device receives, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities. And wherein the conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold, (i.e., a first configuration associated with a height range of the UE being above a threshold, e.g., Height1 > H)) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold (i.e., a second configuration associated with a height range of the UE being below a threshold, e.g., Height2 < H))).
Regarding claim 38, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the UE to select one of the first configuration or the second configuration based at least in part on the height of the UE (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 238, ¶ 269-272, ¶ 316, ¶ 358; wherein The wireless device may monitor and/or determine whether the selection condition is met. The wireless device may determine, based on the selection condition being met, whether the first execution condition is met for the cell and/or for the at least one first beam. The wireless device may determine, based on the selection condition not being met, whether the second execution condition is met for the cell and/or for the at least one second beam. Since the condition involves the height of the UE, therefore, selecting the first or second configuration is based at least in part on the height of the UE).
Regarding claim 40, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein each of the one or more conditional handover conditions is further based at least in part on at least one of:
a measurement associated with a corresponding candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the configuration of the conditional handover execution condition may comprise at least one of: the event A3, and for Event A3/C2 (Target becomes offset better than PCell/ PSCell): a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes offset better than a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell)),
a time interval, or
a distance of the UE from a reference point.
Regarding claim 41, Park teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
means for receiving a configuration of one or more conditional handover conditions associated with one or more candidate cells(Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities), wherein each of the one or more conditional handover conditions is based at least in part on a height of the apparatus (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 232; wherein the selection condition may be based on a height that the wireless device is located at. The wireless device may select and use, for the handover, one of the multiple handover execution conditions depending on whether the selection condition is being met); and
means for triggering a conditional handover procedure based at least in part on the height of the apparatus (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 270; wherein the first execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a high altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to higher than the height/altitude threshold). The second execution condition may be applied when the wireless device moves to a low altitude/height of the cell (e.g., moves to lower than the height/altitude threshold). Therefore, the UE will execute the conditional handover if the height of the UE is higher than or lower than a height/altitude threshold (i.e., the height being higher than the threshold or lower than the threshold is the trigger for the conditional handover)).
Park does not explicitly teach means for applying the one or more conditional handover conditions based at least in part on the apparatus being within a geofenced zone at a time of day.
Referring to the invention of Liberg, Liberg teaches applying the one or more conditional handover conditions based at least in part on the apparatus being within a geofenced zone at a time of day (Liberg: Fig. 3, ¶ 122 – 128; wherein a UE may be required to determine its geographical location, and the absolute time of day, by means of a GNSS measurement; A handover command from the network node 105 may trigger the UE 101 to perform a GNSS measurement. The UE 101 may use this information to compute at least one of the timing pre-compensation and the frequency pre-compensation required to be applied for random access towards the target cell. When conditional handover triggering condition is satisfied, a GNSS measurement may be triggered to check if the conditional handover should be executed. Therefore, the UE determines it is within a geofenced zone at a particular time of day by performing a GNSS measurement and the GNSS measurement is then used to determine if the condition handover conditions should be executed).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the geofenced/GNSS teachings of Liberg into the conditional handover conditions teachings of Park in order to achieve higher handover success rates, reduced latency, better resource management, enhanced security, and more predictable mobility performance, particularly in high-speed, edge-of-coverage, or non-terrestrial network scenarios.
Regarding claim 42, Park in view of Liberg teaches the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions is further based at least in part on a measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the configuration of the conditional handover execution condition may comprise at least one of: the event A3, … the event A5, and for Event A3/C2 (Target becomes offset better than PCell/ PSCell): a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes offset better than a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell), while for Event A5 (PCell/ PSCell becomes worse than threshold 1 and target becomes better than threshold2): a measurement result of the first cell (e.g., and/or at least one beam of the first cell) becomes worse than a value and a measurement result of the at least one first beam of the cell becomes better than a value), and wherein triggering the conditional handover procedure is further based at least in part on the measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein since the event A3 or A5 is based on the measurement associated with the one or more candidate cells, the triggering of the conditional handover procedure of the event A3 or event A5 is further based on the measurement as well).
Regarding claim 43, Park in view of Liberg teaches the apparatus of claim 41, wherein the one or more conditional handover conditions include one or more radio resource management (RRM) conditions parameterized by one or more height conditions (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 270, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein the RAN 104 (i.e., the gNB or the base station) provides radio resource management (RRM) to the wireless device 106 (i.e., the UE), and that “the first base station may determine, based on the measurement results, the first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition. The first execution condition, the second execution condition, and/or the selection condition may be based on RSRP/RSRQ/SINR of the cell and/or height/altitude of the wireless device in the measurement results. Therefore, the configuration of the conditional handover procedure are considered part of the RRM conditions. The RRM conditions includes the event A3 and/or event A5 configurations which can be parameterized in an “AND combination” with event H1 (the Aerial UE height is above a threshold) and/or event H2 (The Aerial UE height is below a threshold)).
Regarding claim 44, Park in view of Liberg teaches the apparatus of claim 43, wherein the one or more RRM conditions are associated with at least one of a conditional event A3 or a conditional event A5 (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 58, ¶ 276-309, ¶ 330-348, ¶ 400-432; wherein The RRM conditions includes or is associated with the conditional event A3 and/or conditional event A5).
Claims 6, 23, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., Kalathil et al., and Yeh et al., as applied to claims 1, 20, over Park et al., and Liberg et al., as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Wang et al. [US PG PUB 20220338090] (with priority to WO 2021134632 A1 published on July 8, 2021), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities).
Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh does not explicitly teach that wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of three or more conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells.
Referring to the invention of Wang, Wang teaches the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of three or more conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Wang: Fig. 2B, Fig. 2J, ¶ 155; wherein a candidate conditional handover configuration group corresponding to a flight point 1 includes candidate conditional handover configurations 11 to 13, and the candidate conditional handover configurations 11 to 13 are in a one-to-one correspondence with flight point information 1 and a combination of three height ranges of the flight point 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multiple conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell teachings of the Wang invention into the conditional handover teachings of the Park, Kalathil, and Yeh invention in order for the accuracy of the target conditional handover configuration obtained by the terminal to be improved, and the efficiency of performing cell handover by the terminal will also be improved (Wang: ¶ 157).
Regarding claim 23, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the method of claim 20, wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities).
Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh does not explicitly teach that wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of three or more conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells.
Referring to the invention of Wang, Wang teaches the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of three or more conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Wang: Fig. 2B, Fig. 2J, ¶ 155; wherein a candidate conditional handover configuration group corresponding to a flight point 1 includes candidate conditional handover configurations 11 to 13, and the candidate conditional handover configurations 11 to 13 are in a one-to-one correspondence with flight point information 1 and a combination of three height ranges of the flight point 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multiple conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell teachings of the Wang invention into the conditional handover teachings of the Park, Kalathil, and Yeh invention in order for the accuracy of the target conditional handover configuration obtained by the terminal to be improved, and the efficiency of performing cell handover by the terminal will also be improved (Wang: ¶ 157).
Regarding claim 36, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31, wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Park: Fig. 22, Fig. 26, ¶ 213, ¶ 232, ¶ 269-270, ¶ 276, ¶ 293, ¶ 358, ¶ 363; wherein a wireless device may receive, from a base station, multiple handover execution conditions for different beam groups (e.g., different at least one beam) or different transmission and reception points (TRPs) of a handover target cell. A wireless device (UE) may execute a handover to a cell based on a handover execution condition for the cell being met, and this may be for multiple handover target cells with varying priorities).
Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh does not explicitly teach that wherein the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of three or more conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells.
Referring to the invention of Wang, Wang teaches the configuration of the one or more conditional handover conditions includes a configuration of three or more conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell of the one or more candidate cells (Wang: Fig. 2B, Fig. 2J, ¶ 155; wherein a candidate conditional handover configuration group corresponding to a flight point 1 includes candidate conditional handover configurations 11 to 13, and the candidate conditional handover configurations 11 to 13 are in a one-to-one correspondence with flight point information 1 and a combination of three height ranges of the flight point 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multiple conditional handover conditions associated with each candidate cell teachings of the Wang invention into the conditional handover teachings of the Park, Kalathil, and Yeh invention in order for the accuracy of the target conditional handover configuration obtained by the terminal to be improved, and the efficiency of performing cell handover by the terminal will also be improved (Wang: ¶ 157).
Claims 9 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al., Kalathil et al., and Yeh et al., as applied to claim 1, over Park et al., and Liberg et al., as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Park et al. [US 20220240139 A1] hereinafter Park-2.
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Park in view of Kalathil and Yeh does not explicitly disclose wherein the UE only monitors one or more handover conditions associated with a three-dimensional zone in which the UE is located.
Referring to the invention of Park-2, Park-2 teaches wherein the UE only monitors one or more handover conditions associated with a three-dimensional zone in which the UE is located (Park-2: ¶ 6; wherein the UE may perform a handover procedure to a corresponding target cell. However, the UE is configured to monitor only whether the handover execution condition is satisfied and perform the handover according to a monitoring result, and thus a state of the UE and/or a condition of a neighboring cell may be not considered at a corresponding time point. Therefore, since the UE will not consider the condition of a neighboring cell, the UE will only monitor the handover conditions associated with its own location).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitoring of the handover conditions teachings of the Park-2 invention into the handover conditions configuration teachings of Park, Kalathil, and Yeh, in order to effectively complete a handover execution and sometimes to delay the time point at which the handover is performed when a condition for the delay is satisfied even though a handover execution condition is satisfied (Park-2: ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 39, Park in view of Liberg teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 31.
Park in view of Liberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to only monitor one or more handover conditions associated with a three-dimensional zone in which the UE is located.
Referring to the invention of Park-2, Park-2 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to only monitor one or more handover conditions associated with a three-dimensional zone in which the UE is located (Park-2: ¶ 6; wherein the UE may perform a handover procedure to a corresponding target cell. However, the UE is configured to monitor only whether the handover execution condition is satisfied and perform the handover according to a monitoring result, and thus a state of the UE and/or a condition of a neighboring cell may be not considered at a corresponding time point. Therefore, since the UE will not consider the condition of a neighboring cell, the UE will only monitor the handover conditions associated with its own location).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the monitoring of the handover conditions teachings of the Park-2 invention into the handover conditions configuration teachings of Park and Liberg in order to effectively complete a handover execution and sometimes to delay the time point at which the handover is performed when a condition for the delay is satisfied even though a handover execution condition is satisfied (Park-2: ¶ 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lauridsen et al. [US 20250151017 A1]: Handling Positioning Measurement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIDAYAT DABIRI whose telephone number is (703)756-4541. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 571-272-7884. 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.
/HD/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights